(06-14-2009 12:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote: (06-14-2009 11:46 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: (06-13-2009 07:41 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: Nope, and neither does any "Scientist" that's why it's called a theory.
Gravity is also just a "theory".
You should stop embarassing yourself.
http://www.verizon.net/central/vzc.porta...%20gravity
Dr Torch, you are misinformed on the subject. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. The word "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). Instead, it is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review". This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions. The Origin of Species was published in 1859 and has been subjected to over 150 years of peer review by scientists the world over. The general conclusion by the International scientific community is that the theory of evolution is the most valid explanation for how life evolves on Earth.
Science is just a succession of better and better approximations. This is what makes it nice and exciting and why the peer review process is essential. If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statements (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). Unfortunately, creationists and Intelligent design proponents refuse to subject their "theories" to the scientific peer review process. The reason they prefer to shortcut one of the most essential stages of the scientific process is because 1) explanations are not scientific but are instead pseudo-scientific religious doctrine, and 2) their observations cannot adequately explain many of the observations made in the natural world (ubiquity of nucleic acids, the fossil record, etc) and would be rejected.
I should also point out that you fail to understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law.
LAW
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
Given my above arguments for how similar these two words are, it is nonetheless true that "law" and "theory" are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.
Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.
Newton's Universal law of gravitation described the gravitational attraction between bodies with mass under Earth-like conditions. For example, it is a Newtonian law of graviation that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground. However, it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs. The attraction of bodies with mass is a scientific law, but we understand and explain it through a theory (Theory of gravity, Theory of general relativity, etc).