I was just sitting around musing with a bunch of books by my recliner as I am pretty tied to it at present, and musing about the nature of ideas.
A common phrase thrown out by critics is that “Evolution is just a theory! No one have proven it.” Obviously, to those who are trained in science, being a theory is weighty indeed, but to the non-science oriented, the meaning is considerably different. I wonder if perhaps a different approach to defining the terms might be helpful.
With evolution, the theory is a conceptional idea used to unite the information and observations known about the subject into an understandable and cohesive pattern. When compared to the religious world, what stands out is that is very much what religious doctrine does. For example, “original sin” is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, but is an idea derived from pulling scripture together to make sense of what was written. The Trinity is a prime example of that also, never been named, yet foundational to understanding God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. Like scientific theories, doctrines cannot be proven, are constantly debated, are abstract concepts rather than chiseled on stone tablets, yet are important and guides our thoughts and enhances understanding.
Do you feel that responding to critics who misunderstand what a theory really is by comparing a theory to a religious doctrine would be helpful? Or would it only fuel the fire with inviting responses about evolution being a religion? Is it a valid analogy, or does it break down too quickly?
There is no telling what people might find helpful.
I think explaining the difference between the meaning of theory and hypothesis is more to the point.
It is only the hypothesis which is untested and can prove to be correct or incorrect.
Theory is the basis of theoretical science in contrast to observational/experimental science, dealing with why things happen as they do rather than simply recording what has been observed. The idea is to explain a wider range of phenomenon beyond just what we have seen so that we can make predictions. When the predictions of a theory is shown to be correct then the hypothesis has been tested and is thus a step closer to scientific fact.
After a theory is shown to be correct by repeated tests of its predictions, then it tends becomes a routine tool of scientific inquiry. When that happens it has wholly moved over to scientific fact. This has happened with special and general relativity, quantum physics, and the big bang as well as with evolution (sorry to only list those in physics and biology when I am sure there are many many more such theories become fact in other sciences). All of these are theories which are now routinely used as tools of scientific inquiry and thus all of them are scientific fact. But of all of these, the one with the most evidence and used most often in scientific inquiry is evolution by far.
Some other theories accepted as scientific fact:
germ theory of disease (that some diseases are caused by microorganisms)
atomic and molecular theories
theory of plate tectonics
cell theory
heliocentric theory of planetary motion
kinetic theory of gases
valence bond theory
transition state theory
DNA theory of genetic inheritance
How can Evolutionary theory ever be proven enough to be called fact?
We have a finishing line of what is in existence but everything leading up to around the 19th century is unrecorded in sufficient measure to be called proof or fact. Evolution will always be a theory no matter what Science wishes to define it as.
As for the OP
Yes there are valid comparisons between the formation of some doctrines and the formations of some Scientific theories. In truth we can no more prove the Trinity than we can Evolution.
Richard
PS I see little milage in bickering over whether Evolution is a belief or not. Been there, done that, got nowhere.
Same as any other theory, when the data from completely different sources not only all agree on the same facts, but give increasingly precise corrections. Just as with big bang theory, it went from rough estimates of the age of the universe to more precise calculations, in evolution it went from a general conclusion of common ancestry to calculations when the common ancestor of any two species existed. You don’t get such increasingly precise calculations when basic theory is wrong.
It certainly will not change the reality that evolution is a scientific fact just the same as other theories in science by the exact same criterion. No we don’t have videos of the big bang and plate tectonics any more than we have videos of common ancestor of the species. But the plain fact is that we a basic equivalent of this in the data we have coming to us from the past all the time.
Stephen Jay Gould did a good job of relating these terms.
A strict fact in science is the observed, empirical data. A scientific theory is a testable model that tries to unite those facts into an understandable whole.
A looser fact in science is more of a human foible. This is what Gould calls “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” For example, we have the Germ Theory of Disease which unites a whole host of facts, but we also consider infectious diseases caused by germs to be confirmed to such a degree that it is considered fact.
DNA sequences, the distribution of features in living species, and fossils are all scientific facts because they have been observed. The theory of evolution is our attempt to unite and explain those facts (which you are free to disagree with).
And in the spirit of your post, I have tried to explain what theories and facts are in science using evolution as an example, along with other scientific theories. I have tried to stay as neutral as possible, and likewise see no reason to argue about the theory in this thread. However, I was hoping to help you understand how scientists view the relationship between theory and fact.
If we are looking for corollaries between science and theology, I would say that scriptures are the facts and theology is the theory that tries to unite scriptures into an understandable whole. In other words, the Bible is the data and theology holds the theories that makes sense of it. You could probably also add the culture and society the Biblical authors lived in to the data pile. This would be important for understanding the meaning of individual scriptures which is analogous to understanding the relationship between instrument and measurement in science.
Strictly speaking, no analogy is 100% valid, nor is any analogy perfect. However, analogies are a great way to convey an idea. As long as these rules are understood from the start, I think your analogy is a really good one.
I also don’t see an issue of causing people to think evolution is a religion. If this were the case, then all scientific theories would be religions. What separates science from theology in this case is the data. We have empirical observations in science and scriptures in theology. Scriptures are accepted as being from God based on faith while empirical observations are verifiable and repeatable independent of any belief. However, the relationship between observation and theory is very much like the relationship between scripture and theology.
And to turn it around to compare to doctrine, “How can doctrine ever be proven enough to be called fact?” That is, when viewed from a religious perspective. When seen through the orthodox religious lens, concepts like the Trinity are viewed as having such a foundational role that I have heard many say if you do not believe in it, you are not Christian.
Doctrines like theories while seen as “proven” through time and tradition, and accepted as “fact” by believers, still have that property of being only a partial understanding, and thus are alike scientific theories in that way.
Ultimately, my cynical side surfaces, and I come to think that most religious people making these arguments know so little about theology and doctrine, that comparing them to scientific theory may be a fool’s errand.
That is correct, it is a shame you can’t accept this.
What you seem to fail to understand is that all your corroborative facts do not prove “how” it happened.
I am not saying that ToE is completely false, only that it is incomplete, and always will be.
The scientific route does not actually work.
Science has spent the equivalent of thousands of years studying microbes (Because of the length of microbe life) and they still only have microbes.
Evolution adapts and diversifies, it does not create new life forms. Single cell to humanity is still an unknown. There is more to it than what you have now.
What other route has worked better than science? Do you have any ideas to offer?
So - according to your logic - we have to replicate something; or literally create it before we can claim any understanding of it? That may be bad news for astronomers and physicists and such, as I’m not aware we’ve been able to create any solar systems or universes!
I’m glad you’ve been listening.
Nobody here is disagreeing that there is much yet to learn. In every field of science. But that doesn’t give you a pass to say that what we have learned isn’t making any sense or doesn’t explain anything when it explains an awful lot!
Perhaps I can add this - science is a doctrine that may be considered as the way science theory is used to argue for and against beliefs. Predicting useful and accurate observations is taken as a test that confirms such a doctrine.
(I almost confuse myself when I try to discuss this topic )
I illustrate my point by discussing an area I am familiar with. Molecular modelling has made huge advances with the availability of supercomputers. We can model molecules using quantum (even for smaller structures, ab initio) methods, and the results are often ‘out of this world’.
Yet at no point in any theory can we propose the existence of a single (naked) molecule in a totally empty space. But this is the model we use to understand the real world. I believe the results because I am aware of the ‘thinking’ (or doctrinal content) behind molecular modelling.
That is not what I meant. This is not an all or nothing scenario. Science doe what science does, but it cannot get past the empirical approach.
There is little point in me going into details about the shortcomings of ToE. Been there, done that, another wast of time. Suffice it to say that without God, ToE does not work, but due to the nature of Science (and religion) never the twain can properly meet. Theistic Evolution is not science.
No. But it would be the only way to prove that ToE can achieve what is claimed. It is the only empirical study of How things do change (or not s in this case) Time can only help if the type of change exists.
I have said this all along. Nothing new here.
again, not what I meant.
Unless science can build @St.Roymond /s divinometer, or, more realistically, admit the probability of God, ToE will give the wrong reasons for certain developments. "survival of the fittest is only necessary if the changes are random and not planned (e.g. by God)
Doctrines may be compared to scientific theories but there is a major difference.
Scientific theories use empirical observations as objective data points, reinforced with experimental work and mathematical calculations. Any scientific explanations (hypotheses, theories) can be evaluated by how well the hypothesis or theory can explain the objective data points, including the results of experiments, irrespective of the assumptions and beliefs of the referee.
Doctrines are mostly matters of belief because we usually cannot perform experiments or mathematical calculations to test interpretations, or even make such empirical observations that would be accepted by all as objective facts. Doctrines may define which observations are accepted, other data points may be treated as errors or something that suddenly emerged without a causal, natural background - YEC interpretations about the universe demonstrate this.
For many (most?) Christians, Bible is the best judge in matters of belief but even that opinion is a matter of belief - biblical scriptures are not an universally accepted standard. Many churches add something to the commonly accepted biblical scriptures (canon), some kind of tradition, and the tradition may outpace what the biblical scriptures apparently tells. Even if the knowledge of what the texts in the biblical scriptures originally ment would increase, the old churches are unlikely to modify their doctrines merely because of improved knowledge - traditional paths of interpretation may be so deep and stonehard that they trump all evidence.
Even basic Christian doctrines, such as those mentioned in common creeds, are beliefs based on tradition and subjective interpretation of scriptures. We believe that the Holy Spirit guided those writing and accepting the ecumenical creeds and that these teachings follow the teachings of the original apostles but that is also a belief. We think that anyone denying the doctrines told in the creeds is a heretic or follower of another religion or belief system but again, that is a belief.
3 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
14
“PS I see little milage in bickering over whether Evolution is a belief or not. Been there, done that, got nowhere.”-- @RichardG
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
15
In my experience, already existing data is usually the first place scientists go when assessing new beliefs, not theories. You could also determine what predictions this new belief would make and then compare it to existing data. As an example, the Theory of Relativity had a leg up because it accurately predicted (postdicted?) the precession in Mercury’s orbit, data that was already known.
In the same way, new theology would be compared to scripture which is the data in the analogy (at least by my reckoning).
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
16
Just as Christian theology can not get past the Bible. It can not include the Koran or the Hindu Vedas, as examples. Science sticks to the empirical in the same way that Christian theology sticks with the Bible.
That is not always the case. Only for those who either believe in Sola Scriptura, or who just refuse any other spiritual authority to Scripture (not the same thing)
My theology has elements of life experience and observation.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
18
That’s a very good point, and a point I almost made in an earlier post but removed it for brevity and focus.
As I stated earlier, no analogy is perfect, and your point here is one example of where the analogy breaks down. Personal experience is an important part of peoples’ religious journey through life, and I do think it can be counted as “data” with respect to theology. Personal experiences, as in unverifiable, non-repeatable subjective experiences, are not valid data in science, even though they are very valid parts of the human experience.
However, I would think there are still limits to personal experience. For example, most Christians are very skeptical of people who claim to be delivering a message from God, especially if it runs counter to already existing scripture. I doubt anyone would claim that scripture is wrong if a person in the modern world claimed themselves a prophet and contradicted scripture. So I think there is still a scriptural primacy for theology, but I also think you are entirely correct that there is a place for personal experience and observations.
It would depend on what the message claimed to contradict. I remember a Bishop of Durham claiming that the virgin birth was not an essential part of the gospel.
And, of course, I have been accused of contradicting Scripture many times on this forum.
(NB. I am not claiming any sort of prophet authority.)
So it depends on how certain the interpretation of Scripture is, as to whether it could be contradicted. Furthermore, there are instructions in Scripture that contradict modern ethics or PC. We are then caught up in trying to discern the relevance of said scripture in the modern world.
What you see here, in terms of Scriptural dependence and assertion is not necessarily the “norm” (whatever that might mean).
What I think I am trying to say is that Christianity is much less in accord than science appears to be. Rogue scientists are of note, A Christian with diverse views is common place.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
20
That is a can worms. What is essential to Christian theology has been a hot topic for nearly 2,000 years. Many of the early Christian schisms dealt with these topics, as did the various creeds in early church history. As it stands now, I would consider the Nicene Creed (plus variants in other surviving traditions) to be the very minimum of what Christians believe.
That’s why I mentioned scriptural primacy. You would first have to determine if scriptures can mean what you think they mean.
We completely agree on this point. By its very nature, theology is going to have a much more diverse set of beliefs, and there is nothing inherently wrong with this. When human personal experience plays a large role this is what we will see.
)