Only a theory

Samuel Murray wrote:

In scientific terms, "observation" means "what you can see" (or hear, or detect, or observe). You can only observe something while it happens. You can't observe evolution (or any event or process that took place long ago or over a long period of time, during which time no-one was observing it).

efreitag wrote:
It's not the job of natural science to prove hypotheses (or theories, if you want). Quite the contrary, it's their job to disprove them.

Apart from that, evolution can be observed even in the narrow definition of the word that you seem to use (Oliver has already quoted relevant statements).

Evolution theory is a "theory" in sense 1 of the original post:
* A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena (yes!);
* a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment (yes!),
* and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts (yes!);
* a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed (yes!).

German uses the same both definitions (haven't looked it up, though). While creationists could use this for their purposes in German as well, I agree with Riccardo: It doesn't happen, because there aren't any of them here (at least not in any significant number, and if there were, they wouldn't be taken seriously).

LilianBNekipelo wrote:
The theory of evolution has never be proven beyond the reasonable doubt. It it is stll just a theory in the second sense, even though it is often being presented as an axiom -- a theory in the first sense. You made yourself very clear in your first post.

Miguel Carmona wrote:
Doesn't the very fact that you exist prove that at one point your parents did something so you got conceived? Did we have to witness your parents do it for us to prove that they actually did it?

Samuel Murray wrote:



I've mulled over this statement of yours and tried to see it in various lights, but I can't quite get my head around it. I don't think I agree with it.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that scientists dream up fantasies and then set about to disprove them, and when they can't disprove them, they accept the fantasies as fact.

Okay, but let's evaluate whether general creationism is also a theory in sense 1 of the original post:

* A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; (yes, absolutely)

* a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, (no, not really)

* and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; (yes, by 20% of Europeans, and by 40% of Americans)

* a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. (yes, if you're a believer)

In your first post, you said:

Fifteen million Germans are confident that evolution is pure fiction. Seven million Germans are not sure about whether evolution is fact or fiction. Is that what you mean by "not in any significant number"? (-: I think there can be no doubt that "such an argument" would be taken seriously by a large number of Germans.

The question (that Oliver asks, also) is whether the German word(s) for "theory" can be used (misused) by anti-evolutionists to discredit or downplay evolution, in the same way as it is done in English. And I don't think you or Richard have answered the original question.

efreitag wrote:
German uses the same both definitions … . … creationists could use this for their purposes in German as well

LilianBNekipelo wrote:
I absolutely agree with you, Samuel. Evolution is just a theory, that cannot be proven in an experimental way because we cannot make one species evolve into another in an experimental way, ...

efreitag wrote:
It's not the job of natural science to prove hypotheses (or theories, if you want). Quite the contrary, it's their job to disprove them. That's one thing that distinguishes a natural scientist from a mathematician, who actually can prove a statement in a way that this proof will be true eternally.

A natural scientist will always have to check his hypothesis/theory against nature. If any contradiction is found, the theory has to be adopted or replaced by a better one.

Oliver Walter wrote:


Oh yes, we can! Or, at least we can come very close. See, for example, the story of Dmitry Konstantinovich Belyaev, who came close to forcing foxes to evolve into dogs (over ten generations):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Konstantinovich_Belyaev

And, we humans have made kale evolve into cabbages and broccoli.
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/the-first-broccoli/

The above show that evolution is possible; the existence of natural variation (offspring are not identical to their parents) and some (even if only a small) degree of competition for survival (i.e. variations in the number of offspring produced) lead to the conclusion that it must occur.

I suppose I should not be surprised that this question about the word "theory" has virtually become a revealing debate about the validity of the theory of evolution.

Any contributions to the linguistic question, please?

Oliver

Oliver Walter wrote:
And, we humans have made kale evolve into cabbages and broccoli.
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/the-first-broccoli/

See, for example, the story of Dmitry Konstantinovich Belyaev, who came close to forcing foxes to evolve into dogs (over ten generations):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Konstantinovich_Belyaev

LilianBNekipelo wrote:
... but you cannot create a bird out of a lizard.

Neil Coffey wrote:



Whatever people's personal beliefs, it's important not to miss the point that when *scientists* use the word "theory" to refer to evolution, they really are meaning it in the first sense of "framework of explanation that accounts for evidence and makes predictions" (the same sense of "theory" as in "theory of gravity", "wave theory" etc). To scientists, there is no really no doubt about what this piece of terminology is referring to. It's not that they secretly don't think that evolution has reached the status of a scientific theory but are trying to pretend that it has: to them, it simply has reached that status and there's no ambiguity about the meaning of the term "theory" in this case.


[Edited at 2013-12-14 22:19 GMT]

Oliver Walter wrote:


"As we'll see in a later chapter, it is unfortunately necessary to explain, again and again, that modern species don't evolve into other modern species, they just share ancestors: they are cousins." [Dawkins, Chapter 2]
"It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips ..., continue the list as long as desired." [ibid. Chapter 1]
"The main point I want to draw out of domestication is its astonishing power to change the shape and behaviour of wild animals and the speed with which it does so. Breeders are almost like modellers with endlessly malleable clay, or like sculptors wielding chisels, carving dogs or horses, or cows or cabbages, to their whim. I shall return to this image shortly. The relevance to natural evolution is that, although the selecting agent is man and not nature, the process is otherwise exactly the same. This is why Darwin gave so much prominence to domestication at the beginning of On the Origin of Species. Anybody can understand the principle of evolution by artificial selection. Natural selection is the same, with one minor detail changed'" [ibid. Chapter 2].

The "minor detail" - natural or artificial selection - is what makes the artificial process hundreds of times faster than the natural one.]

[Edited at 2013-12-15 13:06 GMT]

LilianBNekipelo wrote:

Yes , I understand.

LilianBNekipelo wrote:
You can prove gravity, though, while you cannot prove evolution with 100%, or even 90%, certainty.

LilianBNekipelo wrote:
the evolutionary theory is a theory in the second sense, as of now, although it was presented as something axiomatic many years ago, when people were made to blindly believe it.