Will Evolution Ever Become a Law

We do not need a list of evidence to prove the fact of evolution, any more than we need to prove the existence of mountain ranges. Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhugh[39] writes that scientists must be careful to describe the nature of scientific research «carefully and correctly» at a time when evolutionary biology is under attack from creationists and proponents of intelligent design. Fitzhugh writes that if facts are states of being in nature, theories represent efforts to connect these states of being through causal relationships: opponents of evolution want to give crecreationism a place by demolishing real science, but their arguments do not hold. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all evolution by pointing to the current inability of science to explain the origin of life. But even if life on Earth turns out to have a non-evolutionary origin (for example, if extraterrestrials introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution would since then be solidly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. A scientific law is simply an observation about natural phenomena and makes no attempt at explanation, while a scientific theory takes over from the explanatory part. Theories do not become law, and one is not «superior» to the other – the two exist together and are just a framework for how we think about science. Sometimes there is not even a reference to a «law» – there is no «law of evolution», for example. Evolution is the explanation for why we see such diversity in life.

You know, it`s kind of an argument that if the theory of evolution were true, it would actually be a law. In fact, scientists are a little tired of some people saying that the fact that evolution is a theory means that modern science itself is not convinced that it actually happens. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences describes what a theory is as follows: Sometimes discoveries are made that are so profound that they force us to reject the old theory. Then we start from scratch to develop a new theory that matches both the new and the old proof. Then the tests begin, with everyone looking for evidence that the new theory is wrong. FALSE? Isn`t it wrong to prove it wrong? No. This is the way of science.

In the words of one famous scientist, according to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is a «profound explanation of an aspect of the natural world that may include facts, laws, conclusions, and tested hypotheses.» In other words, all scientific theories are backed by evidence, and you can test them, and more importantly, you can use them to make predictions. This is something that often comes up in discussions between scientists and the public. Smart design offers few answers. For example, when and how did a design intelligence intervene in the history of life? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first man? Were all species designed or only some of the first? Proponents of the theory of intelligent design often refuse to be bound by these points. They don`t even make any real attempts to reconcile their different ideas about smart design. Instead, they pursue exclusionary arguments—that is, they trivialize evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete, and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain. In the sense that evolution is largely confirmed by evidence, this is a fact. It is often said that this is a fact, just as the rotation of the Earth around the sun is a fact. [6] [17] The following quote from Hermann Joseph Muller`s article «A hundred years without Darwinism is enough» explains this point. Complexity of another kind – «specified complexity» – is the cornerstone of author William A.

Dembski`s intelligent design arguments in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. In essence, his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski argues in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that superhuman intelligence created and shaped life. Biologists consider it scientific fact that evolution took place in the sense that modern organisms differ from previous forms, and that evolution always takes place with perceptible differences between organisms and their offspring. There is such quantitative support for the latter that scientists consider joint descent as factual as the understanding that the Earth orbits the sun in the solar system, although the study of the fundamentals of these processes is still ongoing. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about certain mechanisms. [9] The creationism of intelligent design and its criticisms. Edited by Robert T. Pennock. Bradford Books/MIT Press, 2001. For anyone who wants to understand in detail the controversy surrounding «intelligent design,» this book is an excellent one-volume summary of scientific, philosophical, and theological issues.

Philip E. Johnson, Michael J. Behe, and William A. Dembski argue for intelligent design in their chapters and are refuted by evolutionists such as Pennock, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins. Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Controversy Between Creation and Evolution. Brian J. Alter and Sandra M. Alters. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001. This updated overview of the controversy between creation and evolution examines the issues in a clear and readable way, with a full appreciation of the cultural and religious influences that generate resistance to the teaching of evolution. It also uses a question-and-answer format, which should be particularly useful for teachers. As a final note for all those who are inclined to answer this question along the lines of «because there is no evidence of evolution, and those who say so exist are being deceived or trying to deceive others because they adhere to an unholy philosophy,» I respectfully ask that you do not participate in this discussion in this thread.