Is evolution not a theory after all?

[Confused]

Is this true. As most of you know, I thoroughly enjoy the asa3.org site. Some of the scientists I think may be respectable, but insert their bias into their assumptions. But many are respectable and maintain the separation quite effectively. So running through the past articles I stumble across the following from the article "Needed: A new vocabulary for understanding evolution":

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06NelsonF.pdf
Volume 58, Number 1, March 2006 31
Fredric P. Nelson

No Scientific Theory of Evolution Exists
The National Academy of Sciences wrote: “Evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”17 Is this statement true?
Confusion exists between the definition of a scientific
theory, a scientific hypothesis, and the popular definition
of a theory. Many scientists talk about a scientific theory
when, in fact, they are talking about a scientific hypothesis
or conjecture.
The National Association of Biology Teachers stated:
In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation
but an extensive explanation developed from welldocumented,
reproducible sets of experimentallyderived
data from repeated observations of natural
processes. The National Academy of Science stated that:
An idea that has not been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence.
Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science. If no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis. Therefore, a scientific theory requires confirmatory data derived from valid, reproducible, scientific experimentation and cannot be based on observations alone. A scientific hypothesis is “an unproved theory, proposition, supposition, etc. tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or to provide a basis for further
investigation.”
In common usage, a theory is “a speculative idea or plan as to how
something might be done, and, popularly, a mere conjecture or guess.” For naturalistic evolution to be a scientific theory, each of three components must be a scientific theory. They are:
(1) the naturalistic evolution of the
first cell;
(2) naturalistic microevolution; and
(3) naturalistic macroevolution.
John Rennie wrote: “The origin of life remains very much a mystery.” Alvin
Plantinga wrote: “(A)t present all such accounts of the origin of life are at best
enormously problematic.” Since a scientific theory cannot be based on a scientific mystery or on enormously problematic accounts, the naturalistic evolution of the first cell cannot be a component of a scientific theory of evolution.
Francisco Ayala wrote: “[S]cience relies on observation, replication and experimentation, but nobody has seen the origin of the universe or the evolution of species, nor have these events been replicated in the laboratory or by experiment.”
David Depew wrote:
“I could not agree more with the claim that contemporary Darwinism lacks models that can explain the evolution of cellular pathways and the problem of the origin of life.”
A scientific theory cannot be based on events that have been neither observed nor
replicated, and a scientific theory cannot be based on the unknown evolution of cellular pathways. Nor can a scientific theory be based on promissory materialism. As noted earlier, naturalistic macroevolution has absolutely no unique and unequivocal supporting data and is an irrational scientific hypothesis. Naturalistic macroevolution is not a component of a scientific theory of evolution. No scientific theory of evolution exists because the naturalistic evolution of the first cell and naturalistic macroevolution do not qualify as scientific theories. The naturalistic
evolution of the first cell and naturalistic macroevolution are actually ad hoc hypotheses, because the exact chemical and physical conditions present during specific steps in evolution cannot be known and because no scientific data exist to indicate that a specific mechanism was actually operative for any specific step.
Mayr wrote that evolutionary biology is a historical science based on observation,
comparison, and classification and that experimentation is inappropriate for understanding the historical progression of evolution. He claims that theories in evolutionary biology are based on concepts rather than laws as is the case in the physical sciences. The evolutionary biology of Mayr is an ordering and stratification of data, not a scientific theory. Further, the observations, comparisons, and classifications taking place in evolutionary biology do not and cannot reveal causative agency.

Questions for debate:
Does evolution meet the criteria as set forth by the Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by the 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies, and 7 other science organizations as a theory based on their short definition of the scientific method:
Facts: The properties of natural Phenomena. They come from observation. The scientific method involves rigorous, methodological testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation of those facts.
Hypotheses: Based on well established facts, testable hypotheses are formed. The process of testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational and experimental support. Theories.
Theory: This special dignity is accorded when it explains a large and diverse body of facts, is considered robust, and if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed to deem it reliable.

Is it nothing more than a hypothesis or should we humor the author of this article and develop an entire new terminology for this evolution so as not to confuse it with an actual theory.

My own position, it meets the criteria as set forth to be a theory. It is testable, and the Human Genome Project proved that we can in fact make predict new phenomena was well as track old as in the case of ARE's for old phenomena predictions and genetic sequences for current predictions. That alone isn't my sole reason, rather the convergence of evidence is what makes it a strong theory in my opinion, but I have to wonder if I am inserting my own bias.

[micatala]

I am not familiar with the asaorg. However, I have profound questions regarding Mr. Nelson. He seems to have the same axe to grind as many creationist/ID folks.

I noted at the conclusion of his article that he says:

Requiring students to describe “the progression from
early hominids to modern humans” has nothing to do
with science and everything to do with the promotion of
a godless world view. It should be removed from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Academic Standards for
Science and Technology.

In my view, people who buy into the fallacy that evolution exists solely to promote Godlessness cannot be considered in any way objective commentators. That, of course, is OK in and of itself. However, when they filter everything evolutionary through this religious/theological lense, and a distorted one at that, the conclusions they come to are often far off base.

Consider a statement from the section quoted in the OP.

For naturalistic evolution to be a scientific theory, each of three components must be a scientific theory. They are:
(1) the naturalistic evolution of the
first cell;
(2) naturalistic microevolution; and
(3) naturalistic macroevolution.

Only creationists divide evolution into macro versus micro.

IN addition, by trying to pile (1) in with (2) and (3), Nelson is creating a classic creationist strawman. The theory of evolution does not pretend to be able to explain how life first formed. It only seeks to explain how life has changed over time. The beginning of life, or abiogenesis, is a separate question. Creationists often try to make this link because this is where our lack of knowledge is the greatest, and so it is perceived to be a weak point.

THis tactic is like insisting that chemistry is a bogus science because chemists can't explain how matter first arose.

[juliod]

Only creationists divide evolution into macro versus micro.

A good point, not often remembered.

THis tactic is like insisting that chemistry is a bogus science because chemists can't explain how matter first arose.

This may qualify as The Wisest Thing Anyone Ever Said.

I want to add one point. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact that populations change over time, and there are various theories to explain this fact, in more general or more specific terms.

DanZ

[Confused]

I am not familiar with the asaorg. However, I have profound questions regarding Mr. Nelson. He seems to have the same axe to grind as many creationist/ID folks.

I noted at the conclusion of his article that he says:

Requiring students to describe “the progression from
early hominids to modern humans” has nothing to do
with science and everything to do with the promotion of
a godless world view. It should be removed from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Academic Standards for
Science and Technology.

In my view, people who buy into the fallacy that evolution exists solely to promote Godlessness cannot be considered in any way objective commentators. That, of course, is OK in and of itself. However, when they filter everything evolutionary through this religious/theological lense, and a distorted one at that, the conclusions they come to are often far off base.

Consider a statement from the section quoted in the OP.

For naturalistic evolution to be a scientific theory, each of three components must be a scientific theory. They are:
(1) the naturalistic evolution of the
first cell;
(2) naturalistic microevolution; and
(3) naturalistic macroevolution.

Only creationists divide evolution into macro versus micro.

IN addition, by trying to pile (1) in with (2) and (3), Nelson is creating a classic creationist strawman. The theory of evolution does not pretend to be able to explain how life first formed. It only seeks to explain how life has changed over time. The beginning of life, or abiogenesis, is a separate question. Creationists often try to make this link because this is where our lack of knowledge is the greatest, and so it is perceived to be a weak point.

THis tactic is like insisting that chemistry is a bogus science because chemists can't explain how matter first arose.

You should check out the site. www.asa3.org . It is actually a good site in many aspects mostly because it is a site of theistic scientists. Most, as stated in OP, are very good and respected scientists, but there exist some who want to shake things up. But does the theory of evolution stand up the the criteria cited by the Amicus Curiae Brief?

[Goat]

I am not familiar with the asaorg. However, I have profound questions regarding Mr. Nelson. He seems to have the same axe to grind as many creationist/ID folks.

I noted at the conclusion of his article that he says:

Requiring students to describe “the progression from
early hominids to modern humans” has nothing to do
with science and everything to do with the promotion of
a godless world view. It should be removed from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Academic Standards for
Science and Technology.

In my view, people who buy into the fallacy that evolution exists solely to promote Godlessness cannot be considered in any way objective commentators. That, of course, is OK in and of itself. However, when they filter everything evolutionary through this religious/theological lense, and a distorted one at that, the conclusions they come to are often far off base.

Consider a statement from the section quoted in the OP.

For naturalistic evolution to be a scientific theory, each of three components must be a scientific theory. They are:
(1) the naturalistic evolution of the
first cell;
(2) naturalistic microevolution; and
(3) naturalistic macroevolution.

Only creationists divide evolution into macro versus micro.

IN addition, by trying to pile (1) in with (2) and (3), Nelson is creating a classic creationist strawman. The theory of evolution does not pretend to be able to explain how life first formed. It only seeks to explain how life has changed over time. The beginning of life, or abiogenesis, is a separate question. Creationists often try to make this link because this is where our lack of knowledge is the greatest, and so it is perceived to be a weak point.

THis tactic is like insisting that chemistry is a bogus science because chemists can't explain how matter first arose.

You should check out the site. www.asa3.org . It is actually a good site in many aspects mostly because it is a site of theistic scientists. Most, as stated in OP, are very good and respected scientists, but there exist some who want to shake things up. But does the theory of evolution stand up the the criteria cited by the Amicus Curiae Brief?

The theory of evolution is one of the most tested and robust theories we have. It has been not only observed in the lab, but it has made predictions that have been verified more than once. It has predicted , for example, that in the rocks of the proper age, a fossil would be found thta would be a transitionary fossil between
land and water animals. The scientitsts who made this prediction when to a place
because it has the proper aged rocks, and found the Tikttaalik.

Another important prediction was that you would get antibodic resistant bacteria when exposed to the current batches of antibodics.. which drove for research
into other antibodics before it happened.

[micatala]

THis tactic is like insisting that chemistry is a bogus science because chemists can't explain how matter first arose.

This may qualify as The Wisest Thing Anyone Ever Said.

I want to add one point. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact that populations change over time, and there are various theories to explain this fact, in more general or more specific terms.

DanZ

I am deeply flattered.

I have noticed that when I bring this point up, creationists tend not to respond. In fact, the only response I can recall getting was from 1John2_26.

You should check out the site. www.asa3.org . It is actually a good site in many aspects mostly because it is a site of theistic scientists. Most, as stated in OP, are very good and respected scientists, but there exist some who want to shake things up. But does the theory of evolution stand up the the criteria cited by the Amicus Curiae Brief?

.............................................

Does evolution meet the criteria as set forth by the Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by the 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies, and 7 other science organizations as a theory based on their short definition of the scientific method:
Facts: The properties of natural Phenomena. They come from observation. The scientific method involves rigorous, methodological testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation of those facts.
Hypotheses: Based on well established facts, testable hypotheses are formed. The process of testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational and experimental support. Theories.
Theory: This special dignity is accorded when it explains a large and diverse body of facts, is considered robust, and if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed to deem it reliable.

It would seem to me the answer is yes. I suppose, in addition to the examples given by goat, it would be good to specify additional examples of facts and tests.

Because it is an historical science in some respects, we might also want to compare with other historical sciences, like paleontology, anthropology, cosmology, etc.

[Confused]

I never intended this to be a long thread. I just wanted to make sure my thinking wasn't screwballed after reading that article.

[nine dog war]

Science:- Prove me wrong and I shall hold you in high esteem.
Religion:- Prove me wrong and I shall censor you and tell you to burn in hell.

A theory is something that can be backed up with logic, but not physical proof.

I think what you all are forgetting is that all Religions are theories, no religion can back up there claims with physical proof.

The problem with creationism or intelligent design is that not only do they not have any evidence or proof but it follows no logic.

Evolution is based upon evidence and logic, it no way claims to be 100% accurate, it is a theory which can evolve with the evidence.

The last two Popes have conceeded to evolution, John Paul went as far as saying its undeniable. The Catholic church knows the difference between science and religion. Science is the understanding of Gods creation. To falsify the evidence such as the christian scientist involved with "intelligent design" is a crime against God and should be seen as heretical.

[Cathar1950]

To falsify the evidence such as the christian scientist involved with "intelligent design" is a crime against God and should be seen as heretical.

That almost makes sense.
It would be awful to live in a world you can't trust.
It makes you appreciate feedback systems.

[Noddy]

Relativity is also a theory, but I don't recall anyone denying it's validity, or using sophistry to try to undermine it's logic. As with evolution it has posited certain criteria and results which can be verified and confirmed by empirical study. The author attempts to deny the facts of evolution by fabricating complexity and ambiguity where none exists. Unfortunately this type of argument accomplishes at least two things: on the one hand it encourages less knowledgeable folk to scorn evolution because: "even the scientists disagree", and on the other hand, it encourages evolutionists to scorn and vilify those who promulgate this mis-information, thus further polarizing the two camps. In summary, the theory of evolution does in fact satisfy all of the criteria as specified by the Amicus curiea brief.