A testable theory with reams of evidence from independent lines of enquiry built up over 100 years, is still a whole lot better than some ancient scripture, full of inconsistencies and antiquated morality, written at a time when understanding of the cosmos was extremely limited.

In any case, evolution is as strongly supported as any scientific “law.” Nothing in biology makes sense without it. Evolution’s explanatory power, from its relatively simple premise, to illuminating the varieties of species on Earth, including all their histories, interactions, similarities and differences, is astonishing.

Posted: June 13th 2007

See all questions answered by RTambree


I think that part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of what the term “theory” means in science. It is not a hunch or a guess, as the word is used by laypeople. In science, the term theory means a testable model capable of predicting future observations or occurances. It can be tested through experiment or empirical observation. For scientists, “theory” and “fact” are not opposed to each other.

Stephen Hawking had this to say about scientific theories.

a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

The theory of evolution fits that description very well.

Posted: June 13th 2007

See all questions answered by Seshat

Russell Blackford www

The term “theory” is something of a misnomer, if the word is taken in its everyday sense of “speculation” or “conjecture” or even “guess”. In science, a theory is an explanatory model that may well be confirmed by overwhelming evidence. Scientists use the word “hypothesis” for a more conjectural idea that stands in need of testing, but the theory of evolution is not a mere hypothesis.

There is now evidential support, from many fields, for a scientific model that explains the diversity of life on Earth as the outcome of biological evolution. New forms have developed, over millions of years, through purely naturalistic mechanisms that prominently include the processes of natural selection described by Darwin (though there is also room for such things as random “genetic drift” and the effects of one-off catastrophic events, such as Earth’s encounter with a small asteroid some 65 million years ago).

All the evidence coheres powerfully to demonstrate the essential truth of the evolutionary model. For example, we can trace the evolution of particular forms of life, date the age of the Earth and the Sun, and correlate the required ages of particular fossilised organisms to the ages of independently-dated rock strata. There is an enormous, and constantly growing, amount of data. It all adds up to the same story, and new observations from all fields of science invariably slot into the “right” places in the evolutionary narrative.

Indeed, the “theory” of evolution, the overall Darwinian model, is now so well-confirmed, by so much data, that it has become inconceivable that its essentials could be wrong. Think how surprising it would be if it turned out that the Sun revolves around the Earth, after all. That’s the level of certainty we are talking about; if the theory of evolution were not essentially correct, it would be as surprising as that to scientists who understand the data.

Posted: June 12th 2007

See all questions answered by Russell Blackford


Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum