MaulerX said:
And the fact still remains that science has not proven evolution with any type of certainty, as referenced in that very link you posted. IMO the different meanings of the word "theory" become irrelevent as long as that fact remains. Ironically, it is people in the scientific community that refuse to accept things that have not been proven to a certainty.
Personally I believe that some things have evolved, but that not everything has evolved. If certain things evolved from an origin, then how did the origin came to be? I believe that there are questions that we may never know the answer to. |
OK, that wasn't a fantastically written article by any means, but I think it's easy to see what the author's getting at. But reading your post I just have to ask, did you actually read it?
I mean, you ask that something has to be proven to a the point of being certain. In science, and the article hammers this home, nothing can be proven (to a certainty). Maybe in maths, but not in science.
A theory is something that can be tested, validated and adapted. If observations don't fit with the theory, then the theory must change. Simple as. Is this a guess, like you seem to think it is? No. It's a good method of determining an increasingly accurate description of a natural phenomenon. This fits the objective of science far better than "proving things" does.
So in that case, do we know everything about evolution? No.
Do we know enough about it that to be sure it happens? Yes, it's a well developed theory.
I hope this explaination helps.
...
By the way, I'm not here to argue evolution, I made a promise to myself over a year ago that I would never do that again. I haven't done so since. I'm only here to address more general misconceptions about science and the scientific method.
