Can a theory be wrong?

It seems as though in our modern mainstream definition of the word 'theory' (in a scientific context), we have left no room for being wrong. More specifically, it seems as though those who hold to the theory of evolution believe essentially that it cannot possibly be disproven. But is this not a dangerous assumption in light of history? For how are we to account for all of the theories that have been proven wrong over time like the geocentic theory, Newton's theory of time, the spontaneous generation theory, Maxwell's theory of the aether, Lamarck's theory of acquired heritable traits...even the flat earth theory and many others? Am I just misinterpreting scientific definitions and assertions or taking them out of context?

Mullah: Didn't Newton's theory of time stand the test of time for over 300 years before being disproven....twice as long as you are talking about? (BTW, the thumbs down didn't come from me...)

Yes, a theory can be wrong. Testing the theory should show whether or not it's correct. Of course, some theories cannot be tested sufficiently to prove or disprove them - evolution for example.

Acutally, I believe that the theory of evolution *can* possilby be disproven. The fact that it is falsifiable but has not yet been falsified makes a very compelling case for it.

I have asked a few questions on here trying to get creationists to answer why 150 years of biology and chemistry has more or less backed up Darwin's theory rather than discovering some major wrinkle. And I could probably count on one hand the number of answers I've actually received from creationists. And even then, they were simply rants about how evolution is 'shaky' and unproven.

What your are misinterpreting is the mountain of data that substantiates evolution through the testing of falsifiable hypotheses.

EDIT: Did I just get three thumbs down before I even had my content up? LMAO

Well would you say that his theory of time was disproven. I would say it was true relative to the local system we live in and observe but not relative beyond. As far as I know, the notion of 'relative time' with which newton dealt was different from the notion of relative time proposed by einstien.

Newtonian theory in general was accurate, but only in a local sense. Perhaps there is something that over-arches evolution. That's possible. But there is sufficient evidence to support evolution as we understand it in our local system.

Yes.

There was a long-standing theory that the earth was the center of the universe which was wrong. In fact, some very good scientists, Galeleo and Copernacus (sp?) were ridiculed and exiled for telling the church that they were wrong about the "terracentric" universe.

There was a long-standing theory that the earth was flat, too. Lots of people told Columbus to just use his dang eyes: you could look out your freakin window and see that the world was flat, and if you sailed past the horzon, you'd fall off into some big abyss with boogey men, demons, republicans, and other monsters.

By definition a theory is something that is in progress. It's one step closer to emperical truth than a "hypothesis," but it's still open to being disproven. The more proof we find, the finer we hone the theory.

Empirical proof is always tweakable. Flannery O'Connor said "I know how we humans can be so 100% sure of something and so 100% wrong at the same time."

Theories aren't for being 100% sure with: they're for seeking out the truth behind them.

Of course. A theory is an explanation which fits the facts. If a fact became known which conflicted with the theory, it would be disproven. An example would be a dog being born naturally from a cat, or a rabbit fossil in the Pre-Cambrian, either of which would disprove evolution at a stroke.

Usually the BASE of theory doesn't become a theory with out a whole hell of a lot of proof. But yes, parts of it most definatly change! That's what makes it science!!

It can't be PROVED right, and it also can't be PROVED wrong. We have to make an assumption based on the best available evidence, and we also have to assume that what we see is in fact reality and not our imagination.

Of course a theory can be wrong. A theory is consistent with all available data, but when new information is discovered it's often necessary to reevaluate elements of a theory, or indeed to change the whole thing.

Good point. The only people that claim that theory of evolution is not more than just a theory are atheists.

In school, in my country Dominican Republic, which has better high school system than USA, I was taught that a theory is a educated guess. Not exactly a fact.

If it couldn't be wrong, then it wouldn't be science. All scientific propositins are tentative. If they found a mammal in one layer of Precambrian strata anywhere in the world, it would totally destroy the theory of evolution.

Nobody ever has though and that is why evolution is a robust theory that is so widely adhered to: it makes accurate predictions about what kind of evidence scientists will find, *before* they even go look.

I think for the most part you are taking them out of context.

Realize that for Lamarck, he tried some experiments of cutting of cat tails, bred them, and they kept being born with tails. It never worked, so it never went beyond that. Of course, let's also make it clear that it was science. He had an idea and tested it, but it was false, so the idea died.

With evolution we've discovered how to calculate common ancestors through DNA, we've found fossils demonstrating a procession of traits, and we've studied it actively in bacteria, viruses or even say in these butterflies in the article I posted. Evolution has so much backing it, that for it to be false many, many other theories would also collapse. It isn't impossible just very unlikely.

A scientific theory is a model whose imaginary properties you can test against the real world; insofar as they correspond, you鈥檝e got yourself a good theory. Since scientists make no presumption of omniscience, a theory can never be considered infallible 鈥?you can never rule out the possibility of the real world presenting you with data that fails to jibe with your model, regardless of how much corroborating data you鈥檝e already accumulated. This is science鈥檚 safeguard against dogmatism 鈥?its strength, NOT its weakness!

Just taking out of context, or misdefining the word theory - language can do that to us occassionally....

Take geocentric theory - it was never really a "theory" because it was never tested - it was really "geocentric hypothesis". Testing proved it wrong.

A theory, in science, is something that all available supposed evidence points to as being a fact. What the average person defines as "theory" is called a "hypothesis" in science. The "theory" part is in the how, not the if.

However, one must always remember that science has no hope for what occurs after life ceases. It has nothing on which to observe or test. Once a person dies, and is dead for a day or two--science, in all its knowledge, cannot bring them back for discovery for what lies beyond.

Jesus was dead for three days, and proved that He had the keys to death and the grave by raising Himself from the dead. He made clear what to expect in the afterlife. He provides free access to eternal life if you would just believe His report.

It seems as if science today is more concerned with discrediting the given evidence in order to hold on to its own lack of knowledge. And thus, those who hold to science for their religion, choose the dangerous road of "taking ones chances that the Bible is false" regarding the afterlife. A dangerous gamble indeed seeing eternity is in the balance.

Science is limited to the physical. Your soul is eternal. The Bible deals with what is eternal where science cannot venture. The physical realm will pass away, and science will pass away with it. What you want to do is latch onto that which will last forever, and that is the Word of God.

Science deals with understanding and comprehending creation. Religion deals with the understanding and comprehension of the Creator.

1 Peter 1:23-25
...having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because

All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
But the word of the LORD endures forever.

The reason that it seems that Darwin's theory can't be disproven is because it is the best explanation we have for the fossil record (note the word "seems"). New discoveries in the fossil record do not refute evolution, but sometimes refine the theory.

However, there would be plenty of ways to prove evolution wrong. For example, if a population's genetic distribution did not code for advantageous traits in their environment, we might start to question evolution. We just do not see this happening.

Another example would be an organism giving birth to an organism of a different species. For example, a dog giving birth to a wolf would likely be a point against evolution.

There are plenty of potential pieces of evidence that would falsify evolution, we just haven't found any.

It could be proven wrong if we found evidence contrary to it. It is very telling that in 150 years and studying millions of species and thousands of fossils, we have found plenty of confirmation for evolution, and nothing to contradict it.

It is important for you to separate "evolution" out to different components of the theory. There is common descent, natural selection, and a phylogenic family tree.

The core of the theory is common descent - that all current species evolved from a single early life form. This is the part of the theory that most creationists have a problem with, and it is also backed by so much evidence that it is treated as an observation now. In lay terms, it is a fact.

The force of natural selection in causing change has been observed as well, but since the time of Darwin, we have added sexual selection as another factor. Regardless of the weight of these two and the possible existence of other forces, this part is independent of common descent.

Finally, the phylogenic family tree - the actual graph of how life branched out - is fairly complete but has areas that await further genetic or fossil study. This is the part of the theory that is being refined with new information all the time, and which cause creationists to scream "SEE! THEY WERE WRONG" every time new information shows that, say, birds diverged from the dinosaur line and not the protosaurian line. However, refining the family tree has nothing to do with the validity of common descent. It is the puzzle that we are still looking for a few missing pieces from. The bulk of it has already been uncovered.

Yes, a theory can be wrong, but then is it modified. The theory is explaining how a known things works. So the theory of gravitation doesn't prove gravity - it explains how it workd; Germ theory doesn't prove the existence of grems but how they work to create illness. And the theory of evolution doesn't prove evolution exists - we alreasy know that. It tries to explain how it works. Thus the theory can and should be modified time and again until we know how it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Arggggg.

Theory is not fact but fact supports theory. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF FACTS SUPPORTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!

In this day and age why is this not understood?

Sure, a theory can be wrong. But I'll bet you a million bucks that if evolution is ever overtaken by something else, that something esle won't be "God did it."

Obviously it can be wrong. But if Evolution is wrong, it still has many things right. That is to say it has passed any number of tests, unlike for instance the Aether idea, which could be dismissed after a simple experiment. So far, Evolution has not been disproven.

However, it is hardly controversial to say that those who question the theory of Evolution the most have something much less scientific in mind to replace it. And by less scientific, I mean it is so bad it is not even wrong, it's just irrelevant.

If and when Evolution is replaced as a theory it will still have to explain everything Evolution has explained, and that is rather a lot of explaining.

A theory is a guess based on the information available. It is not fact until it is proven. So yes, theories can be wrong.

A theory generally is a set of ideas supported by evidence. If further evidence is found that contradicts the theory, the theory will be modified or declared insufficient to explain the observed facts.

Humans continue to learn, and adjust their assumptions about the world accordingly.

We operate on the best information we have and when new information arrives, we adapt.

Yes, that is the point of theories, that is how science develops.
I don't think there are many evolutionist who would say that there are no mechanisms that are unknown.
Richard Dawkins has even said that he considers there may be fundemental principals that are not understood, regarding evolution.
That unknown is where God can always be invoked.-
can't understand something=it must be God.
If you are talking about evolutionary theory, it just explains best, at the moment, those facts we can observe.
The creationist myth doesn't fit any of the observable data, except maybe "let there be light", to start things off, but as soon as Adam appears it all gets ridiculous.

A theory is just a theory, a hypothesis. The object of science is to acquire information and then analyze that information to see whether or not it fits various theories.

Here is the part that gives most people trouble: Theories in natural science can NEVER be proven, only disproven. One exception, any time, anywhere, destroys an absolute. If evolution can be scientifically disproven in any way, then the model must change and the theory must be modified into something else to account for the contrary evidence.

Facts can be proven, not theories.

Both misinterpreting and taking them out of context. A scientific theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted by science and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. A theory is never a fact until it has been proven and then of course by definition it is no longer a theory. Even some so called "facts" have been demolished by further scientific study. You mentioned the world being flat which as we now know is ludicrous. Newtons theory of gravity had to be more accurately explained by Einstein. That's what science does. It develops theories about the workings of the universe using what ever observable evidence is available. If new evidence is discovered it can either confirm the theory or counter the theory, sometimes to the point that it know longer is a viable theory. Science does not know everything. We know a great deal that the faithful seem to disregard as simple argument but it is not simple argument. Our theories are not meant to disprove intelligent design or creation or anything else. In fact those concepts are not even considered in science. I would never say to a Christian that my theories disprove your beliefs. It always seems to be the Christian coming to me and saying that my theory can't be right because the bible says so. That doesn't fly in science.

It's not that it cant be wrong, its that you better not diagree with it. If you do you are called backwords, superstitious etc. What I find amazing is that the sceintist who "believe" this admit there is no proof, look at this....

Proof of the theory is not helpful for determining the evolutionary history of any species 鈥?it merely shows that there is one. To root out that history requires additional evidence; fortunately there is a lot to choose from, and more is being found every day.

In the world of science, this proof is not very important. Evolution has been established science for a century, meaning that workers in the field routinely use it to make predictions because it The proof is offered mainly for the edification of those who claim that 鈥渆volution is just a theory --- it hasn鈥檛 been proven.鈥? Now, it has been.


Now it has been???? excuse me? Talk about not having a clue, read that again

Even without a proof, the theory is conclusively established: there is no reasonable probability that any theory will ever be found which more correctly explains the data.

yes scientific theories can be wrong at some other time becoz they are also invented by humanbeings like us,they r not some one excluded 4m us but yes they r more geneious,but if u r asking about GOD'S theory,that is the same in my opinion (AS A MUSLIM).the theories that r mentioned in QURAN r true till the end of the day but we hav not discovered some of them yet....

Theories can absolutely be disproven. In order to disprove a theory, however, one must not simply say, "It's not specific enough," or "What if..." Refutation is built on examples and instances that cannot possibly fit into the theory, thus proving that there is something else at work. For better or worse, evolution seems to be in the same boat as Einstein's theory of relativity. We haven't conclusively proven either one, but we haven't found anything that refutes them, either. So, they're held as generally accepted concepts.

Of course, it is only a theory.

a theory can be very wrong. Such as evolution. All the open-minded people know that evolution is a theory that was long ago proved wrong.

The word "theory" assumes that it is changeable and not fully accurate, that is what they'd say anyhow.

Jesus called it "building your house on sand", and the ruin of it is huge.