Elreth wrote: That is fine, I mean it is just a theory.
Dark_Nemesis wrote: Macroevolution, however, has absolutely no premise, and is a total theory (crazy too, imo), yet it is repeatedly taught as truth.
Ford Prefect wrote: Elreth, evolution happened, it's a fact, not "only a theory."
Tsk tsk tsk, have we all forgotten the definition of theory that I posted a while ago? (btw Ford, your quote is only in here since it is dealing with the same issue) Perhaps I should just post it again, and you should read it this time so you stop saying "just a theory".
Definition I posted earlier: "The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions." (in case you're wondering this is from the religion thread, where this discussion actually began)
Here's a nice little quote from
http://anthro.palomar.edu: "The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences."
I'd summarize these, but they're coming from respectable websites and they're making my point for me.
Here's another thing from the same website, that talks about what a
scientific theory is, it's a bit more blunt than my first definition, but it's also straightforward:
"When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. They are not unchanging end-products."
I'll continue my research later.
Edit: I realized I never pointed out that, so far, DN has been using theory in the more common sense of the word, which means an opinion or speculation not necessarily backed by facts. If this were true, then DN's argument would be quite sound, but the Theory of Evolution is a
scientific theory, which must be backed by facts. I'd continue defining it here, but you could just as easily read my definition up at the top, which you should have read twice by now.