Evolution is just a theory
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
"Evolution is just a theory."
Scientific theories are different than theories in the everyday sense. A theory in the everyday sense is just a wild guess.
A theory in the scientific sense is the best explanation explaining a set of observed natural phenomena that is backed up by all the facts and evidence and has yet to be falsified by all current data.
And since the claim is dealing with a scientific theory, and the usage is in the everyday sense its an equivocation fallacy.
Comments on Question
Did you have a question? If you are asking if this makes sense, then yes.
Answers
2Not sure I agree with this, although your description of the difference between theory and hypothesis is correct. But the question is, "Why are my fingers getting cuts?" Daniel develops two theories: 1) this is due to sharp objects in his environment that he is not aware of, or alternatively 2) this is due to dry skin. He tests the first theory with the hypothesis that if true he will be able to find sharp objects in his house; when he doesn't find any, he rejects the hypothesis, leading him to reject theory 1 in favor of theory 2. Theory 2, however, is still not tested, so is still a theory. Later Daniel finds the sharp objects and now accepts theory 1 as fact and rejects theory 2.
This is correct. A theory could be an entire system of strongly-supported ideas that help to explain some natural phenomenon (this is a 'scientific' theory; these are based on many, many years' worth of research. They remain as 'theories' because science makes inductive or probabilistic arguments, not deductive ones) or a general idea as to why something happened (a 'theory').
If your window gets smashed, you might theorise as to why this is. It is not the same as the debate between Steady State and The Big Bang.
To ignore the difference in meaning is Equivocation. To claim "just a theory" in order to diminish the standing of Evolution compared to, say, Creationism, is a False Equivalence.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I disagree with your description of an everyday theory as a wild guess.
They are often quite scientific in thier own way.
For example: I noticed a had a few small cuts on the first two fingers of my right hand. They were painful (that's how I noticed them) and I was mystified as their origin. I immediately formed two theories: Either I had a problem with my skin and it was cracking open somehow, or some object I used day-to-day had sharp edges and this was causing the cuts. Since they looked like very clean incisions and not really like cracks, I favoured the everyday object theory. Over the next couple of days more cuts appeared. I examined various objects I use around my home to see if any of them had sharp edges. I found nothing, and began to consider visiting the doctor to investigate the skin condition theory further. Then it hit me - The taps above my kitchen sink. I checked and found that they are covered with a metallic coating that was peeling away along the edges and it was indeed very sharp. I felt I had found the cause but it was not until I had used a cloth to cover my hand when turning the tap for few days, and the existing cuts healed, and no new ones appeared, that I was able to confirm that my everyday object theory was correct.
This was quite a scientifc process. I made an observation: the cuts. They posed a question: where were they coming from? I formed a couple of theories: a sharp object I was handling or a skin condition. I made further observations to test one of them, and found a likely source. I conducted an experiment, observed the results, and found that my everyday object theory was the correct one.
Is this what you meant by a theory in the everyday sense, or have I misunderstood you?