Some of the difficulty that I see in these types of discussions is that some people think that the word "theory" is synonymous with "unproven" and this is simply not the case. There are two seperate usages of the word "theory", which are not interchangeable. The first usage of "theory" is that of an unproven suppostion, cobbled together from available experiential data (ie what I can gather from looking around, etc). Such as "I have a theory that all the idiots come out on Sunday to drive around my town slowly just to aggrevate me personally" This is a theory. It is also (possibly) BS, merely a personal, biased alignment of what I know and/or think I know.

However, the term "theory" is also a stictly governed scientific term and it does not have anything to do with the above. It means an amalgamation, or collection, of what we do know, based on facts, studies, some rational and science-supported extrapolations (based on knowledge, not guesses. Guesswork falls into the other "theory" definition.), and other hard-science based data accumulation and organization. In other words a scientific "theory" (of something) is a different animal than a posited "theory" (about something). Sort of like an artist's portfolio can either be his ouvre of work, or his briefcase. These are called homonyms - words that are spelled the same and sound the same, but have different meanings.

For example, the "theory of gravity" is not a grouping of unproven suppostions about what we think of as gravity. Neither is it the same as a theory of gravity (which could be anything from sticky feet to "God just said to stay here, so we do"). The theory of gravity is a portfolio, or body of work, of what we know to be true about gravity. So, does this change? Yes - science is constantly growing and allowing us to grow in our understanding of our environment. But everything that is included in what is generally referred to as the theory of gravity is hard, provable, repeatable scientific fact. (Or as close as we've been able to come to such, in the case of newer, more cutting edge "theoretical" sciences such as quantum mechanics and such which have not had time to "mature" by virtue of experimental repetition, which condition is generally extant because theoretical science often goes into areas where we have to wait for testing technology to follow!)

Sometimes, people get the two confused when they hear about a "new theory" of (whatever), or "scientists have disproven the theory that (whatever) does this, that, or the other, for these reasons." People get the idea that because these (lesser) theories are often in a state of flux (as individual theories often are), and that scientists seem to use the terms interchangabley, that they are indeed the same things. However, a scientist, talking to another (or to an educated layman), understands (as does his audience) which he means when he speaks, much the same way that an artist's friends would know that what the artist means when he says "My portfolio is on display at the local gallery. By the way, did I leave my portfolio at your house last night after the wine and cheese shmooze?". This conversation might be puzzling to someone unfamiliar with the art world, who might think "Well, duh, it's in the gallery. You said so yourself!"

The (grand) theories are not a collection of the (lesser) theories, although a few (lesser) that are fairly well established and are currently compatible with known tests and results may sort of "orbit" the grander theory, until they essentially die of old age, new experimental data proves them wrong, or it doesn't and they become part of the canon. Disproving a lesser theory doesn't reflect on the reality or stability of the (grand) theory. After all, if the sticky feet theory of gravity is disproven, gravity is still there. It's still there regardless of what we believe about its origins and causes (we still don't know for sure - about gravity, that is). And we still have the established canon of gravitational theory (this is the scientific usage of the word) that says that a piece of matter X big reacts this way in these conditons, etc.., the entirety of which is known as the theory of gravity.

As this refers to evolution, the "theory of evolution" is a fact. Species do change in reaction to a changing environment, and yes there have been proofs of this in our lifetimes. The one that is coming to mind immediatlely is a type of tree moth in England that, as the Industrial Revolution polluted the air, changed coloration (in the species that lived there) to match the trees which were now darker. Fast forward to the modern age, the moths have started lightening up, just as the trees have, in response to environmentally friendly laws and clean air initiatives that have signifigantly reduced soot content in the air. This was not an instant change (chameleon-like) in individual moths. This was a slow, continual change, and reversal, in adaptive response to the changing environment over a period of many, many generations. That's all the "theory of evolution" is: That species faced with changing environments either change to adapt to the environment (over time sometimes becoming completely different species - this has recently happened somewhere or the other in a bird species that was one and is now two that cannot now interbreed, basically because of a changing food source) or they die off entirely. Of course, this in no way precludes any number of hokey (or outright hoaxy) "thoeries" about evolution.

The talk about diffent horse breeds is irrelevant to this discussion, as almost all of these different breeds are the result of human selective breeding (a process that would be impossible if the theory of evolution were fundementally untrue - after all, if species were what they've always been and are unchanging regardless of outside influences, we couldn't get different breeds no matter how we tried, genetic engineering notwithstanding). These are not different species, as horses and zebra are (different species can't interbreed). Before humans began "evolving" horses, they (like dogs) consisted of a very small handful of scattered breeds, mostly small, stocky, and very feral. Highland ponies and Mongolian steppe ponies most resemble these "basic" horse models, as the wolf is most like the ancient (undifferentiated) dog. A variety of an animal and an evolved species of the same family group are different things, although they can be caused by similar circumstances.

Please understand that I am not trying to tweak any noses. I just hate that so much misunderstanding about these things is due soley to the fact that the non-professionally trained interested parties are unaware that there are two completely different usages of the same word, often in the same conversational context. I hope I have been clear and not just muddled this up worse than it already was.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), January 27, 2001

Answers

Thanx, I needed that, I feel a whole lot better now, in theory, that is.

-- Howard C. Williams (redgate@echoweb.net), January 27, 2001.

Hey, Einstein they're trying to change relativity. I'm lost way back in your first paragraph. I wonder what dictionary you used? I think, I gather from this, that, since I'm so stupid, then none of the above pertains to me. Had me worried for a while there.

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), January 27, 2001.

I had lots a science classes in school. Here's the scientific method in a nut shell: Scientist sees something he does not understand (origin of life). Scientist forms question (where did life come from?). Scientist forms hypotheses (life evolved). Scientist tests hypothesis and observes results - whoops, can't test evolution, can't observe evolution, wasn't there billions of years ago to see the soupy seas. We haven't got to the theory stage yet. We're still stuck back a hypothesis. And don't forget, theory is not law. Very few theories graduate to law. Newton's LAW of gravity is one such example. Einsteins theory of relativity is not even LAW, and it has much more credibility than evolutionism. Evolutionism has been pretty well debunked. It's all based on faked evidence and unproven HYPOTHESIS. Why then is is pushed? What's the alternative to evolution? If not by chance, then how? Unless you want to believe in some whacky alien nonsense, the only other logical option is to acknowledge an intelligent Creator. Evolotionism ("ism" because it is a belief system, not science) is pushed because to abandon it is to be faced with the need to acknowledge the presence of God and our accountability to Him, and that's not politically correct in this "enlightened" age. The fossil record does not reveal a gradual change in species. It only shows different types. The links are still missing! Adaptation and mutation are not evolution. Your moth example has been proven to be a hoax. The fossils and bones of extinct species that somewhat resemble living species is no proof whatsoever that evolution occured. There has been no direct observation, only supposition. Good science is based on observation, and evolution cannot be observed, only guessed at. God created every creature "after its kind". New "kinds" don't evolve from old "kinds". Whatever breed you have, a dog is a dog is a dog, and it has always been a dog. I think it really takes more faith to believe in evolutionism that creationism. With creationism we have a written record: God's Word. And no, Adam and Eve weren't there quite yet to have witnessed creation (although they were part of it) so I can't prove it empirically. It has to be taken on faith. If you honestly look at ALL the evidence, I don't see how you can believe in evolutionism, even on faith.

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), January 27, 2001.

If I don't belive in an ultimate creator, my belief is based on faith. However, the converse is also true. When I went from my home in New York to my first US Navy posting in Norfolk, Va. I went by train. It's a wonderful way to travel.

On this trip, I met a Navy Chaplin; a Roman Catholic priest. We discusse, among other things, evolution. Now, much to my surprise, he truly beleives in the theory of evolution. I was astonished and, at the ripe old age of 20, thought I had him in a paradox when I asked him about the timeline of 6 days..... He replied that no one could say for sure how long one of God's days were, in fact, he said, one of Gods days could be millions of years, time enough for God to do a little experimenting with different species till he came up with Man. I chuckled at this and he wanted to know (smiling all the time) what I thought was so funny. "Do you fish"?, I asked. He laughed and we both said "a bad day fishing is better than a good day at work". Think about that 7th day...5 million years of fishing. Can't beat that!

-- Barney (bfrankel@home.com), January 28, 2001.

On one of the several other evolution threads we have going on this forum, I wrote the following, and it bears repeating:

"In the interest of balance here, I am offering the following link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html

It addresses many, if not all, the questions that creationism supporters ask. I think every person who is honest in their quest for serious answers will take the time to explore the information at this link. I found it to be quite fascinating.

Just posting here to present another way of looking at the "facts."

Please check out the link.

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 28, 2001.

Since this was double post, I am doubling my response. Very good work Skip. Sheepish I checked out your link, I refer to it below.

First of all I believe that Gravity is considered a LAW.It is no longer the theory of gravity, but the LAW of Gravity. Scientifically there are three standards of proof. First you have a hypothesis, which is just an unproven guess. Then you have a theory which is just a hypothesis with a book of evidence to back it up. Then you have a law. A law is fact. Gravity is a law. I am surprised that all you "scientifically educated" evolutionists, can't seem to remember that. To my way of thinking, evolution is not much better than a hypothesis, because when you set out to prove that something is true by ignoring all the other evidence to the contrary you necessarily can't come up with an unbiased answer. I used to be a Theistic evolutionist, until I studied the subject further and realized that it was a bunch of bunk. I studied both sides carefully, and remain unconviced that there is any merit to evolution whatsoever. The only purpose to the theory of evolution, is that it creates a fine excuse to deny the existence of God. The problem is that to believe that all the detail and order of this universe was formed out of chaos is to practice a particularly crazy kind of self deception. What would make all those individual cells form themselves into such complex organisms. This happened by accident? The fact that at any given moment your own body performs thousands of tasks with the most amazing fuel system, that you are self aware, that there are thousands of species with similar abilities all over the earth, this was supposed to have happened as some kind of cosmic accident upon accident. And you say us creationists are uneducated. Talk about not being able to see the forrest for the trees.

The site above said that whales have legs. Now have anyone of you ever seen a whale wih legs? It also said that because a flower is prettier after being bombarded by radiation that mutation is benificial to plants. Never mind that the flower can't produce seed, it is after all prettier. Heck you bombard me with radiation and I might grow an extra set of toes, of course my skin will be burned off in the process, my children will be born dead, and I eventually will die of cancer if the radiation doesn't kill me first. But hey those extra toes are benificial.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 28, 2001.

Yes, whales have legs. Dolphins have legs as well. Some types of snake also have legs. Just as horses still have 5 toes today. There are three that are still visible externally, and two that are internal and not visible unless you open the horse up. I've seen these and the ones on the skeletons of whales and dolphins. I cannot see a person's brain or heart, so does that mean that they don't have one unless they're cut open?

There is a family living in Spain who have the larger proportion of their members who have 6 fingers per hand. That wasn't radiation, and obviously they are breeding just fine. I believe that out of something like 36 members surveyed, 26 had extra digits. They don't seem to have any difficulty with supernumery digits, except having a hard time buying gloves.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), January 28, 2001.

By the way -- Thanks,Sheepish,for posting that site. I've been looking for that!

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), January 28, 2001.

Barney, Your priest was not a very diligent student of the Bible. In Hebrew, the word for "day" used in Genesis is a literal 24hour day. If you want to go redifining words to suit your purposes, you can make the Bible say anything you want. This Day-Age Theory is a feeble attempt to accomodate evolutionism along side creationism.

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), January 28, 2001.

thanks i really really needed that now if i can just figure out why.Bob in se.ks

-- Bobco (bobco@hit.net), January 28, 2001.

Skip, Not being a student a the bible or biblical law, canon, or anything else, I'm going to bow out of this discussion as gracefully as possible. However, loving a good argument (as long as it can stay friendly if we agree to disagree), I still have to interject a last thought or two.

I have three sons. Each of them has been circumsised in accordance with Jewish law. Does that make me feel good? No. When I think what my youngest went through at three days old (the moyal did not do a good job, there was a lot of blood and he may need corrective surgery), I have to ask myself, why would a kind a loving God ask this of his people. I don't have an answer. And except to say, incompetance, the Rabbi's don't either. Second, I went over the part where Abrahm is told to sacrifice Yitzhak to prove his love and devotion. Assuming (that is, taking it on faith) that the Bible is a true account of what happend (who actually penned the original manuscript, when was it done, was that person or persons present for the whole thing, what language was it written in, who translated it to English, Hebrew, etc.), what type of deity would ask a father to sacrafice a child to prove love and devotion? Did Abrahm "know" that his God wouldn't actually ask him to go through with it? My nine year old asks me these same questions and I can't answer him.

I don't mean to offend you or anyone else here or anywhere with this. I feel that everyone has a right to worship (or not) as they choose as long as it does no harm to anyone else. And while the 10 commandments were written in stone (yes, I believe that Moses came down from Sini with them), I don't beleive that the Bible was written "by God". Divine inspiration with some interpretation, but one of my Rabbi's from my Hebrew School days told me that only the commandmants were written by the hand of God.

We all have our beleifs, and I'm sure that I've managed to upset just about everyone here. The difference is, I'll listen to yours without telling you that you're wrong. I'll respect your right to God, Jesus, Yaweh, Allah, The Goddess, or whatever deity you choose to call upon.

-- Barney (bfrankel@home.com), January 28, 2001.

Actually, Barney, you didn't offend me, and I found your comments very interesting. Thanks!

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), January 29, 2001.

Evolution, huh? Is that supposed to mean man evolved from apes? If so, why do we still have apes? Just wondering!

-- Eve (owenall@lwol.com), January 29, 2001.

Little Bit- Ever take a comparative biology class. Lots of similarities among various species, especially when you consider the path of fetal development. Even more interesting is your assumption that to believe in evolution somehow denotes a disbelief in god. I can freely and rationally believe in both. Life started somewhere and I do not know what tools god used in his creation of it.

Eve- We still have apes because we did not evolve from them, but both lines shared some common ancestor. I'll refer again to our sharing over 95% of our gentic material( 98-99% by some accounts) and the fact that chimpanzees and humans share one blood type.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Barney, according to the Law, newborns aren't supposed to be cicumcised until the eighth day....interestingly enough, that is when the coagulating aspects of our blood devlope......I think God is smarter than everyone here combined.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 29, 2001.

Boy, Doreen, he had BETTER be!!

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 29, 2001.

Seems sort of silly to me,people always speaking so authoratatively about the unknowable.The assumption that humans have to have an explanation for everything in the universe is okay, but lets not take ourselves too seriously and claim to "know". Scientific theories etc. are subject to change as we continually witness. Hey,they just captured light in a box. Hardly any two spiritual experts can agree on matters concerning god much less anything else. Thats proof enough for me it's all just opinions. I have theories and opinions and they apply to my reality,,for now,and you are welcome to yours.Perhaps if we preface our statements of "fact" with I think.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Barney,here is what I believe with regard to Issac and Abraham. I believe that thereason that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son is multifold. The first reason is because God required total devotion from Abraham. The second is because God wanted to provide a picture of the sacrifice that God would eventually make of His Only son.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 29, 2001.