How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

[CHYUII]

Sqrl said:

CHYUII said:

highwaystar101 said:

Theory =/= fact

It really annoys me when people think that a theory is just an untested idea or something. A theory has had to of been tested and examined beyond the realms of "just an idea", it has to have a lot of tested evidence backing it up to become a theory. If it was testable but no evidence existed then it would be a hypothesis.

 

 

 

 You are splitting hairs for the sake of it.

Theory is not a fact.

MacroEvolution is not a fact- it is philosophy.

The test do not prove the theory so it is still a theory, unproven, not fact, not LAW.

 

 

You missunderstand a bit actually.

Theories exist to explain how the laws of the universe interact practically.  Theories do not become laws, they often contain them or propose them.  Or what is more common is that a theory will rise from a law.

For instanace Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is our theory of how gravity works.  But regardless of whether General Relativity is the exact description for the complex workings of gravity (it isn't a complete view we know that for sure actually) we know there is still gravity and laws that it follows that are put into context by the theory but not one and the same. So any new theory would have to account for those laws to be considered complete even if the current theory explaining those laws is shown to be incorrect. 

So we work out the laws mathematically and analytically and use those robust and thoroughly tested principles as the basis for a theory.  The reason a law is more certain however is because it aims to make a statement in a narrow band...something like "All prime numbers, excepting the special case of two, are odd." Where as a theory aims at a very broad band such as explaining how life came to be.  Kind of a bad example but it gets the point acrossed that laws have a disinct advantage in that their goals aren't quite as lofty as trying to unify the understanding of a whole subject but rather just trying to make a statement that can be relied on about a small piece of a larger issue.

Nevertheless, I confidently hold that the Macro-evolution defies the LAWs, and if LAWs are broken (being proven and as you said specific) then by default evolution is false. If nothing else it is harder to accept than ID, for me, because it defies what I witness and see everyday.