Darwin never proposed Evolution, he proposed survival of the fittest or natural selection... Huge difference, so try to keep it straight... but If your not going to read the facts about it you'll never keep it straight.... Also before you claim you have, I know most of you haven't otherwise you would have know he never proposed evolution and thus would not keep referring to him as the one who did... Oh and his (Darwin's) "THEORIES" have already been proven, Natural Selection happens, we have seen it all around us and witnessed it occurring....
Also if most
of you had read and were even rudimentary versed in science, you would
know the difference between hypothesis and theory but you don't. Because
you people sling around "theory" like its some 4 letter word when in
fact a theory has already been proven, which it why it is called a
Part of the problem today come from the generalization
use of the word theory in the English language in common conversation.
For example when one individual looks at another individual and says
"I have a theory why this object might not be working... "
in fact, is a hypothesis, as it is unproven until said individual tests
it.. But in modern Language theory has come to mean something
completely different from what it actually means.
A nice explanation of Theory Vs Law, which is of course your next argument is as follows.
origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the
development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we
talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have
the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and
strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his
laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe
worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws
are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on
the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being
absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the
true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may
or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is
absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena
must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely
impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time
if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit
of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner
workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at
all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it
wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the
use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean
"hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory
- definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a
body of knowledge.
The line between theory and hypothesis can
become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For
instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of
knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works,
explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in
between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of
sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but
hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be
described as a hypothetical theory.
"Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology"
is though Most of you will never get it straight because you take and
recycle the arguments of those before you believing the horse crap they
spout and re-spout it yourself...
The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of the Principal of Super-Position
The Theory of Special Relativity
The Theory of Atomic Structure
The Theory of Nuclear Fusion
All of those are known just like:
The Theory of Evolution
That's why it isn't called
The Hypothesis of Evolution