Replies

Yeah, well looks to me like a lot of people see the theory of evolution as much more than mere science.

Therein are the key words: The theory of evolution.

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

Somehow I think some of these same people would throw a hissy fit should it be proposed that Einstein's "theory of relativity" be changed to the "law of relativity".

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

Not this BS Again! Laws, facts, and data support theories, not the other way around. A theory is as high as it goes in science. A theory does not "graduate" into a law. There is the theory of gravity, and there are the laws of gravity. The latter supports the former, and the theory of gravity has a heck of a lot less supporting evidence for it than does the theory of evolution.

Excellent point.

Therein are the key words: The theory of evolution.
True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

You have misunderstood how these terms are used in science. Please take a look at the definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). If you have any questions, please let me know and I will try to explain the terms:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

[Last revised 9/26/06]

Gravity is a theory. The prevailing scientific view supports Einstein's theory of relativity as our theory of gravity. It supplanted what Newton called the Universal Law of Gravitation. Newton's laws are still taught, because they are accurate enough for everyday work, but Einstein showed that they become inaccurate in strong gravitational fields. If you google for the Precession of the perihelion of Mercury you will see what I mean.

Contrary to common opinion "theories" are not promoted into "laws" as hypotheses become theories. The theory is the pinnacle of science. No one argues for the promotion of the "theory of evolution" into the "law of evolution."

Gravity is not just a theory. It is fact and theory at the same time. By this I mean the effects of gravity can be measured, and the theory exists to explain why the phenomenon we observe happens. It is the same with evolution. Using modern DNA sequencing technology, the genomes of bacteria may be sequenced in near real time. More complex organisms, such as fruit flies (that also have short generations) take a little longer, but they are getting there, too. In this way, genetic markers may be tracked through populations of organisms over time. This is the definition of evolution, and due to sequencing technology has moved from theoretical science into empirical science. The theory of evolution is our model to explain why the genetic markers change the way they do.

I'm sure this has been posted a hundred times before, and will be posted hundreds of times again, because this is an exceedly common mistake.

..Therein are the key words: The theory of evolution.

That's what it is

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

And these laws are explained and put into a wider context with theories. The law of gravity is described by the theory of general relativity; Ohm's law is explained by the theory of electromagnetism, the atomic theory of matter, the quantum theory that describes how conductors and insulators work, etc.

Boyles' Law is a consequence of the atomic theory of matter and the kinetic theory of gases. The Ideal Gas Law goes further, and is not exact; but the theory explains it and accounts for the fact that it isn't ever exact.

Evolution is no different. The "Law of Faunal Succession" was an empirical observation made in the late 1700s - early 1800s. It describes the way that fossils are arranged in strata of rock, and how the more recent ones more closely resemble living plants and animals. Cuvier, Lamarck, Buffon, et al came up with theories of evolution to explain this law. The theory of Darwin and Wallace is the only one to withstand repeated tests.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

See above.

Somehow I think some of these same people would throw a hissy fit should it be proposed that Einstein's "theory of relativity" be changed to the "law of relativity

Obviously. Einstein's theory is a theory. It is not a law. A theory is an explanatory framework. Laws are observed regularities.

Such as the law of gravity

Newton's laws of gravity have been superseded by Relativity on the macro scale and quantum physics on the micro scale. IOW, they have been proven false for many circumstances. That is the highest level of true science?

Even the beloved 2nd Law of Thermodynamics isn't the pinnacle, as it is part of the more general Theory of Heat (which supplanted Caloric Theory).

Somehow I think some of these same people would throw a hissy fit should it be proposed that Einstein's "theory of relativity" be changed to the "law of relativity".

There are many laws that support the theory of Special Relativity.

BTW, when trying to tell the difference between a law and a theory, it's helpful to remember that laws are normally expressed mathematically. For example the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is most basically stated:

Any language-based description is basically a rough approximation of that, subject to misinterpretation and other vagaries of language.

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

Let me post my own example of gravity:

A little history here:

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

Where:

F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m₁ equals the mass of the first object
m₂ equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10^-11 N*m²/kg² (which is still being refined and tested today)

(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)

Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.

A few of the problems are:

It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.

Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.

A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.

From an NSF abstract:

“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.