Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Evolution: theory not fact

Published: Sunday, February 5, 2012

Updated: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 00:02

madisonmug

©2011 NCSU Student Media

Madison Murphy, Viewpoint Deputy Editor

 

Darwin's theory of evolution, since its creation, has started some of the most controversial battles in science, politics, religion and education. I don't think, when Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he would have expected so many people to be outraged at the words "natural selection" 150 years after its publication. Yet, here we are today, still discussing the possibility of Darwin's theory being correct.

The theory of evolution can be explained simply: Complex creatures evolved from simplistic creatures over time. All creatures come from a common ancestor. Over time, mutations in genetic codes were maintained as they aided in survival. This process of mutation is called natural selection. Eventually, these mutations build up until a complex creature is the result.

There are opposing theories to evolution, however, and they are also some of the most controversial theories to ever be discussed in science, politics, religion and education. These opposing theories are creationism and intelligent design. Some people lump these two together, but they are slightly different.

The theory of intelligent design states that the creation of a complex being could not have happened randomly or by chance. There had to have been a higher power that created this complexity. However, according to intelligent design, this "designer" could have been anyone.

The theory of creationism, on the other hand, states the designer was God. The extremes of creationism vary as well. Some people believe in what is strictly stated in the Bible in Genesis without any room for other possibilities. Others, such as Catholics, believe evolution could have occurred the way Darwin describes, but by the power of God. This belief also says evolution cannot account for the creation of the human soul.

Recently, I was sitting in a class in which my professor began to speak about evolution. As a believer of Biblical creationism, my interest is often piqued when evolution is brought up in a class. Normally, I do not mind a discussion of the theory since it's so widely accepted by my peers. However, this time, it was different.

My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.

Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such. I have no problem learning about evolution if it's presented as what it is: unproven. I don't even mind learning about evolution without any mention of intelligent design or creationism, if it's presented as a theory. But, when a professor begins to speak of it as though it's a proven fact, I get bothered.

This particular professor went on to state that those who don't believe in evolution are wrong. He said that there are so many facts proving it's truth that one would have to be ignorant not to believe it. I found this to be deeply offensive. I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one theory over another.

If professors or teachers at any grade level are going to teach evolution, they should make sure their students are aware that it is a theory and not a fact. If a student who had never been taught evolution before had been sitting in that class, they would forever think evolution is a fact and those who believe otherwise are nutcases.

Not only do professors need to be wary of what they're teaching, but students must also be cautious. Students, never take anything a professor says at face value. I encourage you to research things for yourself and make an informed opinion. You never know when someone could be teaching you theory and not fact.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments Log in to Comment

eahaddix
Mon Apr 16 2012 01:02
Darwinian Evolutionary theory has not been *proven* to be fact or a true theory. To the contrary, it is primarily a string of unproven just-so stories which are deemed plausible enough by some basis and, thus, *assumed* to be true.

And, pursuant to this, the unproven just-so story is the Darwinian Evolutionist's answer to all criticisms of Darwinian Evolutionary theory-just quickly invent one to answer an objection, claim that its raw plausibility within the context of time, trial and error, and raw chance is good enough, and then claim victory over the opposing viewpoint.

But, when all is said and done, the fundamental question of if Darwinian Evolution did happen or not is not answered by the casual invoking of unproven just-so stories.

ejwillingham (Tue Feb 7 2012 16:49) said, "A theory in science is usually what results when a hypothesis or set of hypotheses collectively withstands what is typically decades of testing intended to disprove them. In the end, if the hypothesis or set of hypotheses withstands this testing and, as with natural selection, all other counter hypotheses lie dead around it, it gets to become a theory"

And how do Darwinian Evolutionists unbiasedly test the veracity of Darwinian Evolutionary theory itself and its contents, if they are busy calling it "an undisputable fact and theory" and mocking those who challenge it as "disgraces," "uneducated," "ignorant," and "nuts"?

Please show me how and where Darwinian Evolutionists have genuinely tested the veracity of Darwinian Evolutionary theory with rigorous, open-minded scrutiny.

gbrezicki (Wed Feb 8 2012 11:12) said, "Neither creationism nor intelligent design qualify as scientific theories."

Neither does Philosophical Naturalism.

DrSnarky (Tue Feb 7 2012 19:17) said, "No biologist in the world ever values intelligent design."

Yeah, if they want to have a bright future in their academic field along with potential colleagues like Flanders, gbrezicki, DrSnarky, ejwillingham, Blak Thundar, and ABFox.

It is an undeniable fact that processes like the peer review process, the funding process, and the reversible accreditation process can and do help keep the scientific viewpoint which is in power in power, regardless of if the said scientific viewpoint is sound or unsound.

Flanders
Wed Feb 8 2012 13:12
As a CALS alumni and practicing scientist I'm deeply embarrassed by this article. Does the technician have any editorial standards? Ms Murphy is entitled to her opinions but her mischaracterization of evolution and scientific theories in general are appalling. Evolution is both fact and theory. Does Ms Murphy have issues with the theory of gravity? The precise mechanisms of both evolution and gravity are still being uncovered leading to theories about how these phenomenon work. Natural selection, btw, is just one of perhaps many mechanisms of evolution.
gbrezicki
Wed Feb 8 2012 11:12
Neither creationism nor intelligent design qualify as scientific theories.
DrSnarky
Tue Feb 7 2012 19:17
Wow.. What an embarrassment...

Not only did she not fact check on basic, basic, definitions. She's embarrassed every bio student here by representing this University in a negative light. Madison, there never was a controversy. The second Darwin realized the Theory, he knew if it was properly understood, it'd be devastating to the church, which is why he had to wait years to publish it. From that initial shock during his books release spread this "controversy" you talked about, which is entirely one sided, from a direction I'm sure you can deduce yourself.. No biologist in the world ever values intelligent design. Because evolution is a theory just like the theory of gravity, or that the Earth goes around the Sun. As a new student here, who looks up to the University standard, this level of scientific ignorance is shocking.

ejwillingham
Tue Feb 7 2012 16:49
You could use a little primer in evolution and the scientific definition of the word "theory." A "theory" in science isn't the same thing as "theory" in common usage. You can say, "I have a theory that more people in this restaurant will order sauerkraut than Brussels sprouts tonight," but in science, that's not really a theory. A theory in science is usually what results when a hypothesis or set of hypotheses collectively withstands what is typically decades of testing intended to disprove them. In the end, if the hypothesis or set of hypotheses withstands this testing and, as with natural selection, all other counter hypotheses lie dead around it, it gets to become a theory. In other words, a theory in science is a concept that has been tested to the point of redundancy and still withstood the tests.

As for evolution's being a fact--it is. Evolution happens. The theory--one that has withstood innumerable efforts to disprove it--is about HOW it happens. Natural selection is one theory of how evolution happens (and the most famous one), and it's not a matter of belief. There happen to be many many other ways that evolution happens, as well, including evolution that we humans direct, as is described in this explainer: http://doublexscience.blogspot.com/2012/01/basic-science-explainer-evolution-and.html.

It's always important to be as precise as possible in science when using terminology, and even more important to be well informed about a subject before you use at a springboard for publicizing a viewpoint, particularly one that is critical of prevailing understanding.

Blak Thundar
Tue Feb 7 2012 16:30
"...they would forever think evolution is a fact and those who believe otherwise are nutcases."
You are correct, it (evolution) is a fact and they are nutcases, in denial or just completely uniformed.

"I encourage you to research things for yourself..."
I encourage you to do the same. Learn what a theory is, in the sense that it is used in science before writing a ridiculous column. Evolution is one of the most widely supported and well-substantiated scientific theories, whereas ID and creationism have no evidence or research to support the claims that are made by them.

ABFox
Tue Feb 7 2012 13:38
I will only comment that this article is absurd, and that they need to fact check their definitions before listing them.

"a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena"

Go back to Science 101 and learn the scientific definition of a theory.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In