RateItAll: The Opinion Network

The lesson is far from over. This misconception is due to the lack of understanding of what a theory (in scientific terms) is. Saying something is a "theory" in science holds a lot of weight. This is where one reviewer had gotten a definition of "theory": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory Notice, however, that that was number two out of several definitions. In common usage, "theory" is interchangable with the term "hypothesis", which scientifically is a very different thing. In science, a "theory" is an explanation or mechanism that is tested to the point that is generally accepted in the scientific community until proven false. Wikipedia puts it well: "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) Beyond that, the "theory" isn't that evolution HAPPENS (it clearly does; it's observable between generations. Between your parents, you, and your children, evolution occurs. You hear about how a baby has "his mommy's eyes" or "her daddy's nose"? That's part of evolution, and, more specifically, natural selection). The question is about which mechanism DRIVES evolution. At the time of "Origin"'s publication, the Lamarkian theory of evolution (best summed up by "use it or lose it") was prevalent. Darwin's THEORY: Darwin (and others in his time) found evidence that inherited traits are the answer, and whether or not those traits survive to be inherited. Problem for Darwin was, he didn't know HOW. Had he known about Gregor Mendel's experiments, he might have hit upon it: with modern discoveries in DNA and genetics, now we know by which mechanism traits are inherited. "Origin of Species" is not the first nor last word in evolution, but it's the most prominent.

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Thus endeth the lesson.

It never ceases to be necessary to remind people on here that the word "theory" in scientific usage, does not indicate a random guess or a wild notion or idle conjecture, but a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Thus it follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

Thus endeth the lesson.

It has and will pass the test of time. Scientific truth will and should prevail no matter how many bible thumpers bump their head against it. I see someone needs to find out what a "sceintific theory actually is." And I don't mean go run ask pastor either!

So upsetting to some who adhere to Christianity that they are still trying to poke holes in Darwin's work decades after it has become accepted scientific knowledge and principle.