No, that isn’t a contradiction. Evolution is both fact and theory.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote a paper called “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” and it sums up the issue quite nicely:
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.
Most anti-evolutionists oppose it on both grounds, ie: they reject both the fact of it occurring, and the theory as to how exactly it works. Some anti-evolutionists have come to understand the difference, however, and changed their arguments. They now claim to accept “microevolution” (as it can now be easily and overwhelmingly proven over observable periods of time) but not “macroevolution.”
There is still some controversy over the exact mechanisms of how evolution works. Intelligent design and creationism are not, however, valid explanations. Supporters of both generally misunderstand evolution (often drastically misunderstand it), sometimes bringing up absurd arguments that have nothing to do with evolution (“how does evolution explain the origin of life?”) or that have been answered a million times (“where are the transitional fossils?”). The truth is, neither ID nor creationism are real science. Neither is falsifiable, and both are just religion trying to masquerade as science.
Anyway, that isn’t my point. Those people are generally too far gone to save. The people I’m more concerned about are the people who still bring up the argument that evolution is “only a theory” and hasn’t been proven, and the people who don’t understand why evolution can be a fact and a theory at the same time.
The most obvious and most common misunderstanding to confront here is a misunderstanding of the word “theory.” We are talking about a scientific theory, not a theory in the colloquial sense. To quote the 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 that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
It constantly surprises me how many people don’t understand this. I think it is a sort of willful ignorance on their part. They can be shown all of this information and more, mountains of evidence and lengthy, in-depth explanations and definitions, yet they manage to ignore it and go put an “evolution is just a theory” bumper sticker on their SUV.
I’m not an evolutionist at all. I believe God exists and that he created us.
But I have certain problems with the evangelical ideas of creationism. For example I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. — There is no Biblical support for that either.
But evolution is only a hypothesis and nothing else. It still has not been scientifically proven. We still have not seen evolution or any indesputable evidence for it either. It is true that animals can go through changes, but that doesn’t make them a different species. It only means they adapted to new conditions.
But, oh well, a lot of science is only theory. The indesputable stuff is when we move into the realm of numbers.
That essay by Gould is really good, and explains things perfectly. But I don’t think it’ll help, because we have people like krissmith777 who are willfully ignorant and ignore proven science because they don’t understand it.
Willfully ignorant. That’s a good one! I’ve seen a lot of “evidence” and none of it was indesputable.
Oh? Evidence that justifies calling evolution a “hypothesis and nothing more”? Evidence that you don’t feel like sharing with us?
I assume you’re a biologist. I mean, if you weren’t, then it would be stupid of you to claim you could dispute the scientific merits of science that thousands of highly educated biologists have proven over and over again. I was initially doubtful about this, considering you claim evolution can’t explain speciation, but that’s such an absurd claim that it must be a typo. Or you’re an idiot. Whichever is more likely.
I suggest you educate yourself about evolution. And by that, I mean do more than google “why evolution is wrong and jebus is right.”
The entire science of biology disagrees with you.
Ever get a flu shot? That’s evolution. It isn’t speciation, but it’s still evolution. Evolution is fact. Natural selection and the mechanisms behind speciation are theory.
I think evolution happens, but if you look around everything is way to complex to have just come about by chance.
john, I never claimed to be a biologist. So stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was I never saw any indesputable evidence that evolution is real.
And as for you saying, “I mean do more than google “why evolution is wrong and jebus is right.— — I do not depend on religious right websites. So stop ASS-uming.
I’ve already said in my first comment I have a lot of disagreements with evangelical creationism. But apparently you want to overlook that.
So you don’t think I am skeptical of evolution just because of my personal beliefs, here is a link I think you’ll find interesting:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
February 8, 2007
SEATTLE – Another 100 scientists have joined the ranks of scientists from around the world publicly stating their doubts about the adequacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology,” says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine.
Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
“We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others,” added Egnor. “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.”
“More scientists than ever before are now standing up and saying that it is time to rethink Darwin’s theory of evolution in light of new scientific evidence that shows the theory is inadequate,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinists are busy making up holidays to turn Charles Darwin into a saint, even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge.”
The list of signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
——————————————————————————–
The work of Discovery Institute is made possible by the generosity of its members
The Discovery Institute is a creationist think tank. Hardly a good source of information.
Also, any time you read the term “darwinism” a red flag should shoot up in your head. It isn’t a scientifically accepted term and can have many different definitions. Usually the person using it has an agenda.
Ah, the Discovery Institute — famous for pushing for creationism in schools, as well as for the “Wedge Document.”
Here’s an excerpt from the Discovery Institute’s leaked internal memo, the Wedge Document: “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
If all you have is “It’s a creationist site” then you obiously didn’y go to the page and do some clicking.
You can even find a list of scientists that don’t believe in evolution as well as there credentials.
Here’s a link to see the list, in case you didn’t bother:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Hah, so much for your claim “I do not depend on religious right websites.” or “So you don’t think I am skeptical of evolution just because of my personal beliefs.” Way to prove you’re a hypocrite.
Sure, there are some scientists that believe ID. There are also some scientists that believe the 9/11 conspiracy. Doesn’t make it legitimate science.
No, I don’t usually depend on them. But in the case of evolution it is hard to find very many non-religious or non-darwinist sources. But still, even scientists that believe in evolution say it isn’t a fact. Like it or not.
http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfb100/evolution.php#factortheory
This is written by Matthew F. Bonnan of the Department of Biological Sciences, Western Illinois University.
HINT!! He’s an evolutionist!
But before I leave this post for the last time I want to make it clear that, even though I don’t believe in evolution, I do not believe in the Fundamentalist idea of creation. –Fundamentalists think “creation days” were 24 hours. I think they were long ages.
I actually think the universe is actually billions of years old, not 6,000 years. I think the evidence is way to strong to say that the planet is that young. (I.e, I actually believe that Dinosours existed before humans did.)
Also, being a Libertarian who hates the religious right with a passion, I am against teaching ID in public schools.
Lastly, I just did a dictionary search on the term “Fact.” — Two of the examples for the term were:
“Something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.”
And
“Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.”
Okay, so if one is to say something is a fact in that sence, I guess there is no way one can argue it one way or the other. — So from this point of view I can understand calling evolution a “fact.”
If you had read my post, you would have seen this:
That was my bad.
I did see that, but I guess I had an over generalized definition of “Fact.”
I just looked it up before my last post.
(Forgive any reiterations, I read nothing).
@krissmith777
I can’t help but laugh at you.
“There is no Biblical support for that either”? Really? Biblical support is worthless anyways. Go die in a fire.
Now after reading most of it:
About your discovery institute’s list of scientists? Take a look-see:
I think that video very convincingly demolishes the theory that there are reputable biological scientists who reject evolution as fact or the theories of evolution (Darwinian or its modification) as entirely false. It also demolishes any claim which Creationists from this Institute have to scientific integrity or trustworthy ethics. Bravo.
Â
Â
Â
krissmith777, you’re an idiot, no more arguments needed here.
@everyone else: ignore the ignorant fuck, he’ll go away
How about this as “proof”:500,000 years ago, the earth was covered with life. But NONE of those species exist on earth today. Today, the earth is covered with life, but NONE of those species existed 500,000 years ago.Example: Ocelots did not exist then, but they exist now. Akylosaurs existed then, but don’t exist now. What happened? Is God continually creating new species and eliminating others, with changes barely noticable, generation over generation, so that an Ankylosaur eventually becomes an ocelot? If so, the Bible is lying to us. The Bible said he pulled off the whole shebang in 7 days. Or … maybe nature has the ability to adapt to changing environments, and it occurs on such a dramatic level that the new adapted critters can no longer mate with the critters who didn’t adapt–and is thus are a new species? The latter seems so much more likely to me, does it not?
But it’s eaiser to just cover my ears and keep yelling “I’M NOT A MONKEY I’M NOT A MONKEY!” Doesn’t require me to do any thinking and makes me feel like I’m special.
In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a… monkey-fish-frog… And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey… and that made you! So there you go! You’re the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel!
ok. after reading this article and then reading the comments, i have concluded one thing, everyone is an idiot. arguing back and forth like bickering two year olds over the internet. why not reach a win/win agreement and say that both evolution and creationism are real. if you are an atheists, i mean no offense, likewise if you are chiristian or any other religion. we have laws that state we are allowed to worhsip anything we want, or not worship at all. but you shouldn’t call someone ignorant because they do not believe that evolution is real. there is very little proof anyway of evolution. just like there is very little proof of creationism. i only offer this, if you believe that we started because of a big bang and evolved from there, then who or what created the atom out of nothing.
also, no one knows the actual time it took. God is not limited by time, 7 days to Him, could be 7000 years in our time. before you bash the bible, read the bitch!!!!
and to all people who belive that the bible says that the earth was created in 7 days, read the bible. if you are oging to bash the bible, read the bitch!!! God is not limited by time, so those 7 days could be any amunt of time according to us.
Oh wow I wish I had read this before I posted my comment at the entropy article. It’s redundant since all you clever people already made the same points
Insertpseudinymhere, your post makes a mockery of epistemology and science. First you posit that doublethink is just a right swell idea, then deny evidence for evolution, and finally say we shouldn’t call people out on their ignorance, as if it’s some kind of insult. Shame on you. If you want to weigh in on a discussion, have the courtesy to admit your ignorance and do some research (that goes for you creationists too).
i got a cuestion, a bit off topic though.
Can we have tough sex in heaven or its still a sin? i’ve been wonder that for a while, and since God doesnt actually answer any cuestion at all, i decided to ask you.
krissmith777
“I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. — There is no Biblical support for that either.”
krissmith777
“I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. — There is no Biblical support for that either.”
– That number came from biblical scholars estimating life-spans and generations of people actually mentioned in the bible.
“But evolution is only a hypothesis and nothing else. It still has not been scientifically proven. We still have not seen evolution or any indesputable evidence for it either.”
– Read the article again, and maybe try reading some science books. The evidence is overwhelming.
The main problem with this argument is the refusal to see that there actually is middle ground. Micro-evolution has certainly been proven, is not disputed, and might not be disputable. This is when an organism changes through the mechanism of natural selection and effectively adapts to it’s environment. The disputed theory has more to do with inter-species or Macro-evolution. The fact that this can in no way to date whatsoever be proven is the reason that it is entirely up for debate. Myself, I believe in a creator. And if, in the end I’m wrong, the consequences are no where near as dire as they are for those of you who don’t believe, when you are wrong.
-EB