If evolution is a theory, is it reasonable to teach it as though it were a fact?

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

If we didn't teach scientific theories the textbooks would be empty and we would only have mathematical proofs/theorems and a bunch of observations.

Observations do not solely prevent disease, put people on the moon, allow GPS navigation and prevent microbes becoming resistant to our drugs. Germ theory, Gravitational theory/ theory of general relativity, theory of special relativity and the theory of evolution by means of natural selection do. If we only taught facts, the fact of evolution would still be included because it is a observation, we then build upon that fact and develop something with great predicative and practical power.

Also, the theory of evolution is not a creation "theory". First, you would need to demonstrate "creation" is valid point of study and come up with a hypothesis that makes testable predictions, the hypothesis would need to be put under the scrutiny of the scientific method before it is considered anything like a theory. Even once an idea becomes a theory it doesn't mean it will be taught in schools and many factors need to be considered.

So, creation mythologies should not be taught in schools only science should even be considered to be taught in schools.

Only if theory was properly defined, most think it means a guess, actually it has to have a lot of evidence, it should also be noted a theory is not an unconfirmed fact, but theories are different from facts in biology, basically it is a lot of effort to go through just to use the correct terminology

Evolution is fact in the context of informal speech, being almost 100% certain, but in science the definition of fact means that is must be directly observed, which by the nature of evolution is impossible.

Also this is the wrong section

You show that you do not understand what a scientific theory is.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. Creation science on the other hand is based on conjecture, unsupported by facts or testing. As usual, Matthew shows his total ignorance of science and what a scientific theory actually is.

Evolution is change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. We know that genes code for traits and when they change this corresponds to changes in how these are expressed. These are pretty much known observed facts. Its hard to see how they can be rationally denied at this point. The theory part is the exact mechanisms and processes involved and specific evolutionary pathways. These are things we are learning but to be science we require evidence to support hypotheses and theories. There are thousands of creation stories that are interpreted very liberally to fit evidence if they fit at all. This is not scientific. It would be like saying we should teach spell casting along side physics.

You misunderstand scientific theory which is defined as 'a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.'

The phenomena are facts which are explained by the theory. In evolution this will be the fossil record, genetic evidence, vestigial organs, micro-evolution, animals undergoing dramatic change rights now - these are facts which will be presented with evidence to children and the theory will be explained as relating to them.

There are no theories of creation as this cannot be described as a coherent group of tested general propositions. No testing has ever supported creationism. Creationism is a hypothesis which has failed to be proven and should now be dismissed until some evidence is found. The fact that it has not been dismissed is due to the tenacious nature of religious belief. I am quite happy for numerous creation myths to presented to children alongside evolution and children encouraged to consider which is best supported. My daughter rejected creationism this way and said 'Its just pretend, isn't it? Grown ups don't believe this, do they? Its silly' and would not be convinced that adults do believe creationism.

Every science organization out there has acknowledged that it's a fact. Examples:

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

--

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Evolution is an observed fact which dictates that biological organisms change over time. I defend evolution because potassium-argon dating has proven that the human species has drastically evolved from a more primitive human species over a bare minimum timespan of 3.2 million years. More specifically, I am referring to the fossilized remains of the "Dikika child" (DIH-kee-kah), named for the region of the discovery site in 2006. These remains offered an unprecedented view of childhood growth in a species that evolved to a midway point between apes and humans, according to the team led by Zeresenay Alemseged of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

You obviously do not know the difference between a scientific theory and "just a theory". Scientific theories are based on evidence. Personal theories are based on beliefs, are based on faith. Gravity for example is also "just a theory" according to your logic, so why do they teach that to children? There is plenty of evidence for the evolution theory, therefore it is taught to children. Creationism for example has no evidence. Creationism is not based on scientific theories, but on faith, on beliefs and therefore it is not taught to children in most schools.

> "Should any other theories of creation development be given any airtime in our educational institutions?" <

No, science is science & religion is religion, and each have there own separate places to be taught. Would you want evolution forced to be taught in Sunday School classes?

Besides, learning something doesn't mean that you have to believe it. You just have to know about it. Do you think everyone that knows Greek Mythology believes in Zeus?