religious people and atheists, what is the definition of a theory in the scientific world?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

A scientific theory is a rational explanation connecting a number of observed facts, often expressed mathematically in whole or in part. It may be modified or discarded at any time when new reliable information is found.

It is not a blind stab in the dark or something dreamed up and presented as true after a night on the booze. I might add that some things that are claimed by religious liars to be scientific theories do not actually exist, like the ridiculous lie that science believes life started from lighting striking a pond. I have seen that one twice today.

See the answer from smartasawhip for one of them

A scientific law describes a natural phenomenon. A scientific theory describes the mechanisms by which an observed natural phenomenon occurs.

Put as simply as possible a scientific law describes the "what", a theory describes the "how".

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

A thesis developed from a set of observations that is remarkably robust. That is, it expains things remarkably well in indirectly related areas and stands up well to new discoveries.

This is not something taught me by my religion, eh. Just a paraphrase based on what I learned in college and popular science reading. I have in mind the series of discoveries of the elements in the Periodic Table or the the need to postulate new elementary sub-atomic particles. Of course, I tried to make sure that I definitely exclude Creationism and ID from even being considered scientific, because it is not.

I recommend you study the history of Celestial Mechanics and the Periodic Table of elements.

To add to Ishtars excellent answer...

the Scientific Method is defined by the Oxford dictionary as,

"A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Hope that helps...

IMHO

Ishtar has it correct. It's *not* like a Detective who has a "theory" about whodunnit.

Only desperate xtians with no brains claim that is the definition of "theory" that applies in a "scientific theory."

A theory refers to a model (explanation), tested and established by experiment and observation, that explains and predicts the natural behaviour of an array of related phenomena.

What one must realize is a theory can never become a law for the two are inherently different. As in Scientific theory a scientists would say I can't prove this yet as I have exhaustively researched a matter and tested that matter I can't disprove !!! Now Istar did a very good job in his explanation !!!

JESUS BLESS YOU

david stotler

An idea/ postulation regarding an unsubstantiated observation or situation. 

In short a theory is like having a suspicion about something, but not enough evidence to say whether it is true or not. 

For example: If someone steals something from your cupboard, you may not have seen it happen, but you may well suspect someone of doing it; essentially this is a theory until such time as you have some facts or evidence to prove the case. You may have a number of theories, and not just one.

The same thing happens in various fields of research, scientists may have a suspicion or theory about a particular occurrence/ event/ particle/ microbe/ planet etc. They base their theory on reasonable deduction as well as the evidence at hand. They may then devise experiments (if possible) to prove or disprove the theory.