Is the Evolutionary Process as a Theory Problematic?

[Catie]

I'm taking an online class and we have weekly questions. The question for Monday is this:

Some critics of evolution claim that the evolutionary process is weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. Is there validity to this idea? Does this weaken the argument? Why or why not?

I thought this would be a great topic for this forum and it could lead me to some other resources for my homework.

Thanks, guys!

[Keith C]

Most obvious comment is that the reality or otherwise of the 'evolutionary process' is a question about the real world. Human opinions or beliefs about any such matter will not change reality, even if it does change science textbooks.

Also, somewhat along the same lines, science is not a democratic process. The opinions of those most knowledgeable about any topic carry much more weight than that of the general public. Even more important than opinions are any facts which can be cited - but unfortunately facts make poor sound-bites.

I hope your research on this question shows you that there are at least two different meanings for 'theory'. Its scientific meaning does not carry the same connotation of 'wild guess' as theory does in popular speech.
I think it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the 'it is only a theory' refrain is a political (religious?) campaign to sway the opinions of people with little science knowledge.

What is the class, and at what level?

[Catie]

Thanks for the reply, Keith.

It's a Gen. Ed. Anthropology class that I've been holding off to take until now.

[JLVaughn]

Catie,

I'm taking an online class and we have weekly questions. The question for Monday is this:

Some critics of evolution claim that the evolutionary process is weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. Is there validity to this idea? Does this weaken the argument? Why or why not?

I thought this would be a great topic for this forum and it could lead me to some other resources for my homework.

Thanks, guys!

Calling anything in science, "only a theory," is a foolish argument. The general theory of relativity is demonstrably the most accurate statement humans have measured, for just about everything it applies to.

The laws of thermodynamics are far less accurate and far less demonstrable. They are called laws because their failure is nearly akin to the failure of logic.

Kepler's laws and Newton's laws are less accurate than general relativity. They were proven to be in error using the precession of Mercury's orbit, long before general relativity solved that small error. Yet they still refer to those lessor theories as laws.

The real issues should always be, is the data consistent with the theory and does the theory have explanatory power.

[K2skier]

Catie,
I see a distinct difference between the topic title (Is the Evolutionary Process as a Theory Problematic) and the online question you quoted. Yes, the theory is problematic, but not for the critique raised in the online question (It's only a theory). JL Vaughn brought up the issue of whether the data is consistent with a theory, and does it have explanatory value (I would add predictive value, as well). I claim the theory is problematic in all three areas, but that's for another post.

Calling anything in science, "only a theory," is a foolish argument.

Precisely why I saw the very framing of the question as being rigged with an evolutionary bias from the get-go. Of course, calling any theory in science "a fact" is also a foolish argument, which a number of leading evolutionists have done, rallying around this core tenet of their worldview, partly in response to creationism gaining traction back in the 80's. Some critics have made the "it's only a theory" argument, but in many cases, it was an attempt to counter such dogmatic assertions as the following:

Harvard professor Stephen Gould, considered by many to be the nation's leading evolutionary theorist before his death, stated:

"But evolution, like gravitation, is a fact. I don't mean to be dogmatic about it, but it's as much a fact as anything in science."

Ernst Mayr, one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, declared:

"Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees man evolved from the apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. It is the fact of evolution."

Julian Huxley insisted:

"The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun."

Richard Lewontin, one-time President of the Society for the Study of Evolution, maintains:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process...to state clearly that evolution is fact, not theory..."

Ashley Montagu, editor of the book, "Science and Creationism," noted:

"Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It once was a theory but today, as a consequence of observation and testing it is probably the best authenticated actuality known to science."

In episode #2 of the "Cosmos" television series, Carl Sagan proclaimed to the viewers that "evolution is a fact, not a theory."

This is more than just a scientific issue; this is a philosophical, or worldview issue. One could hope that for a more balanced approach to the study of the origin of man, a question similar to this one would have also been included:

Some proponents of evolution claim that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. Is there validity to this idea? Does this strengthen the argument? Why or why not?

Best wishes,
Darryl

[shotgun]

Catie,

I'm not sure what a small-town guy can add to what's already been said, nor am I convinced he should try. But small town guys seem to have noses permanently fixed where they don't belong, and mouths constantly full of their own feet, and so on behalf of them all, I'll provide a brief two-cents (and hopefully it will be more poetic than the others, if less accurate):

Scientists aren't too different from small-town boys. They're stuck with finitude. Maybe that's a common ground? They're both convinced of an infinity, and both attempt to describe it. But, just like the kid that looks to heaven and says "the sky goes on forever" the scientist is stuck in an equally mysterious world. Perhaps his theory is more complex than the child's, but is one more important than the other?

When looking for practical results, we could say the naive beliefs of the scientist are more worthwhile than the child's or the small-towner that believes in better things beyond his front porch. In the end, the small-town guy may realize the front porch was priceless, and similarly, the scientist may realize his "theory" was simply a pipe-dream?

I'd fight to defend the notions of the child. I see no reason why the scientist should give up his theory for any less a price. It may prove to be useless in the end, but the child needs to believe SOMETHING about the sky. The small-town guy needs to have SOME notion of the world. And the scientist, well, to do his job at all he must have SOME view of the world. Without it, he'd not be able to operate.

Even Mr. Vaughn, (who claims to have validated the theory of relativity in a lab) was operating within SOME view of the world. He believed his instruments were working properly, and that his eyes were true! He didn't test those theories beforehand. (And if he did, then what test would he run to make sure his equipment test was conducted properly? It would be an endless cycle of tests. Tests upon tests to make sure other tests are accurate!)

In the end, we're all constrained by our finitude. We're no better off than the child that says "the sky goes on forever!" In this sense, the child's theory, as well as the theories of the brightest scientists are on equal footing. This is the nature of all our beliefs.

That we have theories, shouldn't, in and of itself, be a cause for rejecting one or the other of them, since they're all unavoidable. And should the child be right, and the sky really does go on forever...then let him be happy with what that belief brings him. It's my hope that God regenerates all our hearts so that we all shared the same "theory" but until that happens, I'll not rob the child of his, nor the scientists of theirs. (Unless they force theirs on the child. At that point, the small-town boy will extract his foot from his mouth and place it firmly up the scientist's backside...metaphorically speaking of course!)

[JTownsend]

... The question for Monday is this:

Some critics of evolution claim that the evolutionary process is weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. Is there validity to this idea? Does this weaken the argument? Why or why not?

Let us be logically consistent. The evolutionary process is NOT weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. Logical inconsistencies weaken theories.

Theories are plausible presumptions based on perceived evidence. Only by showing a theory to be logically inconsistent can you weaken a theory. But it must also be noted that even if you can show logical inconsistencies in a theory, that does not mean you necessarily weaken a persons faith in that theory. People believe stupid or fantastic theories all the time.

A theory may be wrong, but simply being a theory does not invalidate or weaken a theory. People follow and apply theories all the time. Sometimes those theories cannot or have not been proven, yet certain postulations can be supported only if a theory is presumed. For example, dinosaurs coming millions of years before mankind was on the earth can only be supported accepting an "old earth" and evolution to be true, much to the ire and chagrin of the Young Earth Creationists. Many scientists acknowledge the evolutionary theory to be accurate and factual and base their findings on their understanding and the presumption of that theory.

The evolutionary process is NOT weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. It can only be weakened by logical inconsistencies... such as the fact that those scientists who believe in evolution do not generally encourage the same actions which brought man to the top of the evolutionary ladder, such as rape, murdering the weak or murdering those who do not help propagate the species.

Perhaps we can start a new political campaign, "Embrace evolution: rape, pillage, and plunder".

[shotgun]

Now THERE'S a good bumper sticker idea!

[tetrahedron]

A theory means something different to a scientist than it does to the general population. When the average person talks about theory, he usually really means hypothesis. In science, "theory" does not imply uncertainty. A scientific theory is "a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."

To a scientist evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is considered a fact because it is so firmly supported by evidence that it can be assumed to be true. It is also a theory because the process is not entirely understood.

The same concept can be applied to gravity. We know gravity is a fact but we are still unsure as to how it works.

[Keith C]

....certain postulations can be supported only if a theory is presumed. For example, dinosaurs coming millions of years before mankind was on the earth can only be supported accepting an "old earth" and evolution to be true, much to the ire and chagrin of the Young Earth Creationists. Many scientists acknowledge the evolutionary theory to be accurate and factual and base their findings on their understanding and the presumption of that theory.
..........................
It can only be weakened by logical inconsistencies... such as the fact that those scientists who believe in evolution do not generally encourage the same actions which brought man to the top of the evolutionary ladder, such as rape, murdering the weak or murdering those who do not help propagate the species.

The 'theory' of successive catastrophes, each followed by an independent creation event, as advocated by Agassiz is one way to explain dinosaurs before man without evolution.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uJS79Za7WZ0C&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=Agassiz+successive+creation&source=bl&ots=pQ6YtXgugH&sig=lOhybyZT3dJtk_dubT-5257JBR4&hl=en&ei=PNSaSu2oL6mJ8QaZifSvBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=Agassiz%20successive%20creation&f=false

Like most (or all?) creationist theories, this did not explain the facts. Logical inconsistencies was not the problem.

If you believe rape and murder are inevitable consequences of evolution, you really ought to learn more about evolution.

[shotgun]

Tell that to the 20th century Keith.

Let's keep this thread focused on the question and give Catie as much help as possible.

[tetrahedron]

The evolutionary process is NOT weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. It can only be weakened by logical inconsistencies... such as the fact that those scientists who believe in evolution do not generally encourage the same actions which brought man to the top of the evolutionary ladder, such as rape, murdering the weak or murdering those who do not help propagate the species.

Except scientists still have emotions, beliefs, values, and a sense of humanity that precludes them from doing such things. These things don't go flying out the window when studying the natural world.

Should historians advocate genocide because the Spaniards were enriched by conquering and killing the Aztecs and Incas? Certainly not. A scientist's job is to study evolution, not encourage it. Anyone who tries to derive a moral system from science is no longer doing science.