Among countless others, people in these forums seem to have a problem understanding what a theory is. The colloquial (everyday) definition of a theory involves guesswork and mere ideas. Nothing more. But this is not what a theory is in the context of science. And I do not mean that scientists simply take guesswork more seriously, or perhaps too seriously.
The Scientific Method. We all think we understand it, but it is clear that many of us do not. What you start with is observations. Then, more observations. Finally, you may recognize a pattern in whatever you observing. For example, things fall down, not up. So you formulate a "law," which is NOTHING more than a summary of the pattern you are observing. In everyday conversations, "laws" are concrete, and everything must obey them, but scientific laws are merely summaries, and do not include any sort of explanation for what is being observed. So, anyway, you formulate a hypothesis in an attempt to explain the source of the pattern you are observing. That is, you try to explain your law. You test the hypothesis in the "lab" (work with me here). If you experimental data supports your hypothesis, then you've got something to work with. Technically, a supported hypothesis is a theory, but science is considerably more retentive about "truth" than the Church is. Hypotheses must be REPEATEDLY supported through REPEATED experiments in order to be officially designated as theories. And even when something IS designated as a theory, it only means that it is the best explanation we currently have for a particular pattern we observe in such-and-such.
What's my point? Creationists sound like idiots when they speak of theories, laws, and facts because they often do not understand the problem that CONTEXT introduces into their arguments. The everyday value of laws and theories (as words) is reversed in the context of science. In everyday life, laws are concrete and theories are guesswork. In science, laws are merely summaries of patterns of observation, and theories are TESTED explanations for these laws.
Who here is actually surprised to hear that evolution is a theory and gravity is merely a law? We know nothing of what causes gravity. That matter is attracted to other matter is a hypothesis which has not yet been proven. But evolution has an explanation that is plausible for people whose minds are not clouded by archaic, ancient beliefs.
Is evolution a fact? Yes. It is a fact that allele frequencies change from generation to generation in a population of organisms. So where does the theory come in? Evolution is an explanation for the DIVERSITY of life, not the ORIGIN of life. It is a hypothesis that is supported by genetics, the fossil record, structural homologies, etc. Hypotheses aren't all "testable." But "testable" isn't something that is required for a hypothesis to become a theory. The purpose of testing is to derive support for a hypothesis. But testing is not the only means of coming up with support.
Do you understand now?
