355
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + +
no edit summary
No scientific theory can be said to be absolutely true, but a successful theory is most consistent with the actual behavior of the universe. When a phenomenon is discovered that is inconsistent with the prevailing theory, the theory is either revised or thrown out entirely. An example of this is [[Newtonian mechanics]]--while Newton's 3 laws of motion provide extremely accurate descriptions/predictions of the behavior of medium-sized objects at low speeds, they are inconsistent with the behavior of very large, very fast, or very small objects. Newtonian mechanics has been shown to be a limiting case of the [[theory of relativity]] (in the limit where velocity goes to 0) and [[quantum mechanics]] (in the limit where [[Planck's constant]] goes to 0, essentially the limit of large objects). Usually a theory which is inconsistent with some experimental evidence is not completely falsified; it is instead shown to be a simplified version of a more complete theory.
No scientific theory can be said to be absolutely true, but a successful theory is most consistent with the actual behavior of the universe. When a phenomenon is discovered that is inconsistent with the prevailing theory, the theory is either revised or thrown out entirely. An example of this is [[Newtonian mechanics]]--while Newton's 3 laws of motion provide extremely accurate descriptions/predictions of the behavior of medium-sized objects at low speeds, they are inconsistent with the behavior of very large, very fast, or very small objects. Newtonian mechanics has been shown to be a limiting case of the [[theory of relativity]] (in the limit where velocity goes to 0) and [[quantum mechanics]] (in the limit where [[Planck's constant]] goes to 0, essentially the limit of large objects). Usually a theory which is inconsistent with some experimental evidence is not completely falsified; it is instead shown to be a simplified version of a more complete theory.
[[Evolution]] is another excellent example. Most scientists consider Evolution to be both a fact and a theory. Of course this has inevitably resulted in glaring misapprehensions because of the terminology. Unfortunately this can prelude constructive discussion. Scientists distinguish between the following two premises:
#Almost all scientists unilaterally believe that [[fossils]] indicate that the diversity of life came into being gradually over hundreds of millions of years (an assertion of ''fact'') and that all species evolved from a common ancestor. They also assert the change in allelic (alternate forms of genes) frequencies that occur within populations over time. These are the facts that have been observed.
#Darwin and his successors explain this apparent progression by various scientific theories. What is often misunderstood by creationists or opponents of Evolution is that scientists are unsure of the exact '''mechanism''' that drives evolution. In other words, how Evolution occurs. One such mechanism is Darwin's theory of [[Natural Selection]]. Over time, this theory was combined with Mendelian genetics and other scientific disciplines (e.g. Paleontology, Geology, Biology, and Molecular Genetics) to form the theory of [[Modern Synthesis]]. This is the current and preeminent theory existing to explain the mechanism of Evolution today. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html] [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html]
== Common usage ==
== Common usage ==