Why I do NOT “believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution"

[Paul Braterman]

Why I do NOT “believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution" http://wp.me/p21T1L-c2 Fact not theory; 150 years on from Darwin's watershed publication; evidence not belief. Words matter.

[animist]

as you don't seem to be getting much response, Paul, I will respond. Maybe you are taking "theory" a bit too narrowly - after all, you mention "number theory", which I assume does not involve doubt about the existence of numbers. Evolution is a theory, I maintain, and am sure it is a true one and therefore factual; but it is still a theory, and the fact that the only alternative we have is the unhelpful and unlikely theory of divinely ordained special creation does not change its theoretical nature. It is fact that species have been seen under scientific conditions to modify their characteristics in response to changes in their environment, but it is a theory that such changes are but a microscopic example of huge changes in life forms over past aeons which have made us what we are and which are strongly suggested by the fossil record.

[Sel]

Animist
The Theory of Evolution is, indeed, a scientific theory (different from the general use of the word "theory") supported by the fossil records, geological records and DNA. It is not, in any way, in doubt. There is not one item of evidence to falsify this theory and Paul has used the term properly.

I refer you to the following site for any argument you might have that "evolution is just a theory."

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _arguments

This is not to insinuate you are a creationist, Animist; but, this site does a great job of explaining the definition of theory as it pertains to scientific facts and the evidence available to refute arguments that the Theory of Evolution is not based on evidence and facts.

[animist]

Animist
The Theory of Evolution is, indeed, a scientific theory (different from the general use of the word "theory")

I do not see scientific theories, ie theories about the world of nature, as different in principle from other types of theory, eg historical theories - why do you?

supported by the fossil records, geological records and DNA. It is not, in any way, in doubt. There is not one item of evidence to falsify this theory and Paul has used the term properly.

I agree there is no evidence to falsify evolution, but that does not elevate it above other theories, does it?

I refer you to the following site for any argument you might have that "evolution is just a theory."

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _arguments

This is not to insinuate you are a creationist, Animist; but, this site does a great job of explaining the definition of theory as it pertains to scientific facts and the evidence available to refute arguments that the Theory of Evolution is not based on evidence and facts.

I think you misunderstood my post, Sel - I did not deny that evolution is not based on evidence of various kinds, and I did not say that evolution is "just" a theory

[Dave B]

I do not see scientific theories, ie theories about the world of nature, as different in principle from other types of theory, eg historical theories - why do you?

Pardon my ignorance, animist, but surely "theories about the world of nature" can be tested more objectively than most "theories" about history - if, indeed, history had theories in this sense.

There is such a thing as the theory of music but this seems to be a misnomer for "musicology", the knowledge and understanding of the structure of music. How music is perceived and how it affects the human brain may have a theoretical basis though. We can measure the changes in the brain by fMRI techniques and describe the physiological and psychological/behavioural effects any piece has on the listeners. It ends up statistical in the final analysis, "25% of those in the 20 to 50 age range who heard 'Ride of the Valkyries' at 60dB whilst alone, sitting in a soft armchair . . . may experience . . ." Wishy-washy theory really!

[animist]

I do not see scientific theories, ie theories about the world of nature, as different in principle from other types of theory, eg historical theories - why do you?

Pardon my ignorance, animist, but surely "theories about the world of nature" can be tested more objectively than most "theories" about history - if, indeed, history had theories in this sense.

There is such a thing as the theory of music but this seems to be a misnomer for "musicology", the knowledge and understanding of the structure of music. How music is perceived and how it affects the human brain may have a theoretical basis though. We can measure the changes in the brain by fMRI techniques and describe the physiological and psychological/behavioural effects any piece has on the listeners. It ends up statistical in the final analysis, "25% of those in the 20 to 50 age range who heard 'Ride of the Valkyries' at 60dB whilst alone, sitting in a soft armchair . . . may experience . . ." Wishy-washy theory really!

I quite agree that scientific theories may be tested in a more obvious way than, say, historical theories, since the paradigm of scientific method centres on the process of hypothesis formation and empirical testing. Historical theories are more to do with documentary accounts and their reliability, plus things like letters, though archaeological evidence may also figure in assessing them: the Resurrection of JC is a historical theory in essence. But actually, if you think about it, the theory of evolution IS partly a historical theory as well as a scientific theory, which was roughly what I was getting at; we cannot actually relive the long aeons in which (I assume) species changed via natural selection, we can only surmise more indirectly from the evidence. In theory ( ), I suppose, it could be the case that contemporary natural selection is confirmed by direct observation but some other account of the planet's past be retained

[Altfish]

The Resurrection of JC is NOT a historical theory; at best it is a theological hypothesis.

I'm not even sure about this sub type of theory called a 'historical theory', it is sounding like a Ken Ham argument, i.e. redefine science and then argue against your newly created straw man.

[Dave B]

Yes, as with my favourite historical character, Aerthelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, the "evidence" for her history varies from the charters etc. she signed which still exist to her being dismissed as merely the eldest child of King Alfred by Bishop Asser. Otherwise she appears to have played a critical part in the foundation of the English nation, having co-ruled Mercia with her husband, and on her own after his death, in support of Edward the Elder (whose illegitimate son, Aethelstan, became the first true King of England.)

[getreal]

"Scientific theory" has a specific definition within science.

In is not the same as the general usage of the word "theory"

[animist]

"Scientific theory" has a specific definition within science.

In is not the same as the general usage of the word "theory"

you need to substantiate this. Why is "scientific theory" different in kind from any other type of theory, eg a historical theory?

[animist]

The Resurrection of JC is NOT a historical theory; at best it is a theological hypothesis.

I'm not even sure about this sub type of theory called a 'historical theory', it is sounding like a Ken Ham argument, i.e. redefine science and then argue against your newly created straw man.

if you were a historian you would be using the "theory" a lot: eg over whether Richard III murdered the Princes in the Tower or whether Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. The Resurrection is not a hypothesis, theological or otherwise, but it is a theologically based attempt to explain some (not very well) documented claims, notably the disappearance of Jesus's body and his appearance to various people after his crucifixion. All I am try to get at is that one's attitude to the truth of falsity of some explanation of purported facts should not determined whether one calls them theories, scientific or historical or musical or whatever: a theory is simply an explanation of alleged facts which implies a larger framework than the explanation itself

[Altfish]

"Scientific theory" has a specific definition within science.

In is not the same as the general usage of the word "theory"

you need to substantiate this. Why is "scientific theory" different in kind from any other type of theory, eg a historical theory?

In simple terms: -
A Scientific Theory is the highest type of 'explanation' of things in the natural world.
In science, scientists look at data and initially they make a hypothesis.
Other scientists then test this hypothesis - there are then a couple of outcomes...
The data disproves the hypothesis and it is discarded...or...
The data aligns with the hypothesis and the hypothesis stands, after many years of testing (and probably amending it) the hypothesis will be 'accepted' and can become a theory.

Scientific Theories can predict things; e.g. The Theory of Gravity predicts that if on Earth I drop a stone it will fall to the ground. If that doesn't happen the Theory is wrong.

[Altfish]

The Resurrection of JC is NOT a historical theory; at best it is a theological hypothesis.

I'm not even sure about this sub type of theory called a 'historical theory', it is sounding like a Ken Ham argument, i.e. redefine science and then argue against your newly created straw man.

if you were a historian you would be using the "theory" a lot: eg over whether Richard III murdered the Princes in the Tower or whether Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. The Resurrection is not a hypothesis, theological or otherwise, but it is a theologically based attempt to explain some (not very well) documented claims, notably the disappearance of Jesus's body and his appearance to various people after his crucifixion. All I am try to get at is that one's attitude to the truth of falsity of some explanation of purported facts should not determined whether one calls them theories, scientific or historical or musical or whatever: a theory is simply an explanation of alleged facts which implies a larger framework than the explanation itself

I do not know the definition (If there is one) of a 'historical theory'.
What you have described about the resurrection (in a scientists' mind) correlates with a hypothesis, i.e. an explanation of the known 'facts'
As has been said a Scientific Theory is a very clearly defined term and is of the highest order of explanation for the natural world. It is NOT a good guess.

[Sel]

Thanks Altfish. Your explanation was better than mine I have been looking for a chart that explains fully the difference between the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context as opposed to the general meaning of the word in everyday language. It seems to have disappeared from my files

[Alan H]

There is a good explanation on Rationalwiki: Scientific theory

[animist]

oh dear, I am starting to feel a bit banging-my head-against-a-brick-wall-ish, not helped by my failure to find the emoticon for this! Could someone please attempt to explain rather than simply assert why scientific theory is so different in kind from any other kind of theory? Granted, because of its subject nature it has developed more advanced theories about itself than most types of theory, though no doubt historians do write a good deal about the historical method: this is known as historiography, just as their scientific counterparts' activities are studied in a discipline called the philosophy of science, or scientific method. I tried to explain that the methods of historians are not identical to those of scientists because of the nature of the material but that evolution, in the sense of a theory which attempted to explain the present in terms of the past, was a historical as well as a scientific theory, but in fact one can have a theory of anything if one simply tries to relate phenomena to explanations - is this so difficult to accept?

[Altfish]

I think the rest of us also feel like we are banging our heads against the walI too. I'll have another try...

I don’t think we have been asserting; Alan H posted a link to the definition of a scientific theory, what more evidence do you want? We are talking about a definition of something, and giving a link to a definition is surely not an assertion.

In normal every day terms ‘a theory’ is an idea or opinion. If you are talking about music in the pub, you may say, “I have a theory that the best musicians come from Manchester.” This is based on your gut feelings because New Order, The Fall, The Stone Roses, etc. came from there. There is little evidence and it certainly hasn’t been peer reviewed.

A scientific theory is NOT that.

A scientific theory is a set of ideas, based on evidence and careful reasoning which offers and explanation of how something in the natural world works. A scientific theory can make predictions. The Theory of Gravity predicts that if I drop a book on this planet it will fall to the ground. If that doesn’t happen either the Theory is wrong or the conditions are exceptional.

I’m not a historian so do not know what a historical theory is; but to be the same as a scientific theory it would have to make predictions. So, and this is a daft example, “We have had two World Wars with Germany in the last century therefore we will have two in this century.”

Trying to relate phenomena to explanations in science is called a Hypothesis. Hypotheses are tested, critiqued, peer reviewed and may after many years of this become theories; but most don’t because they are found to be wanting.

[animist]

I don’t think we have been asserting; Alan H posted a link to the definition of a scientific theory, what more evidence do you want?

evidence of what?

We are talking about a definition of something, and giving a link to a definition is surely not an assertion.

indeed certainly not, but then in itself it is simply a definition and not evidence of an assertion. But anyway, I do have some idea of what a scientific theory is and I am not claiming that all types of theory are the same, only that scientific theories are not fundamentally different from any other type

In normal every day terms ‘a theory’ is an idea or opinion. If you are talking about music in the pub, you may say, “I have a theory that the best musicians come from Manchester.” This is based on your gut feelings because New Order, The Fall, The Stone Roses, etc. came from there. There is little evidence and it certainly hasn’t been peer reviewed.

no, that is not the case at all. The "opinion" you have cited is really largely a personal preference and therefore a poor example of the point you are trying to make; only if your listener shares your tastes for those specific bands do you have a hope of getting them to agree with you. If they do share your tastes then you are on to something because you have "evidence" that these good bands come from a specific place. But try to think of this in a way which excludes the value judgments which are embedded in what you said. You could be a pop music historian who develops a theory that Manchester-based bands all had some sociological characteristic of note (I used to read a journal called "Popular Music and Society"!) and your theory would be based on what would be essentially "scientific", ie objective, methods of research based on interviews, questionnaires, biographical information and so on.

A scientific theory is a set of ideas, based on evidence and careful reasoning which offers and explanation of how something in the natural world works. A scientific theory can make predictions. The Theory of Gravity predicts that if I drop a book on this planet it will fall to the ground. If that doesn’t happen either the Theory is wrong or the conditions are exceptional.

well, if the conditions were exceptional then the theory would still be wrong in some way. I agree on the whole, but I am not sure all scientific theories do make predictions, at least not neatly testable predictions. Tetenterre and I have had some exchanges on the thread about global warming, and he finds the fact that current climate change "science" does not generate truly testable predictions to be a reason for not calling it true science - so do you agree? And going back to the OP, if evolution is a paradigmatic scientific theory, what predictions does it generate? The truth is that both these sciences are historical as well as scientific in nature and for that reason use the techniques of historians as well as those of scientists.

I’m not a historian so do not know what a historical theory is; but to be the same as a scientific theory it would have to make predictions. So, and this is a daft example, “We have had two World Wars with Germany in the last century therefore we will have two in this century.”

well, to repeat, I did not say that historical theories were just like scientific theories, but in fact it may be possible to learn from history: for instance the long history of failed invasions of Afghanistan could have predicted the problems with the Nato involvement has encountered there, and some historians have made this point. What history does not do AFAIK is to use hypotheses very much, but then neither possibly does climate change science or evolutionary science.

Trying to relate phenomena to explanations in science is called a Hypothesis. Hypotheses are tested, critiqued, peer reviewed and may after many years of this become theories; but most don’t because they are found to be wanting.

actually I don't quite agree. Theories are the things which attempt to explain phenomena and hypotheses are predictions from the theory which involve testing in some way; theories survive until they are disproved by unfavourable results for the hypotheses they predict

[Altfish]

Because of the limit on 'embedded quotes this reply will be in 2 or maybe 3 parts...

I don’t think we have been asserting; Alan H posted a link to the definition of a scientific theory, what more evidence do you want?

evidence of what?

We are talking about a definition of something, and giving a link to a definition is surely not an assertion.

indeed certainly not, but then in itself it is simply a definition and not evidence of an assertion. But anyway, I do have some idea of what a scientific theory is and I am not claiming that all types of theory are the same, only that scientific theories are not fundamentally different from any other type

You did ask for “…explain rather than simply assert why scientific theory is so different in kind from any other kind of theory?”
I thought that reference to a definition of what is meant by a scientific theory was a damned good start.
Perhaps you could give us a definition of what is meant by a Historic theory

In normal every day terms ‘a theory’ is an idea or opinion. If you are talking about music in the pub, you may say, “I have a theory that the best musicians come from Manchester.” This is based on your gut feelings because New Order, The Fall, The Stone Roses, etc. came from there. There is little evidence and it certainly hasn’t been peer reviewed.

no, that is not the case at all. The "opinion" you have cited is really largely a personal preference and therefore a poor example of the point you are trying to make; only if your listener shares your tastes for those specific bands do you have a hope of getting them to agree with you. If they do share your tastes then you are on to something because you have "evidence" that these good bands come from a specific place. But try to think of this in a way which excludes the value judgments which are embedded in what you said. You could be a pop music historian who develops a theory that Manchester-based bands all had some sociological characteristic of note (I used to read a journal called "Popular Music and Society"!) and your theory would be based on what would be essentially "scientific", ie objective, methods of research based on interviews, questionnaires, biographical information and so on.

A personal preference in everyday speak, i.e. ‘by the man in the street’, is often called a theory by the person using it. My example may have been poor, but that does not make my statement false.
Perhaps I may say, “I have a theory about the disappearance of flight MH370” Whatever my ‘theory’ is, it will NOT be a ‘scientific theory’ but it is the sort of phrase that is used by Joe Public and that usage of the word theory is an accepted and given as one usage in dictionaries.

[Altfish]

A scientific theory is a set of ideas, based on evidence and careful reasoning which offers and explanation of how something in the natural world works. A scientific theory can make predictions. The Theory of Gravity predicts that if I drop a book on this planet it will fall to the ground. If that doesn’t happen either the Theory is wrong or the conditions are exceptional.

well, if the conditions were exceptional then the theory would still be wrong in some way. I agree on the whole, but I am not sure all scientific theories do make predictions, at least not neatly testable predictions. Tetenterre and I have had some exchanges on the thread about global warming, and he finds the fact that current climate change "science" does not generate truly testable predictions to be a reason for not calling it true science - so do you agree? And going back to the OP, if evolution is a paradigmatic scientific theory, what predictions does it generate? The truth is that both these sciences are historical as well as scientific in nature and for that reason use the techniques of historians as well as those of scientists.

If the conditions were exceptional, the Theory would not be wrong. In my example of gravity, the theory doesn’t fail if, say, because you are in a NASA weightlessness simulator and the book you drop doesn’t fall but floats. Again, not a great example, but you get my drift.

To be a scientific theory IT DOES HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE PREDICTIONS. That is part of the definition.
I do have to agree that predictions can’t be made (or reliably made) in the field of Climate Change – because Climate Change is NOT a scientific theory!

I’m not a historian so do not know what a historical theory is; but to be the same as a scientific theory it would have to make predictions. So, and this is a daft example, “We have had two World Wars with Germany in the last century therefore we will have two in this century.”

well, to repeat, I did not say that historical theories were just like scientific theories, but in fact it may be possible to learn from history: for instance the long history of failed invasions of Afghanistan could have predicted the problems with the Nato involvement has encountered there, and some historians have made this point. What history does not do AFAIK is to use hypotheses very much, but then neither possibly does climate change science or evolutionary science.

I have already said that Climate Change is not a theory; but evolution very much is so, because it can and does make predictions. E.g. It predicts that we will never find rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian rock strata. Indeed, that is often cited of an example of evidence that would disprove evolution…it has not yet happened.
A better example is the discovery of Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil between fish and mammals. Evolution was able to predict when such a fossil would have occurred; so, scientists started looking in the late Devonian river sediments on Ellesmere Island in Canada, an area that had a high chance of producing such a creature. 5-years later they discovered the transitional fossil that we now know as Tiktaalik.