Is the Theory of Evolution a fact? Is it silly to even ask such a question when, in most textbooks, we refer to Darwinian Evolution, and other branches of evolution, under the umbrella title of "Theory of Evolution"? Can a theory be a fact?
According to the late Stephen Jay Gould — Harvard professor and leading spokesperson for evolutionary theory right up until the time of his death in 2002 — Evolution, while still a theory, is also a fact. Is it me, or is this approach faintly reminiscent of former President Clinton parsing the meaning of the word "is" in front of a grand jury?
Gould goes on to assert that "'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess." Unfortunately, there are no dictionaries in existence today which would describe a theory as "imperfect fact." Rather, dictionaries describe theory as a "proposed explanation," or a "group of general propositions." And, as if the waters were not murky enough with this statement, Gould elaborates, saying that "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
Gould believed that in the "fact" of evolution, and often asserted that the only unknown about evolution was the exact mechanism. While many have never heard this explanation by Gould, this line of reasoning has been widely quoted and used by proponents of evolution to support what they believe. But this is not a scientific argument, rather, it is a philosophical one. Which is why Gould then tries to offer a relevant example showing how something can be a fact while still having a theoretical component.
What relevant example does Gould offer? Gravity of course. As we well know, an object dropped from a building will drop at a rate, based on it's mass, that can be reproduced over and over, no matter how many times the object is dropped. Based on observation and applied mathematical principles, we know that gravity is predictable, even though we don't know exactly how or why it works the way it works.
As Gould rightly asserts, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome." That is a fact, but then Gould tries to borrow on this example to insist that "humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." In other words, evolution is like gravity, we know it is real, we just don't know exactly how it works.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Tim
Flanagan ludicrously misrepresents evolution. OF COURSE whether evolution is a fact and/or a theory "is not a scientific argument, rather, it is a philosophical one" -- these questions fall within an area of Philosophy known as Epistemology. This in no way detracts from the legitimacy of the arguments.
Macro-evolution, in the form of speciation (one species splitting into two) has been observed by modern science in the lab and in the field.
2 - David Flanagan
I think something I should have done with this article, and did not because it was already long and involved, was break down the three theories which are rarely explicity discussed. Of course, under the umbrella of Darwinism we have "Natural Selection," "Common Descent," and "Random Mutation."
Even Darwin often wrote about common descent and natural selection interchangeably, but really, he proposed common descent, which most biologists adhere to and which I myself believe is quite well supported, along with natural selection.
Natural selection is readily observable in nature. You can look at the way Malaria seems to quickly become immune to various drugs developed, even when a number of drugs are mixed into "cocktails." But, just as with the finches example above, once the drug ceases to be administered, the more common type of Malaria returns and the specialized type with the immunity goes away.
Why? Because as often as not, selection works to take away a trait that confers a weakness to an organism. The human genomic response to Malaria in Africa was the appearance of the Sickle Trait, which conferred immunity to Malaria, but with the negative side-effect being that, if both parents carry Sickle Trait, then there is a 1 in 4 chance that their children will die of Sickle Cell Anemia.
The long and short of my point here is that, while we can see evolution in action in some ways, there are major assumptions researchers make even now which have little basis in fact. And they like to offer broad-brush statements regarding evolution, making it seem as if this theory can account for the origin and development of all life.
This is not the case, and even simple discoveries such as the one I mention in my article hurt their credibility.
Enough said for now.
David
3 - duane
David: As we well know, an object dropped from a building will drop at a rate, based on it's mass ....
Really? You seem to know something that ain't so. See Galileo for the latest developments.
----------------------------------------------------
So, OK, I'm probably wasting my time with this, but I'll give it a shot ....
Is the Theory of Evolution a fact?
No, a theory is a different thing from a fact.
Example: Open your refrigerator door.
Fact: After a while the temperature will start to approach room temperature.
Hypothesis: Energy is being conserved and entropy increase drives the direction of the temperature change.
Prediction: If I drop enough ice into boiling water, the boiling will stop, since energy has to be conserved and, if entropy has to increase, the ice will melt and the water will stop boiling.
Experiment #1: I dropped two trays of ice cubes into a pot of boiling water, and the water stopped boiling.
Conclusion: The experiment confirms the hypothesis.
Theory: The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics
More experiments: explain how steam power works, design nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams, internal combustion engines, etc.
Conclusion: The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics appear to hold up.
---------------------------------------------------
Q: Are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics facts?
A: No, they are theories.
Q: Just theories?
A: They are very general statements of the way nature seems to behave. When they were stated, they were not derived, they were simply asserted, after centuries of head scratching and alternate hypotheses that didn't make the cut. We don't have anything in science that is "just" a theory. We call those hypotheses. Mathematicians call them conjectures.
Q: is it possible that the First and Second Laws are wrong?
A: Yes. It's possible. But, to date, they have never been shown to be wrong.
Q: So, I have a theory that has never been shown to be wrong -- there are Martian civilizations under the surface of Mars, part of my Martian Directed Panspermia Theory. Shall I write a textbook?
A: Haha. A scientific theory must be testable and it must be tested. Your theory is testable, but it has not been tested. Until it is, you are stuck with a mere hypothesis.
Q: If the First and Second Laws might be wrong, then why are they called "Laws"?
A: Scientists are entirely capable of employing sloppy vocabulary to their work. They're only human. No one has ever bothered to correct this particular little oversight. It has never mattered whether you call it a Principle or a Law or a Theory. Scientists know what is meant by the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Universal Law of Gravitation. All so-called laws and principles, such as the Principle of Relativity, are theories. The General Theory of Relativity is properly named, for example.
Q: Why aren't the Laws of Thermodynamics facts?
A: Aha, I think I see the problem. You equate the word "fact" with "truth." You are asking whether or not the Laws of Thermodynamics are true, right?
Q: Is it a fact that the Laws are true?
A: Don't confuse the issue.
Q: OK, here's an easy one. Is gravity a fact or a theory?
A: The existence of gravity is a fact. The mathematical description of gravity is a theory, and the explanation of gravity is still in the works. There are hypotheses.
Q: OK, but here's an example where it is perfectly valid to say "just a theory" because nobody knows how gravity really works.
A: Not quite. Both Newton's version and Einstein's more sophisticated version describe the behavior of matter under the influence of gravity. They are used to plot satellite orbits, and explain the positions of the planets. The "theory" in this case is a series of mathematical symbols relating acceleration to mass or spacetime curvature to mass-energy. They work extremely well in a predictive sense, so they have been given the status of full-fledged theories. The fact that both versions require the symbol G, which is the gravitational constant, and nobody can explain why G has the value that it does, is a deep question, and shows that a full understanding of gravity has yet to be achieved.
Q: Is gravity true?
A: Does not compute.
Q: Is Einstein's theory true? Is it a fact?
A: No to both questions. Or "No" to one and the same question, if I know you. Science does not uncover "truths." Science uncovers facts, then tries to describe, sometimes even explain, a large body of facts with theories. There is not a single Law, Principle, or Theory that any scientist worth his salt would claim to be true in a literal sense. "Truths" are for philosophers and theologians.
Q: So, you're saying that nothing in science is true? Can I quote you?
A: Ummmm ....
Q: So, logically, everything in science is false, if nothing is true.
A: Look, it's like this. Everything that constitutes a theory in science is possibly false. Every theory is falsifiable. Another prerequisite for theoryhood. A theory is our best attempt to describe Nature. If a theory makes a prediction that fails, the theory is either modified or scrapped. Galileo modified Aristotle. Einstein modified Newton. String theorists are modifying Einstein, and so it will go. But don't let's get carried away and say that everything in science is false. We maintain that facts are true --- it is true that there are nine planets ....
Q: Don't you mean eight?
A: Don't start ... It is true that the speed of light is finite. It is true that air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, other stuff, and CFCs, etc.
Q: OK, so is evolution a fact?
A: Why do I waste my breath?
4 - B-Rad
This is the problem with the internet. Anyone can claim to be a "journalist".
Mr. Flanagan, writes an entire article around the meaning of the word "theory" in science. If he was a real journalist, he would have spoken to scientists to understand how they utilize the word correctly, as Duane before me has attempted to do (thank you, Duane).
Since Mr. Flanagan has chosen to ignore normal journalistic ethics, that leaves him at a lower J-school ranking of Propagandist.
Keep dishing the same old Discovery Institute crap, David. In the meantime, science will continue to add to the mountain of evidence for evolution. If direct observation is required to believe, then David's own argument says that Intelligent Design, Creationism and God are all lies as well.
5 - Dr Dreadful
Mr Flanagan operates on the "gotcha" principle so beloved of the anti-evolutionists. He thinks, like many fools before him, that he has found the brick which will bring the whole house crashing down. He fails to understand that some new piece of research, which appears to cast a question over one aspect of the evolutionary mechanism, does not invalidate the entire theory.
Duane, excellent rebuttal. I'd be interested to read your blog, if such a thing you have. Are you a science teacher or professor by any chance?
6 - Leslie Bohn
Does Mr. Flanagan actually believe that deliberately "misunderstanding" scientific terms he clearly understands is going to convince anyone of anything?
This piece if shit essay is really just bald lie after lie.
Oh, BTW, the "correct puzzle box cover" is Jesus, right? Jesus made all the people and the trees and the goldfish and the birdies, right? Did I get it? The puzzle's Jesus!
7 - duane
My pleasure (sort of) B-Rad, and thanks Dr. D. I'm not a teacher (if I was a teacher, I would be more polite), and I don't have a blog, but thanks for asking.
Let me just add a couple of more comments before this thread peters out entirely:
First, concerning dictionaries: there are hundreds, if not thousands of terms used in scientific communication that will not show up in your bookshelf dictionary. More to the point, there are scores of terms used as scientific terminology that do appear in dictionaries but that have colloquial counterparts. Examples: relaxation, stabilization, cross-section, scatter, conservation, mode, membrane, exclusion, naked, and on and on. To add to the mess, many terms used in different scientific subfields have entirely different meanings --- plasma, inversion, accretion, nucleus, and so on. So, using the dictionary to interpret scientific dialog will often lead to confusion, as it has with Flanagan (or has it?.
Second, re: hierarchy:
Flanagan refers to "part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess." I hope it's clear that facts and theories are not linked in this hierarchy. The hierarchy is, from low to high:
ignorance
fantasy
BS
confusion
guess
hypothesis
model
theory
It's not as formal as I've laid it out, obviously. Scientists don't memorize such hierarchies. They don't really care, except when the public starts taking potshots at them. There are no committees that decide such things. That's just the way things have shaken out. There is nothing above a theory.
The problem with language arises when scientists and non-scientists attempt to communicate with each other about science. If a scientist is asked whether such and such is a fact, he knows that the language is colloquial. Scientists, like anyone else, might respond to statements such as, "Biden will be our next president" with the colloquial, "Oh is that a fact?" The question can be translated as "Is that true?" or "Is that likely?" or "You're crazy," depending on the tone of voice and inflections. Obviously, an "experiment" whose outcome will be decided in the future does not constitute a proper "fact." So, in a public setting, a scientist will often attempt to use colloquial speech in answering questions from non-scientists. This may or may not be a good idea. Clearly, it can lead to further confusion when a member of the public has some familiarity with scientific parlance. However ....
mind the quote:
A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
And drinking largely sobers us again.
....
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind;
But more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise!
Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, 1709
8 - Doug Hunter
Ahh, the old physics. It would be great if the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics could be broken then we could quit relying on fossil fuels. The 2nd law always seemed a little suspect to me. I'd pump a few $million every year into those outside-the-box geniuses to try and find an exception just on the off chance. It be the greatest scientific achievement of all time and usher in an era of unprecedented wealth and prosperity.
9 - RJ
Well-written article, David. I almost completely disagree, of course, but I realize that there are millions of my fellow Americans (and others as well) who would fully agree with you. So I'm not going to be a dick and call you stupid or ignorant or make fun of your religious beliefs or anything.
A couple points though, and then I'll probably leave this controversial subject alone (at least until the next time...):
- Micro-evolution is a fact It has been observed countless times, and we even mostly understand the mechanisms behind it (DNA + changing environmental conditions + occasional "beneficial" random genetic mutations = micro-evolution).
- Macro-evolution is indeed a theory, and one that is occasionally modified as new evidence comes in that does not fully support the previously-held theory. It is not a "fact" in the same sense that gravity is a fact, however. And there is a reason for this. If you hold an apple in your hand at eye-level, and then let it go, it will drop to the ground/floor in a matter of seconds (or less). This happens in 100% of cases where there isn't another force at work (say, an air vent directly below the apple pumping out wind at 150 MPH or something). Macro-evolution, however, has not been directly observable because it takes literally tens of thousands of years (or more) to occur. And scientific-minded human beings have not been around that long to observe and measure this phenomenon. So it's still a "theory" even though most (but not all) of the available evidence (or "facts") support it.
- If an omnipotent God designed the human eye (as opposed to natural selection/evolution), why are there near-sighted, far-sighted, color-blind, and completely blind people around? Why did God curse these people with such a disability, when He was the One who created the Eye and could freely give them sight, if he so deemed? See, that's an example of a question you probably cannot fully answer with your ideology/worldview, yet such a weakness in your argument is not likely to make you throw away all your deeply-held beliefs. So why should scientists throw away their science- and fact-based theory of evolution because of some unexplained questions?
10 - Christopher Rose
Not for the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with RJ when he's not writing about Politics. Well said, Sir!
11 - Vic
RJ, there certainly is an answer to your eyesight question with the Christian ideology/worldview as you call it.
Knowing the nature of commenters on this site, I won't bother going into any detail.
Vic
12 - Leslie Bohn
Probably best, Vic.
Religious explanations rarely hold up to any kind of actual scrutiny.
13 - RJ
CR: Thank you. :-)
Vic: I'm sure there are any number of possible religion-based explanations for it, but none of them are testable in a controlled, scientific experiment. And if a claim is not testable, it is also not falsifiable, and so therefore it cannot be considered a credible scientific theory/hypothesis. It could still be true, of course, but the believers would be going solely on faith instead of evidence.
And yes, I'm agnostic (but not an atheist).
14 - Jesse
It's an ugly modern tendency to attack and break down fully-developed, well-understood, eminently productive disciplines like "science" in favor of personal worldviews. Talk to a scientist (or Duane) and you will find a person who is well-informed and who fully understands, to an absurd degree, the scope of their research. They know the difference between a theory and a fact... between data and interpretation... and between truth and consistency on a level that non-scientists are almost incapable of reaching.
I'm an excellent example: I'm not a scientist, so I'm using a scientifically unsound one-person sample to prove the assertion I've cited above. That happens to be my mom, who's the person I've talked to the most about this stuff.
It's an even worse problem that this kind of regressive logic is cloaked in the guise of social theory and secularism.
Mr. Flanagan, you can really upset my secularist enlightenment "evolutionist" worldview if you can articulate a convincing response to this question: If you're not proffering an alternative to evolution (such as creationism), what motivated you to write this essay? i.e. a 2000-word article that attacks the foundation of science, a discipline whose authority I trust vastly over yours?
15 - Vic
Leslie,
Thank you for making my point.
Vic
16 - Leslie Bohn
Glad we're in total agreement, Vic. Two people united against the dissemination of a religious explanation for a clearly scientific question.
17 - mike
"Supporters of evolution would argue that we have indeed observed this phenomenon, but there's a bit of bait-and-switch going on here. We can see micro-evolution in action, also known as 'adaptation', but macro-evolution, the shifting of one species to a new and entirely different species has never been observed.
" that is a lie. plants speciate all the time through genome duplication. a plant species that is diploid can in the wild undergo genome duplication ending up with a plant that is tetraploid- it can no longer interbreed with its parent species successfully.
evolution is a fact as is gravity. We have large quantities of evidence for both [in fact I would argue that the evidence for evolution outnumbers that for gravity in general] the theory of evolution is an explanation for these facts that has been challenged numerous times by actual evidence. the theory of gravity is also an explanation for the facts of gravity that has been challenged numerous times and in the case of relativity, expanded upon newton's explanations for gravity.
a scientific theory is not something you just scribbled down on a cocktail napkin and assumed to be true, that would be a better description of intelligent design creationism. ID would be a conjecture, not a theory, not even a hypothesis as it does not posit any experiments that have the possibility of falsifying ID. evolutionary theory on the other hand, makes a series of predictions, one well known example is that if humans evolved from primate ancestors there must have been a mechanism for humans to end up with 46 chromosomes while the apes generally have 48. prediction: two pairs of chromosomes fused to form a single pair. this is testible and in fact was tested and confirmed. it turns out it is chromosome 2. human chromosome 2 is the result of a head to head fusion of two primate chromosomes. how do we know this? the human genome project. we sequenced the entire genome and compared sequences from chromosome 2 with primate chromosomes. with chromosome fusion events we'd expect 3 things: 1) that the fused chromosome is remarkably similar to two separate chromosomes [the chromosomes that fused] 2) rudimentary sub-telemeric repeats inside of the fused chromosome [normally at the ends but in fusion events the two ends are joined inside the chromosome] ecample: ACHROMOSOMEA and AFUSIONA fuse to form ACHROMOSOMEAAFUSIONA where the As are the sub-telemeric repeats. guess what we found? that's right they're sitting at bp 114455823-114455838 right down to the base pair we know where it happened. 3)a second rudimentary centromere which we also found in chromosome 2. here's the paper from nature.
just out of curiosity how does intelligent design creationism explain chromosome 2? god did it?? which reminds me, why is it that the human genome contains more viral and bacterial remnant DNA than DNA that actually codes for proteins? god did it? the catch all answer that answers absolutely nothing and leads nowhere but ignorance.
18 - BobC
Biologists know all life evolved and all life is related. They know we share a common ancestor with the other Great Apes. They know we are most closely related to the chimpanzee apes. They know whales developed from land animals. These are all facts. Scientists know these are facts because they can see the entire history of life in DNA. They can see the history of life in amazing detail. Evolution is called a theory instead of a hypothesis because it has been successfully tested for more than a century. Evolution is a fact because the evidence for it is incredibly massive, powerful, and rapidly growing. Our development from other animals is as much as a fact as our planet's orbit around the sun.
Here's the definition of a scientific theory from answers.com:
theory: 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.
The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. Creationists like to use the public's misunderstanding of the word theory to confuse people into thinking evolution has problems. There will be healthy debates about the minor details of evolution forever. As new evidence solves these minor debates the theory of evolution becomes stronger. The basic facts of evolution have so much evidence, including extremely powerful DNA evidence, that an educated person would have to crazy to talk about "Yet Another Shake-up In Evolutionary Theory". Only an uneducated creationist would say that because of some religious boundary he's afraid to cross.
Only the Muslims countries and America have a large percentage of flat-earthers who deny the facts of evolution. In more educated countries like all of Europe and Japan, virtually everyone accepts the obvious fact humans developed from ancient apes. The problem in America and the Muslim countries is religious fundamentalism. The Muslims and the Christians are afraid of evolution because it conflicts with their religious brainwashing. Their problem could be solved if they made an effort to educate themselves, but their fear of science is too great, so they avoid studying evolution. Instead they get all their information from Liars for Jesus or Liars for Mohammed so they can continue living in their childish fantasy world.
19 - BobC
David Flanagan said: "Please understand this essential fact; when evolutionary proponents talk of a missing link, they are understating the problem considerably. It's not just one link we're missing. Instead, there are billions of missing links."
You obviously are ignorant of the very large number of fossils that have been found. One of the most famous examples is tiktaalik roseae. You also don't understand that none of these fossils are required to show that all living species share a common ancestor. The DNA evidence alone is enough to call evolution, or what creationists call macroevolution, a fact. A proven beyond any doubt fact. I suggest, Mr. Flanagan, instead of spreading lies about science, you should spend some time educating yourself.
20 - STM
Macro-evolution has already taken place among humans on this planet.
There are now two types: normal people and the English :)
I blame their perpetual misery on the weather and the food. It must have had some kind of an evolutionary effect. At its most obvious, it can be seen in the English native's dental well-being (or lack thereof).
Scientists should examine this phenomenon properly and give us a real scientific explanation.
21 - STM
And perhaps they could also explain the micro-evolutionary theory regarding French waiters, and why they have become even ruder than the average Parisian. Does the donning of a white shirt and bow tie, in combination with a surly French accent, somehow have an immediate impact on how this strange evolutionary sub-branch interacts with its fellow earthlings.
Could it be that working constantly in dim light shuts down 9/10ths of the brain?
Any answers to both questions? Would love to hear the possible explanations regarding both these mysteries.
22 - Christopher Rose
Actually, there is an update on the evolutionary theory. It turns out that there are those people who have a megastrop when their national team is beaten at cricket and they are known as Australians, or more formally Australopissus Sulkius Maximus!
23 - Christopher Rose
Actually, I've just had the misfortune to read this article, the only thing that redeemed it at all was that it was labelled opinion.
24 - Silver Surfer
Nice to see you dropping in Rosey :)
There's another game tomorrow.
I must say, it was good to see Tendulkar belting them around the park; if there was any saving grace, that was it. The man's a genius and a gentleman.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Stan, I'm working on answers to your 20 and 21, but I'm hoping that Duane may see this and come up with something. It'll be far, far better than anything I could cook up.