Why do scientists say that evolution is a theory

Assuming that we are using the hard definition of theory, different people will give different answers to that question. Darwinists have the right to believe that neo-Darwinian is a verified and established explanation—i. It is as much a fact as gravity or erosion.

Scientists have measured evolutionary changes in scores of organisms. Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both. The debate over evolution can be confusing because equivocation has crept into the discussion. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching.

Used equivocally, evolution is too imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion. So is evolution a fact? But Dr. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.

Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. In the century and a half since Darwin, scientists have uncovered exquisite details about many of the mechanisms that underlie biological variation, inheritance, and natural selection, and they have shown how these mechanisms lead to biological change over time. Because of this immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts.

The NAS is wrong. In short, no. Something else? Great scientific claims must be backed by great scientific evidence. The theory also explains how groups change. Others do not. Their ancestors did well enough to pass on their genes, after all! But species are always changing. So are their environments.

Sometimes their environment might have more or less food. A new predator might appear. The climate might change. Those challenges make it harder or easier for some individuals in a group to survive.

Since every individual within a group is different, some usually have traits that help them survive the change. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce. By finding consistent agreement among many diverse pairs of measurements which are made with unrelated methods, scientists have built up confidence in the measurements themselves, and the stability of various factors in the universe.

It all fits together into a consistent picture. On the surface, the coral measurements would seem to be conclusive proof that the corals were alive hundreds of millions of years ago.

But the argument makes two assumptions. A creation scientist could legitimately ask the question: what if the rate of radioactive decay was a few hundred thousand times faster in BCE that it is today.

And what if the earth's deceleration rate was also a few hundred thousand times greater at the time of Adam and Eve. Under these conditions, the analysis would show that the coral was alive circa BCE. Similarly, the creation scientist could suggest that the rate of space dust accumulation was , times greater in BCE.

Again, the measurements would show that the moon would then be only 6, years old. There is, of course, no evidence that nature has changed or is changing in these really basic ways. Scientists have used many different methods to date many different rocks, fossils, earth formations, fire pits etc. In order to make the observations fit the model of a young earth, basic factors of nature must have radically changed in a bewildering variety of ways.

Based on the preponderance of evidence, essentially all biological and geological scientists believe that the earth is very old -- having coalesced on the order of 4. We have prepared a list of over a dozen indicators that believers in evolution have used to show that the earth is old and has been in existence for much longer than 10, years.

We also have a list of over a dozen other indicators that believers in creation science have used to show that the earth is young and came into existence less than 10, years ago. Both lists contain rebuttals. If a scientist discovered a proof that the earth was actually young, she or he would totally demolish many current scientific theories. They would be a shoo-in for one of the next Nobel Prizes in science. It is doubtful that anyone would pass up such an opportunity. We conclude that there are no obvious proofs of a young earth that scientists will accept.

About this site. About us. Our beliefs. Your first visit? Contact us. External links. Good books. Visitors' essays. Our forum. New essays. Other features. Buy a CD. Vital notes. World religions. Christian def'n. Shared beliefs. Handle change.

Bible topics. Bible inerrancy. Bible harmony. Interpret Bible. Beliefs, creeds.