In science a theory is a testable 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 verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
You probably meant to phrase this as "Fact" and "Fiction".
If you don't believe in evolution, you can also look up "lactose intolerance" in Wikipedia. It gives a fairly good breakdown of which genetic groups have developed lacose tolerance and which haven't. See? Evolution is still in process!
The problem here is that once an hypothesis has been confirmed through evidence it is called a theory. So, you can't have a theory which has not yet been confirmed, by definition.
In casual conversation, the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' have been conflated, and now have roughly the same meaning. In science, which is the arena in which discussions of evolution happen, they do not.
Perhaps an approach asking if the respondent accepts evolution as factual, without using the word 'theory'?
It is simply a matter of using a word with ambiguous multiple definitions, a not-uncommon circumstance in English.
The average person confines his/her usage of the word 'theory' to the colloquial meaning while addressing a subject in which the scientific meaning is clearly the one intended. This difference in general vs. specific meaning is what creationists exploit to say the the theory of evolution is not proven, when in fact, it is one of, if not THE, most robust theories known to science.
Since we will never know for sure, we can only assume. That makes it a theory. It makes a lot more sense than the creation theory, but something had to start the first life.
I believe that it is true. However, there is not anything proving it is 100% true so in my opinion it is incorrect to call it fact as it still is only a theory. Even though it is a widely accepted theory that looks to be true
We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Favorite
Embed
Options
Loading...
From Wikipedia:
In science a theory is a testable 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 verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
You probably meant to phrase this as "Fact" and "Fiction".
If you don't believe in evolution, you can also look up "lactose intolerance" in Wikipedia. It gives a fairly good breakdown of which genetic groups have developed lacose tolerance and which haven't. See? Evolution is still in process!
Maybe I should have put it this way:
People think evolution is a theory which is not yet been confirmed. I wonder the percentage of this group.
The problem here is that once an hypothesis has been confirmed through evidence it is called a theory. So, you can't have a theory which has not yet been confirmed, by definition.
In casual conversation, the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' have been conflated, and now have roughly the same meaning. In science, which is the arena in which discussions of evolution happen, they do not.
Perhaps an approach asking if the respondent accepts evolution as factual, without using the word 'theory'?
So the word "Theory" must have a bad reputation. As in "Theorical idea" not yet been proved by practical means..
It is simply a matter of using a word with ambiguous multiple definitions, a not-uncommon circumstance in English.
The average person confines his/her usage of the word 'theory' to the colloquial meaning while addressing a subject in which the scientific meaning is clearly the one intended. This difference in general vs. specific meaning is what creationists exploit to say the the theory of evolution is not proven, when in fact, it is one of, if not THE, most robust theories known to science.
And you are right, people do think it has not been confirmed. They are incorrect in that belief, but hold it nevertheless.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 243 days ago by deleted user ReplySince we will never know for sure, we can only assume. That makes it a theory. It makes a lot more sense than the creation theory, but something had to start the first life.
Like, God?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 243 days ago by deleted user ReplyI believe that it is true. However, there is not anything proving it is 100% true so in my opinion it is incorrect to call it fact as it still is only a theory. Even though it is a widely accepted theory that looks to be true
I want to answer just 'Yes', as it is most definitely (currently) a Theory, and may well also (in the future, some time?) be a Fact.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 243 days ago by deleted user ReplyThe anti-evolutionists have played their part but I would also blame religion in general.
Religions teach the superiority of the irrational and 'supernatural' over fact and reason.