So You Think Evolution is Scientific Fact?
For those who may have been asleep during the lessons on the Scientific Method, here is a recap. A common misperception of science is that science defines "truth". Science does not define truth. It actually defines a way of thought. The steps (simplified) to the scientific method are:
Hypothesis- Take a guess. (The earth is round.)
Observation/Experimentation- (Satellite photos show a round earth. Hired a pilot to fly in a straight line. She came back from the opposite direction and said she flew in a complete circle around the earth.)
Data/Graphs- Write it down, show it.
Theory- Conclusions drawn become theory.(sometimes called fact)
This is a very simplified explanation. The point is that one cannot claim something as a scientific fact without taking steps to prove and disprove the hypothesis.
Evolution Theory is not fact, or truth. There are actually several different evolution theories, and there are well respected scientists who agree with each of the theories of evolution. There are also many well respected scientists who do not agree with the theory of evolution. So is it okay to teach schoolchildren that evolution is fact, is truth? It is better to say "I don't know" than to say "This is truth" when in fact it is not.
Published by Rebecca Rosenburg
Rebecca Rosenburg is a freelance writer and information specialist. Rebecca has worked in the health care industry for 16 years as a CNA/Caregiver. Rebecca is also an educator with 13 years experience specia... View profile
- Why Socio-Cultural Anthropology Can Still Be ScientificAnthropology struggled for years to be accepted as a science - and then promptly began denouncing it's scientific credentials once they'd been accepted. This paper represents a young graduate student's views as to th...
Evolution Vs. CreationIt is widely believed that the evidence which supports the theory of evolution and the lack there of for the theory of creation would suggest that evolution is fact, while creat...- Sticker-Mania: Approach Evolution with an Open MindA Georgia school board just settled a case about stickers warning that evolution was a "theory, not a fact." A closer look shows us that the parents who wanted the stickers in the first place had one thing right--stud...
- Evolution Theory Vs the Gap TheoryEvolution is freely taught today as fact. However it is still one persons theory. Evolution has always been called Darwin's theory of Evolution. So why do so many treat it as fact?
- Are Both Evolution and Creationism Pseudo-Sciences?Karl Popper's definition of a scientific claim is that it can be proven false. Can either of these actually be proven false?
- Five Rational Reasons Why Darwin's Evolution is Doubtful
- Why the Theory of Evolution is as Much a Philosophical Theory as a Scientific One
- How Scientists Can Ruin Experiments by Not Properly Using the Scientific Method
- The Scientific Method
- Homeschool Lesson Plan on the Scientific Method
- Top Secrets of the Scientific Method
- College Philosophy, Scientific Methods and Progress, and Logical Deduction
- Is evolution a scientific fact?
- Alternative to teaching evolution or creationism
10 Comments
Post a CommentJust because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Also, ignoring the evidence for evolution does not qualify as disproving it. talkorigins.org is a great place to start. Chock full of the evidence you claim to seek. In science, something has to be testable, measurable and potentially falsifiable. Evolution meets this standard, creationism does not.
Sorry Rebecca, but you are just plain wrong about evolution not meeting the scientific standard. Evolution is taught as a fact because it is a fact that it happens. There is a theory that explains it. Just as gravity is a fact, it happens, and there is a theory (with FAR less concrete evidence) that explains it. As for scientists who do not accept evolution, they consist of a relative handful, most not even biologists, most fundamentalists of some religion, and even the few biologists in that camp have done zero science that undermines evolution or supports ID. One of the stars of the ID movement, microbiologist Dr. Behe, had to admit on the witness stand in Dover that the only way ID could be considered science is if astrology and other such pseudo-sciences were also included as science.
Actually, this author is not a Christian and doesn't believe in Jesus. I do believe in science. Science demands data that can be replicated. Evolution has not met the scientific standard.
quote "There are also many well respected scientists who do not agree with the theory of evolution" is simply a lie. The author is just another liar-for-Jesus
In upper school, I was taught the theory of evolution as fact. I questioned my science teacher about it because I did not believe in evolution. But she failed to provide satisfying answers to me at the time.
Sophie
Regarding dog breeding,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083652.htm
(continued)
A hundred-ish years ago, before Einstein's Special Relativity superseded it, the Newtonian Laws of Motion were the only "truth" regarding inertial reference frames. Thus, I understand that you are hesitant to teach children that evolution is "truth". But by the same token, evolution is just as much truth, or just not as much truth, as anything else in science - true as far as we know, but eligible to be overturned if new evidence proves otherwise.
Until and unless you possess that new evidence, your duty as an educator is to teach evolution to children with the same certainty that you'd teach any other science topic.
(continued)
3) Evolution can and will be treated as fact until science exists that proves it to be false. The problem is that virtually everyone who does try to prove it false appears to be doing so for religious/spiritual/philosophical reasons, and not scientific reasons. You can only disprove science with science, and not with philosophies that are thinly disguised as science (i.e. "Intelligent Design").
(continued)
2) Even though humans are short-lived in a geological sense, we are able to observe evolution happen within our lifetimes. People selectively breed animals and plants for specific traits; anyone who has done serious dog breeding can tell you that it only takes a few generations of breeding tall-with-tall or short-with-short or aggressive-with-aggressive to begin to strengthen and enforce the desired trait in subsequent litters. Antibiotics have been in widespread use by mankind for less than a hundred years, and yet many forms of bacteria have already evolved, in response, so as to be immune to those antibiotics. Why do you deny the role that natural selection, via environmental influences, can play on a species over the course of millions of years?
3) Evolution can and will be treated as fact until science exists that proves it to be false. The problem is that virtually everyone who does try to prove it false appears to be doing so for religious/spiritual/philosophic
There is certainly a lot that isn't known about evolution. Many of the particulars are still being studied, debated, and explored. However, in terms of the big picture, evolution is treated as fact by the scientific community at large. Yes, by strict definition it is only a "theory", but so is Einstein's "Theory" of Relativity - even though it's been proven to work absolutely everywhere it has been tested, on both a microscopic and macroscopic scale.
So why is evolution treated as fact, even though it's only a theory?
1) There is a preponderance of evidence that the higher life forms currently on earth evolved from simpler life forms. Hundreds of thousands of analyzed fossils show the progression of life from simpler structures to more complex structures, and scientifically-accepted dating methods place these various life forms, relative to one another along a timeline, pretty much where one would expect if evolution were true.
2) Even though humans are short-lived in a geolog