Question:
Why do people say, "Just a theory" when arguing that evolution isn't real?
?
2013-08-19 10:47:27 UTC
There's a big difference between the scientific definition of theory and the everyday use of the word theory. Why do people who don't believe in evolution or other scientific theories, argue that it's wrong by saying something like, "The theory of evolution, and that's all it is, just a theory, is completely unproven". Should there be different word for scientific theory to avoid confusion?

Is the heliocentric theory just a theory? Does the earth really not orbit the sun? I think not.
27 answers:
2013-08-19 10:55:26 UTC
ACTUALLY...



There isn't much difference between uses. Lay theories are ideas, concepts, etc. Scientific theories are ideas, concepts, etc. VALIDATED AND ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are ideas, concepts, etc., that have undergone testing and have been VALIDATED AND ACCEPTED. There is no other difference.



I never answered your actual question. When someone says, "it's just a...", they are belittling it. It means the person speaking has little or no respect for the matter at hand. This should mean that their opinion is disregarded by others. For example, I often hear, "it's just a game". My reply to this is, "it is a game, and games are a means of training and competing to better oneself, if you don't care enough to recognize the value of a game, you have no business in the game". The same can apply analogously to, "it's just a theory". They have no understanding and little respect for what is actually going on.



Such statements separate the "boys from the men", so to speak.
Tristen
2013-08-20 19:15:43 UTC
The definition you present is a common equivocation used by evolutionists to misrepresent the scientific confidence in evolutionary theory.



In reality, the term theory (as used legitimately in science) simply means the conceptual (or theoretical) aspect of an hypothesis (as opposed to the empirical).



The legitimate definition does not speak to how widely accepted the idea is. Neither does it speak to the amount of supporting evidence, or how much scientific scrutiny the idea has been subjected to. Debunked theories are still called theories. Some theories are well substantiated (such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), and other theories are completely unsubstantiated (such as M-theory).



In any case, arguments over the term "theory" are entirely semantic. The ultimate consideration has nothing to do with the label "theory", but whether or not the confidence in the hypothesis is justified by the evidence. It is not good enough to claim its a theory (meaning well-substantiated), or 'just a theory' (meaning not-well-enough substantiated). Legitimate claims of confidence must be supported by arguments and evidence; not labels.
morrowynd
2013-08-19 10:53:20 UTC
Its confusion over the scientific usage of the work theory and the more common philosophical one. The latter suggest something untested and under study. The former is simply the explanation for a law.



Law-an object falls when let go of

Theory-gravitational pull is moving towards it's center.



Scientific theory is the explanation for scientific law.
?
2013-08-19 11:03:16 UTC
They do not realize that evolution Is observational science and that it has been proven .They also do not realize that though there are different variations to the " theory of Evolution" those theories essentially agree on the basic points that micro evolution equals Macro evolution in every case. Theists ( especially Christians) do not want to accept that evolution can be true or is true because with out original sin there would be no need for their savior and invalidates their entire religious upbringing.
lego
2016-12-04 04:35:34 UTC
Evolution is genuine technology. that is a idea, very large and nicely common; yet what's it? maximum persons imagine of evolution as speciation - yet it really is purely component to it. Evolution is defined as a replace in gene frequency in a inhabitants over the years - this has been stated and measured countless circumstances. Evolution predicts the increasing quantity of genetic replace between isolated populations; it predicts the cost of preadaptation and rankings of alternative factors that were substantiated (to bypass into them calls for a semester complete of lectures) yet it truly is the concept and those are the criteria that were shown authentic. finally, evolution predicts speciation by utilising descent with replace. The fossil list is our magnificent information of this, and that is a sturdy list, getting better acceptable each and each and every of the time. maximum persons imagine the fossil list isn't something yet dinosaurs or hominids – I’m talking about fossil insects, flowers, mollusks and different invertebrates the position we've some staggering examples of intermediate varieties. Evolution is the properly results of one hundred fifty years of diagnosis and it underpins our cutting-side know-how of biology. there is no debate contained in the medical community in any respect that evolution is authentic. Our expertise of residing issues advancedes by persevered study in evolutionary biology and the concept receives superior each and every 12 months. with out evolution, biology will develop into no longer something better than organic historic previous and genetics might want to must be muzzled to stay away from embarrassing realities. this manner of element handed off contained in the U.S. the position Lysenkoism and Michurianism plagued 2 generations of Russians with lies. To me, education identity seems clone of educating this manner of communist, state-dictated pseudoscience.
?
2013-08-19 13:39:01 UTC
a theory is a explanation of the available fact, when the evidence changes so does the theory.



that's why it is call what it is because as new research is carried out we prove or disprove it.



Either way we gain knowledge.
Nickname
2013-08-19 10:55:52 UTC
Anyone who says a scientific theory is "just a theory" and has no proof (Calley D....this includes you) is showing their IGNORANCE. Ignorance is LACK of knowledge.



In science, something MUST BE PROVEN before it can be considered a theory.
Diamond
2013-08-19 10:51:21 UTC
Theories are based on any observation. Like oh it's going to rain because the clouds are dark. It is also based on a hypothesis that can be tested and proven or disproven. Theories are also based on known facts.
?
2013-08-19 10:53:12 UTC
They don't know what a theory is. At least in the scientific sense.



And the religion they are involved in does not encourage them to find out.



@dload, you're forgetting Lucy. Believed to be our first ancestor.



And you sound like a crazy fundie that believes in conspiracy theories.
?
2013-08-19 10:53:08 UTC
SCIENTIFIC theory = Substantial evidence and research, proving that it IS REAL, EVOLUTION is a SCIENTIFIC theory.
?
2013-08-19 11:07:14 UTC
Evolutionists are much like those "Christians" who, as they say 'cherry pick' Bible verses. These evolutionists take a bit of scientific evidence, mix it with a bit scientific theory and bake it with conjecture and by magic evolution is TRUE!



What they can't explain, even by doing the above, they totally ignore. For example consider some basic proven scientific facts.



Many cases exist where two organisms appear designed to live together. Such partnerships are examples of symbiosis (living together). Certain figs and wasps need each other in order to reproduce. Termites eat wood but need the protozoa in their bodies to digest it. Similarly, cattle, goats and camels could not digest the cellulose in grass without the help of bacteria and protozoa living inside them. A report says: “The part of a cow’s stomach where that digestion takes place has a volume of about 100 quarts—and contains 10 billion microorganisms in each drop.”11 Algae and fungi team up and become lichens. Only then can they grow on bare rock to start turning rock into soil.



Stinging ants live in the hollow thorns of acacia trees. They keep leaf-eating insects off the tree and they cut up and kill vines that try to climb on the tree. In return, the tree secretes a sugary fluid that the ants relish, and it also produces small false fruit, which serves as food for the ants. Did the ant first protect the tree and then the tree rewarded it with fruit? Or did the tree make fruit for the ant and the ant then thanked it with protection? Or did it all chance to happen at once?



Many cases of such cooperation exist between insects and flowers. Insects pollinate flowers, and in return flowers feed insects pollen and nectar. Some flowers produce two kinds of pollen. One fertilizes seeds, the other is sterile but feeds insect visitors. Many flowers have special markings and smells to guide insects to the nectar. En route the insects pollinate the flower. Some flowers have trigger mechanisms. When insects touch the trigger they get swatted by the pollen-containing anthers.



For example, the Dutchman’s-pipe cannot pollinate itself but needs insects to bring in pollen from another flower. The plant has a tubular leaf that envelops its flower, and this leaf is coated with wax. Insects, attracted by the smell of the flower, land on the leaf and plunge down the slippery slide to a chamber at the bottom. There, ripe stigmas receive the pollen that the insects brought in, and pollination takes place. But for three more days the insects are trapped there by hairs and the waxed sides. After that, the flower’s own pollen ripens and dusts the insects. Only then do the hairs wilt, and the waxed slide bends over until it is level. The insects walk out and, with their new supply of pollen, fly to another Dutchman’s-pipe to pollinate it. The insects do not mind their three-day visit, since they feast on nectar stored there for them. Did all of this happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent design?



Some types of Ophrys orchids have on their petals a picture of a female wasp, complete with eyes, antennae and wings. It even gives off the odor of a female in mating condition! The male comes to mate, but only pollinates the flower. Another orchid, the bucket orchid, has a fermented nectar that makes the bee wobbly on its feet; it slips into a bucket of liquid and the only way out is to wriggle under a rod that dusts the bee with pollen.



Evolution true? There are many volumes of information ignored by evolutionists. The question is, WHY?
2013-08-19 10:57:15 UTC
Science won't conform to their wishes and validate their fvcked up reasoning, so they either have to lie about it, or hate it.



I prefer to the ones that flat out hate it, because at least they're being (more) honest.
?
2013-08-19 10:51:53 UTC
For something to be a theory, it has to be tested, observed and retested, to see if it continues to happen, time and time again. Gravity is a theory, because you can do those things.....evolution cannot be tested, observed and retested, at least not on a "above species level." A mutating bacteria is still a bacteria, a mutating virus is still a virus, and an evolving pigeon, no matter how big or small its beak, whether it's spotted ot not, is still a pigeon.



So, for evolution on the level above species (monkeys to man, goo to you, single cell to complex cell, amphibians to mammals, etc) CANNOT be tested.



They say it can, but seriously? Thousands of scientists will tell you Darwin's theories are not feasible.
Kessie
2013-08-19 10:50:01 UTC
It's a theory - but theories are supported by facts and evidence.



Because unless you have absolute proof that it really happened, no doubts whatsoever - who knows, maybe it really IS magic - you can't say for sure that it happened. Like video. No one was alive long enough to personally observe it, right?



(DDT-resistant mosquitoes aside...)



I don't know...
Believer
2013-08-20 12:37:19 UTC
Evolution (Macro) has NEVER been OBSERVED therefore is HIGHLY SPECULATIVE no matter what word is used is used to describe it.
2013-08-19 10:51:32 UTC
you have to overlook some things....you just can't fix stupid, and they don't realize gravity is "just" a theory.



might i urge them to test it by leaping from the nearest tall building and report back their findings?
Turn it up! Bring the Derp!!!
2013-08-19 10:50:16 UTC
They are unknowingly attempting to validate their own subconscious desires to fly.
2013-08-19 10:49:04 UTC
Because they've been told to.



There are rarely any original ideas coming from creationists and 'intelligent design' theory proponents.
?
2013-08-19 10:49:40 UTC
Because even in the scientific use of the word " Theory " scientific theories can, have and will be wrong.



I also get a kick out of those who say things like " Did you know that gravity is just a theory " To which I respond.



Yes, it is, one that can be observed.
Dload
2013-08-19 10:54:39 UTC
It's "just a theory" because you can't see it yourself, your taking other people's word on it being fact for what they have tested, plus assumed and therefore follow it with faith. However, when it comes to evolution, this is cloudy as evolution is actually a mix of different things...



Evolution theory can be broken down into two:



Micro Evolution (a creature can adapt to it's own environment), based upon some facts and things we can see in life. Even religious follow this.



Macro Evolution (a creature can morph into another over a long period of time), has never been proven, can not be seen, and was originally founded by a well known ape-man hoax. It's therefore a faith.



Given the incredible complexity of a single-celled organism and its DNA, the likelihood that life on Earth was randomly created in an organic soup is the equivalent of discovering a computer on Mars and proclaiming it was randomly assembled in the methane sea. As crazy as that sounds, that's logically an actual higher probability of occurrence. It's still a strong faith, but an uncomplete answer as there's still a force behind putting it together (energy/mass is a requirement to even move it into place and hold it). So even atheists need to believe in an invisible entity which created the universe...



The Big Bang Theory is also "Just a theory" - actually originally created by a Christian before the university got hold of it and removed the Creator idea, later in 2012 replacing it with another invisible entity known as Dark Matter/Energy which also can't be detected but only seen by the effect it leaves behind (therefore requiring equal amount of faith for atheism).



According to us humans evolving from monkeys.



In 1912, Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and an amateur paleontologist, discovered a mandible (lower jawbone) and part of a skull in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The jawbone was apelike, but had teeth that showed wear similar to the human pattern. The skull, on the other hand, was very humanlike. These two specimens were combined to form what was called “Dawn man,” which was calculated to be 500,000 years old.



The whole thing turned out to be an elaborate hoax. The skull was indeed human (about 500 years old), while the jaw was that of a modern female orangutan whose teeth had been obviously filed to crudely resemble the human wear pattern. Indeed, the long ape canine tooth was filed down so far that it exposed the pulp chamber, which was then filled in to hide the mischief. It would seem that any competent scientist examining this tooth would have concluded that it was either a hoax or the world’s first root canal! The success of this hoax for over 50 years, in spite of the careful scrutiny of the best authorities in the world, led the human evolutionist Sir Solly Zuckerman to declare: “It is doubtful if there is any science at all in the search for man’s fossil ancestry.”



While the apeman was a hoax for over 50 years, the artistic imagination has been used to illustrate entire “apemen” came from nothing more than a single tooth. In the early 1920s, the “apeman” Hesperopithecus (which consisted of a single tooth) was pictured in the London Illustrated News complete with the tooth’s wife, children, domestic animals, and cave! Experts used this tooth, known as “Nebraska man,” as proof for human evolution during the Scopes trial in 1925. In 1927, parts of the skeleton were discovered together with the teeth, and Nebraska man was found to really be an extinct peccary (wild pig)!



Therefore according to the fossil records it should be monkey -> human -> pig. We use to be protected in trees, ambidexterity using both hands and feet, swinging through the trees with agility and stamina.



Some humans look and act like apes, therefore we must be from a common ancestor! Lets completely ignore the fact that tobacco plant DNA is more closer related to human DNA, rather than Ape DNA, the genes and markers on the chromosomes are not in the same order for humans and chimpanzee and could be more likely to just as well be a sheep, and simply make assumptions in fossil records which to date have never been proven, but mostly ruled out as not linkage. Lets also hope no one finds out about the millions dollars of funding offered for actual solid proof since 2006 has to date never been claimed by anyone.
Greeny Cloud
2013-08-20 01:18:20 UTC
because there are much more theories
Bob K
2013-08-19 10:49:34 UTC
They respond in that manner because ignorance is bliss and they would rather remain ignorant than try to think for themselves.
?
2013-08-19 10:49:09 UTC
It IS just a theory and there are several theories of it. That isn't to say I don't believe in evolution, because I do, but it is just a theory. It hasn't been proven a fact yet.
?
2013-08-19 10:49:43 UTC
When science can show me a Canine giving birth to a Cetacea, I will concede that evolution (not just a biological change in a population, but a change from one genus to another) is fact and not theory.
?
2013-08-19 10:48:11 UTC
they dont realize that theories are based on facts
2013-08-19 10:50:05 UTC
Until a theory turns apodictic, you can still choose not to believe in it.
2013-08-19 10:49:07 UTC
because it can only be a theory since there's no proof

a theory is always a theory

''scientific'' doesn't add credence to it without the use of the scientific method which Evolutionism doesn't rely on


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...