Then why is evolution still a theory?
You can't meaningfully participate unless you buy a ticket. In this case, the ticket is some basic understanding of what's going on here, and the price you pay is the effort needed to bring yourself up to speed:
The Theory of Evolution. (Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.)
This is what science is: The scientific method.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
Sigh...
For the same reason that gravitational theory is still a theory, not to mention atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based), even though no sane person questions *them* either.
Read this: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
Well, after reading that, one gets the idea that ‘evolution’ is a nebulous thing; sort of like looking at a impressionist’s painting, whereby one must stand back from the work and turn their a certain way, before they can fully appreciate it’s nuance.
Dawkins apparently has a ‘better eye’ for this ‘art’ than myself.
Omar.
Article "We know evolution happened because innumerable bits of data from myriad fields of science conjoin to paint a rich portrait of life's pilgrimage."
sirch "Then why is evolution still a theory?"
ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!! LOL
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
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Because Science creates Theories. Or, as I've said elsewhere, here on FreeRepublic, Science is not in the Truth Business: see the Religion or Philosophy departments for that. Science, when boiled down to the basics, is the process of constructing working models of reality, with a very close match to observed physical reality, that are dependable enough for engineering or prediction purposes. . .
Gravity is still a theory, but I don't see those people trying to get stickers on the front of science textbooks asking students to "approach it with an open mind".
Next time you get on an airplane, remember that the process that explains how a several hundred ton airliner can go speeding through the air thousands of miles to it's destination is properly known as the Theory of Flight.