Evolution is just a theory
March 13th, 2007“Evolution is just a theory, it hasn’t been proved.”
This is a common statement made by people who believe in the literal truth of the Christian Bible, particularly the creation story in Genesis. To these people, the theory put forward by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859 was a threat to their biblical beliefs. The statement “Evolution is just a theory” is intended to devalue the ideas expressed by Darwin and built upon since, and reduce them to ‘just an idea’.
However this statement only betrays their own ignorance of what the word ‘theory’ means and how science is carried out. Far from being just an idea, a theory is the current best possible explanation that fits the available evidence.
No scientific theory is ever proved. What happens is that a scientist begins to wonder about phenomena he or she has observed. They come up with an idea that might explain these observations; this idea is called a hypothesis. They test the hypothesis by trying to think up circumstances in which the hypothesis could be shown to be false. If several scientists test the hypothesis in different ways and fail to disprove it, the hypothesis may be elevated to a theory. New evidence or observations may discredit the theory, in which case the theory may be amended or even abandoned in favour of a different theory that better fits all the evidence, both old and new. However, until such contradictory evidence comes to light the theory stands as the best current explanation.
Since Darwin put forward his theory in 1859, thousands of scientists have been working on various aspects of evolution. Their work has led to modifications in the theory, such as adding details of how characteristic are inherited (DNA had not been discovered when Darwin formulated his theory). There have even been minor disputes between scientists about the exact way in which evolutionary development proceeds, but NONE of these scientists have found any evidence which suggests that evolution is not the best way of explaining the current species on the Earth and the record of extinct species in fossils.
Could the theory of evolution be disproved? Yes – as the biologist J. B. S. Haldane said, all it would take to disprove evolution would be to find the fossil of a rabbit in Cambrian rocks. In contrast, the alternative ‘theories’ to evolution, such as the idea of Intelligent Design are not theories at all in the scientific sense, as they cannot be disproved.
So yes, evolution IS a theory, but it isn’t ‘just’ a theory.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I think the term ignorant is relevant when speaking about a certain type of christian. The thing is that I beliveve in evolutions (sorry for the typos, I’m on a mac and it’s screwing up the text), microevolusion. Not Macro evolution. I don’t believe that humans evolved from apes, but I do believe that certain species evolved from other similar species. And while, you are right, Intelligent Design can’t be proven until we die, neither can Evolution. Until I see an ape evolve into a human, I cannot be convinced. If we did evolve from apes, why do we still have apes? The rest of the species that have supposedly evolved into other species have long since been extinct. If that be the case, then apes wouldn’t be walking the earth, and I think over the time since hsisotry has been recorded we would have seen this evolution. We have not. I think both “theories” take a great deal of faith to believe in them. That would put them in the realm ofa religious belief, would it not?
May 4th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
In response to Donna’s comment, I would like to say this:
Although it is a popular misconception amongst followers of a belief system –spiritual in kind or not– which discourages critical thought, humans did NOT evolve from modern day apes, no matter how much they would like to ridicule the Theory of Evolution by suggesting this. However, humans and apes do share a common ancestor, but so do any other two organisms on this planet. The time since evolutionary divergence between humans and bonobos is just more recent than the divergence between humans and any other species.
The basis of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable; i.e. it must hold the ability to be proven wrong. No matter how many pieces of evidence come to support an idea, no amount of verification will make an idea a scientific theory, as with a bit of talent any fact can be moulded to match a postulation. Similarly, no amount of supporting evidence will make a theory “True” in an absolute, infinite way. However, it will make the theory more robust; especially as it continues to offer predictions as to what is expected to be found, but has not been discovered yet. Nonetheless, as the person who wrote this article pointed out, a scientific theory will require –and undergo– revision to cope with the accumulating conflicting evidence that challenge it. Above all, the strength of a scientific theory lies not in being able to explain phenomena, but in predicting them. This opens up new areas for research that serve to further our knowledge about the world we live in. (Please note that by “world” I am not exclusively referring to our Earth; I am referring to the sum of every individual’s subjective experience of the life they are living, including any and all ideas they have about matters beyond the gravitational pull of the Earth.)
Another prerequisite to scientific conduct that is of paramount importance, is a sound grasp of the Rules of Logic. Flawed logic invariably leads to flawed conclusions. Some common flaws that people make in their reasoning is assuming that an object’s specific properties applies to the group that that object is a member of. For instance, consider this example with the following axiomas (assumptions):
Axioma 1) All philosophers have a beard.
Axioma 2) That man has a beard.
From 1) and 2) many people will reason that the man in question is a philosopher. However, from these two axiomas one can not make any deduction, as nowhere is stated that philosophers are the only group of people to have a beard. If, however the following axiomas would have been stated, a deduction would be possible to make:
Axioma 3) All lawyers will wear a suit and tie in court.
Axioma 4) That man is a lawyer.
From 3) and 4) we can conclude that the man in question will wear a suit and tie in court.
In order to be able to conduct science, one must be critical. Passing an idea as “true” by means of association through repeated suggestion (i.e. indoctrination) is what lies at the basis of organised misinformation. This is also what lies behind the saying “mud sticks”; if enough people believe something to be true, it is elevated in status to “Fact”. This phenomenon is known as Social Constuctivism. It is the tool of demagogues and other manipulators, and it leads to much evil, as it has done throughout history. The only way to protect oneself from being mislead, is to be critical when acquiring new information. Always check your assumptions and follow your reasoning through.
Although I admit to have gone a bit off track with this post, I do hold the opinion that it is relevant to the topic.