3 ms·

A good point. When I see the word 'fact', I remind myself that even now evolution is still only considered a theory - despite the weight of evidence on its sid

A good point. When I see the word 'fact', I remind myself that even now evolution is still only considered a theory - despite the weight of evidence on its side. Because in science something might just show up that invalidates all that came before, and maintaining that faint skepticism is what separates science from belief. (And of course evolution is a theory, not a mere hypothesis because of this weight of evidence). If you want to show me a fact, make sure it comes with a mathematical proof attached.

minikites 8y ago
There's a difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution borne out by the fossil record. Using your definition, even gravity is a "theory", yet things still fall to the ground when we drop them from above.
- Ngunyan 8y ago
  The difference between the theory of evolution and the "theory of gravity" is that tests about gravity are reproducible and repeatable, but not tests on evolutionary theory. One can not test/replicate evolution happening over millions of years. This is why evolution will forever be a theory. Evolution is not a fact. Its a post-facto explanation, where fossils are made to fit a theory.
klmr 8y ago
> even now evolution is still only considered a theory No, you simply misunderstand what “theory” means in the scientific context. It’s a synonym for “explanatory model”. And “evolution” in this context stands for something close to “gradual change via random mutations and natural selection [as well as other, less important mechanisms]”. Calling it “theory” does not imply that it’s not based on observable facts, or that there’s doubt about it. It’s simply used to distinguish observable facts from an explanatory model. There is no “progression of certainty” from hypothesis → theory → fact. As another commenter has said, evolution is as much a theory as gravity.

minikites 8y ago

There's a difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution borne out by the fossil record. Using your definition, even gravity is a "theory", yet things still fall to the ground when we drop them from above.

Ngunyan 8y ago
The difference between the theory of evolution and the "theory of gravity" is that tests about gravity are reproducible and repeatable, but not tests on evolutionary theory. One can not test/replicate evolution happening over millions of years. This is why evolution will forever be a theory. Evolution is not a fact. Its a post-facto explanation, where fossils are made to fit a theory.

klmr 8y ago

> even now evolution is still only considered a theory No, you simply misunderstand what “theory” means in the scientific context. It’s a synonym for “explanatory model”. And “evolution” in this context stands for something close to “gradual change via random mutations and natural selection [as well as other, less important mechanisms]”. Calling it “theory” does not imply that it’s not based on observable facts, or that there’s doubt about it. It’s simply used to distinguish observable facts from an explanatory model. There is no “progression of certainty” from hypothesis → theory → fact. As another commenter has said, evolution is as much a theory as gravity.