Scientific Theory For Dummies

Sorry about the family emergency. Hope things turn out well. To put it as simply as I can, a scientific theory is the current best explanation for a given dataset.To elaborate a little bit:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

A theory can be contrasted with an hypothesis:

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

And finally, there is generally only one theory at time to explain a particular dataset.There may be several competing hypotheses proposed to explain a particular dataset (abiogenesis, for example), but in that case none has yet risen to the level of a theory.One last point: In scientific terminology, "theory" does not equate to "guess" as it often does in the vernacular.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Science deals with evidence, and uses theories to explain that evidence.It is not the fault of scientists that folks who deal with divine revelation and scripture and the like can't produce reliable evidence to support their claims.Nor is it the fault of scientists that their evidence discredits some or many of the claims of religion.Perhaps religion needs better claims, ones that don't get overturned by evidence from the real world?And perhaps religion needs to stop trying to censor science for doing what it is supposed to do?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In your attempts to equate science and religion through common usage of the terms belief and faith, are you trying to elevate religion or denigrate science?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The evidence against a theory has to be meaningful. An example often used is a rabbit in pre-Cambrian deposits. If that evidence were real, it would be meaningful and would certainly have to be explained in some manner other than the current theory of evolution.But the objections that we have seen from creationists so far have always been scientifically meaningless. A couple of brief examples:

--Dates that contradict the young earth belief are wrong because they are based on assumptions (no evidence that the assumptions are incorrect, just the implication that "assumptions" means "wrong").

​

--Micro-evolution is fine but macro-evolution can't happen (no explanation given for the boundary that stops the micros from adding up to macros over time, just the edict that it can't happen).

I suspect one of the reasons creationists always come up with meaningless objections to evolution is that they don't study it, or any of the sciences upon which it is based.* As one told me on another website, "the highest form of knowledge is scripture."* There are a few exceptions, such as the scientists who undertook the RATE project. The problem they encountered is that they let their religious beliefs override their scientific findings.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I would look at that experiment as demonstrating a fact, rather than constituting a theory. A general explanation of why Ivory soap and similar objects float might be a theory.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.