Why is evolution taught as fact when it is still just a theory?
366773
The "just a theory" argument is a deliberate deception by the scientists who promote creationism.\n\nIn science, a "theory" is the highest form of truth.  A theory is an idea that has been tested against the evidence and found to work as an explanation of the phenomenon being studied.  Scientists who promote creationism know this.\n\nIn popular usage, "theory" means something that may or may not be true.  Deceitful creationists deceive the public by exploiting the difference between the scientific and popular meanings of this word.  \n\nAlmost all of the several million scientists in the world recognize the theory of evolution as one of the soundest and most successful applications of science.  The theory of evolution is the central organizing principle of biology.
1014346
The REAL reason?  Those who follow Christianity often find it easiest to follow everything literally. Otherwise, they would have to evaluate EVERYTHING.  If the bible is inaccurate, what else in the religion is???\n\nBut, there ARE those who are thinking people who disbelieve for other reasons.  Evolution is the best theory with the evidence that we have.  However, there are several unexplained holes in the theory.  Its pretty clear humans got here from ape (anyone who disagrees, take an anthropology course for cryin out loud!)...but the theory still doesn't explain how something SO complicated got here.  I can believe chance would create amino acids, which create proteins, which mix with sugars and create a strand or two of DNA...but to believe that it all evolved into beings as complicated as we are today...that gets harder.\n\nPlus, we find that species mysteriously appear and disappear...there is very little evidence of change in other species.\n\nBasically, I'll go along with evolution until a better theory arrives.  Evolution is most likely with the info we have...but its far from perfect.
805297
We also teach molecular chemistry as science, even though no one can "see" a molecule.  We can indirectly observe their existence, and gather sufficent evidence to determine they must exist.  We teach Einstein's theory of relativity as science, even though we can't see an object moving at close to the speed of light.  We can't directly observe what happens, but we can infer it from a prepoderance of tangible evidence.  That is what science is all about.  The fact is that evolution is supported by far more scientific evidence than many other theories that are taught as science.\n\nNo, the fossil record is not complete.  Scientists are constantly finding new fossilized species.  If you have nothing even remotely intelligent to say, please, do us all a favor and say nothing at all.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is har
1043983
The theory is still the same- altho every thing has been prooven wrong along time ago! There has never been any scientific proof for evolution!  Dr. Kent Hovind is offering a quarter of a million dollars to whoever can proove the evolution theory! Nobody has yet! As it staes the evolution theory is still a THEORY!
418415
evolution is just mans way of trying to understand how life got here and is how it is. Its a theory and not a proven fact. People just refuse to believe a higher power created them.\nI believe in breeding and that's it. God created basic life on the planet and then through breeding of those animals we got several different species in one classification of such.
763971
Because they believe that Darwinian, human evolution is not true and/or it dilutes the faith of literal interpretationists.  According to creationists, when only Darwinian evolution is taught, then their children are confused.  In school, they hear that humans evolved over millions of years, from the tinist single celled organisms.  In church, they hear that God took clay and made one human, and then two, and then somehow other humans existed (that weren't part of the original story.)  Kids might be confused, or they might "wrongly" question the creationism story.\nThus, by showing "creationism" as an "alternative" to evolution, they can (a) reaffirm their religious beliefs as fact, even contrary to the scientific record and the scientific method, and (b) perhaps get other children to convert.  After all it's one more way of practicing decipleship -- "go ye therefore into all nations..." to reach new potential followers of Christ.
746231
ONLY a theory? hehe! Then those people don't even understand the terminology they're using. Yes a theory is a proven hypothesis (versus disproven).  Only when someone can disprove it will it lose it's status.  So evolution is a theory. :)
948721
Evolution is the best explanation we have for how species develop. It is supported by a mountain of evidence and is logical to support until new information modifies or discredits it. Unlike God Theory, which is inviolate, set in stone and supported by nothing more than superstition and delusion, Evolution is fluid and developing.
218904
As jorganos said correctly, evolution is the only theory capable of explaining the enormous amount of facts that we know about all forms of life (from plants to ourselves), at all times (from fossils to today's species), and at all scales (from DNA to ecosystems).\nThe evolution theory is accepted by any qualified scientist, and questioned only outside the scientific community, mainly for religious or political purposes.
499614
Excellent post.\n\nI get quite tired of the strawman versions of evolution and the scientific method trotted out by creationists.\n\nFor example, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.  \n\nWhere the first life form came from has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.\n\nA theory is simply the best explanation for observable data.  We witness the diversity of life around us, and we must explain it somehow.  It is NOT meant to be proven.  Theories, in general, are not intended to be proven.\n\nFor example, gravity is a theory.  Is gravity false?  No.  Does gravity follow certain rules?  Absolutely!  Yet it is still a theory, and there ain't nothing wrong with that.\n\nYou well noted that some mechanisms of evolution are still not completely understood.  The theory, while perfectly valid, is not completely explained (just like gravity).  However, what creationists must keep in mind is that if any theory is going to replace evolution, it must explain ALL the evidence and data we have collected.  Genetics, fossil record, geological record, geographic isolation and allele frequency shift.\n\nAt the very best creationism (or ID) only points at the parts that science has not explained.  It offers no real alternative theory.\n\nLastly, the idea of "proof" for a "miracle" (meaning God's flooding of the earth) is oxymoronic, at best.  If there is proof (meaning observational data we can see today) then there is a natural explanation and God had nothing to do with it.  If it was a miracle, then there would be no evidence (since God suspended natural laws to make it happen).  Silly Christian fundamentalists, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
823057
To deliver both sides of the argument. Why shouldn't evolution and creation be taught?  Why can't religion be taught???Not that it's right or wrong but just the facts.  Not just Christianity, but all religions.  I was never taught what other religions believe.  But if its from a factual perspective...what's wrong with that?? Schools are for education...why not educate.\np.s. a "theory" in science does not mean "a guess."  Look it up.
513646
evolutionists don't have a problem with explaining it...because they are god and know everything...\n\nreally, because they don't know, they just throw out an educated guess and then pass it off as fact, like the whole THEORY of evolution.
681839
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
434086
Evolution has not been disproven, and probably never will be.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to confuse the general public.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the
620806
The unnececery killing of any animal is a "murder". Never the less please allow me to add some comments.\n Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past!\n By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
868498
I completely agree with you. I've done my research and evolution in reality has not been proven. It is the media that propagates the myth of evolution, even brainwashing children with pictures of monkey-men in textbooks to do it. They've even go so far as to make whole skeletal structures of out of small bone fragments in order to provide "physical proof" of evolution, like with "Piltdown Man", a fraud  that was not discovered as a fraud until 40 years after it was made. It's a big lie, one of the greatest frauds in history. Even Darwin said, "If evolution has occurred, where are the missing links?"\nBelief in God and science is completely compatible. In fact, the Bible has a lot of scientific foreknowledge that "scientists" didn't even discover until centuries later, even just in the last century when it was right in front of them all along.\nThe Bible says it was God who made everything, and that it was God who established laws that hold everything in its place. Hence to see science for what it really is is to see the fingerprint of God.
399757
One doesn't so much believe in evolution as accept the evidence for it.  Science isn't about believing in one idea or another, but rather looking at the evidence and comparing different ideas to it.  It's quite possible for there to be more than one possible explanation for a given set of data.  For instance, quantum mechanics and relativity both explain parts of physics, but also contradict each other, so while they can't both be true, they're both accepted until we come up with another idea that explains things as well as they do, without the contradictions!\n\nCurrently, evolution is the only known explanation for the evidence that accounts for the modern diversity of life, the order in the fossil record, the pattern of genetic similarities and dissimilarities between organisms.\n\nMy favorite example is how oak trees are found only in the uppermost fossil layers.  No explanation offered by creationists explains how the oak trees got to the uppermost layers and avoided the lower ones.  By and large, creationists don't bother trying to explain it, just insisting that some explanation must exist while lashing out at evolution and insisting it must be false.  They have no good explanations for why evolution would be false, every argument they've tried has been based on falsehoods.  I've been debating creationists online for nearly a decade and if they had a good argument, I would have heard it by now.