Verified answer

Red Head Angel neatly dodges the question by saying Darwin's theory was at best a hypothesis.

That's true, in fact Darwin's statements WERE a hypothesis, which has been built into a solid scientific model which makes successful predictions and which fits well with other sciences. THAT we call the Theory of Evolution.

Now, if Red Head Angel is saying that she got a PhD in biology but denies that life evolves, denies that different species evolve from common ancestors, or denies that the Theory of Evolution fits the definition of scientific theory, that is her right. But it is not science. She will have taken the same road that Kurt Wise took - to reject her own science education because it doesn't fit with her unadaptable, never-changing, eternally inconsistent faith.

The Theory of Evolution fits right in with:

The Theory of Relativity

The Germ Theory of Disease

Plate Tectonic Theory

Atomic Theory

and many other theories on which you can safely bet your life.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory because:

Evolution is testable:

(e.g. if evolution is true, we should find a fossil for this unknown species in this location)

Example: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

Evolution is falsifiable:

29 examples: http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.htm...

Evolution has known mechanisms: genetics, DNA, natural selection

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/

Evolution is observable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.ht...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evo...

A theory is a testable explanation for why observed events happen as they do. Theories might explain whether one event causes another, or whether two correlated events are caused by a third. A theory might assert that some events are necessary, but not sufficient, for certain others to occur. A theory might say that an experiment might have any of several different outcomes, and assign probabilities to each of them. The main thing is that a theory isn't scientific unless it can be tested. Intelligent design might be a theory, but it isn't science unless the existence of the designer can be tested for experimentally. Apparently, no satisfactory test has ever been proposed. Many people, including me, think that the idea behind "intelligent design" is to sneak religion into the science classroom through a back door. If unscientific theories are to be weighed, then I have one that is far more parsimonious than intelligent design. Universes are vacuum fluctuations, and our universe is observed to have life in it because of the weak anthropic principle. (Universes that don't have life in them are never observed.)

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

lol... Ok, as a non-theist, I'd like to actually answer this question so we don't let the dumb uneducated comments stand as truth. Btw, I seriously doubt that Angel had a PhD in anything because she'd know better than what she just spouted.

Think of scientific theory this way... it covers a broad range of topics, including hypothesis, and laws. Laws are simply a narrower view focused specifically on single items within the theory that the science describes.

For example... if we are talking about Evolution, a scientific law within the theory of evolution would be (since evolution ALSO contains the theory of genetics), Mendel's Law of Segregation which states when any individual produces gametes, the copies of a gene separate, so that each gamete receives only one copy. This is a law, it is also a basic principle of how evolution works.

Taking the narrow view that Evolution is not true because it is not a law, is foolish because evolution contains hundreds, if not thousands, of LAWS within its theoretical structure.

Its a theory much the same way that Music is taught as a Theory. We all know music is NOT a theory because we can HEAR the music produced. But it is called a theory for the same reason that Evolution is called a theory. Because it contains all information pertaining to the subject including both Laws of sound, and hypothesis on how sound works.

Its not that hard to understand. If one actually bothers to make the attempt.

Scientific theory DOES NOT mean "guess".

Scientific theory is an explanation of what is scientifically observed.

EDIT: Oh, I get it... this is setting up a debate about evolution, and the main argument for it being that a "theory" is pretty much a fact -- although that isn't true for string theory, superstring theory, M theory, etc.

No matter how hard you try, the theory of evolution will never be a fact in the same way that 2+2=4 is a fact, and to say that it is would be ignorant.

For the record: I don't take the theory of evolution as a fact, nor do I believe creationism is a fact. For all intents and purposesit doesn't matter to me how humans came to exist. I've got other mysteries to solve -- right now, I'm working on the Icicle Creek mystery with Nancy Drew, thank you very much.

In scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In such terms, it is different from a scientific law, which is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

It is also different from an hypothesis. This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

I would say, at its best, Darwin's evolution is an hypothesis.

To RickK: I was a scientist before I was a Christian and evolution does not really made sense not even as an agnostic.

Please, explain to me how is it a theory or a law, by which principles and you may convert me. Thanks

Just in the interest of fairness, there are plenty of theists on this site who have answered this question correctly in the past, and have no problem accepting the conclusions of the scientific method. I don't wish to see them mocked while in absentia; as supporter's of science they shouldn't be lumped in with those who willfully or ignorantly deride the methodology that has brought mankind so much.

the⋅o⋅ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

definition #7 fits the evolution "theory"(more appropriately guess) PERFECTLY!!!

GOD bless

And know we see why scientology is considered a religion. All religions have such dedicated people that sometimes they fail to accept other people's beliefs as their own truth.