The Theoretical Theory of Theories

There seems to be some confusion about what exactly a theory is in science, and it typically resurfaces in discussions regarding culturally sacrosanct theories like evolution. I've seen and heard countless exchanges where someone states that evolution is only a theory, which inevitably elicits the response that a theory is much more akin to a fact than a possibility or a hypothesis. I've seen conversations where people point to internet memes like the one below to mock anyone who challenges any scientific theory, but particularly the theory of evolution—and specifically, the idea of the naturalistic origins of life, also known as macro-evolution.

But the reality is, theory means different things in different contexts, even within science. Though shocking that I might challenge the accuracy and reliability of an internet meme, let's start with the dictionary definitions of the word, where the nuanced meanings are outlined.

1. an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

2. an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

3. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

4. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

5. a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

You can already see why there is some confusion by just looking through these definitions, but it gets worse. You then get internet meme definitions thrown in from laymen armed with half-truths, and different uses from different branches of science as well. For example, when a skeptic uses the word theory to describe evolution, an opponent will, almost without fail, quip that gravity is a theory as well, and then ask the skeptic if they also doubt the existence of gravity. This is a false equivalency however, because gravity is not a theory, but an observable, testable, and repeatable phenomena. The theory of gravity is the scientific attempt at explaining this phenomena. The truth is, we don't know how gravity works—we have a few competing theories, and we have some mathematical models, but they have not been verified, they may or may not be accurate, and scientists will admit as much.

Evolutionary theory however, contrary to the definition presented in the meme, is not "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." None of the naturalistic mechanisms theorized to explain the origins of life have ever been observed or confirmed through scientific experimentation. Many attempts have been made, many papers have been published, and many headlines have been printed, but in the end, we are no closer to substantiating macro-evolutionary claims than Charles Darwin was. The universe and life exist, but how they came to exist is a question we do not have "repeatedly confirmed facts through observation and experiment" for. Those who claim otherwise are either unintentionally misinformed, or intentionally misleading.

So, why can evolution still be called a theory if the scientific definition is so strict? Well, because it actually isn't. Though a lot of word play is used, the reality is, that science utilizes several of the dictionary definitions of the word theory. For example, take a look at the use of the term in science as a qualifier, such as in theoretical physics. Notice the differentiation of this type of physics from regular physics. Why? Because regular physics deals with empirical science while theoretical physics typically does not. Another example would be string theory, which remains quite popular in science despite lacking any direct experimental verification or testable predictions. In both these use-cases, clearly the term theory implies something which is not yet proven (or even provable), and yet when it comes to evolution, advocates want (or believe) the word theory to carry a sense of much more empirical and demonstrable truth. But even in the comical internet meme, we can clearly see that "facts" are not always facts in science, and may be modified or entirely discarded in light of new evidence. So even by this definition, a theory aligns best with dictionary definition #2—being one possibility but not proven.

However, possible and plausible are not synonymous. Even if a theory can be deemed possible, it then must be evaluated to conclude whether or not it is plausible. In this process, a scientific truism called Occam's Razor (the simplest answer is usually the correct one) comes into play as well as mathematical probabilities. How does evolution stack up here? Not very well it turns out. Science has yet to even offer evidence that evolution is possible, let alone plausible. In fact, after nearly two centuries of scientific investigation, evolution seems less possible now then when Darwin (and others before him) first proposed the theory.

Today, we have less answers, more problems, more complexity, and even more speculation. Even the vaunted scientific journal Nature, which was originally created to promote Darwin's naturalistic theory (and just to be clear, his book provided no evidence for his claims, only promises that one day the evidence would be found—a tradition that continues to this day), recently published a rather honest review of the state of origin-of-life research, admitting the lack of progress. Rice University organic chemist, Dr. James Tour has long called the origin-of-life field "clueless" and to prove it, offered a challenge to the top ten origins-of-life researchers to answer any one of five major evolutionary questions. None of the researchers responded.

The key mechanism, the linchpin of the theory, is random mutation. Without this theorized engine, macro-evolution is not possible. Gene pool shift and natural selection can at least partially account for diversity within a species by promulgating specific pre-existing traits already present in the genetic information, but only random mutation can create new and beneficial genetic information—in theory. In observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable empirical science however, random mutations have done no such thing despite numerous attempts by very tenacious scientists. Not only have they had zero success, they've actually discovered more and more evidence that random mutation actually cannot do what they theorized it must do (see here).

Then we come to the question of plausibility. Let's use dictionary definition #4 for a minute and simply assume evolution is possible for the sake of investigation. If we were to set aside the question of actual mechanisms, would evolution pass muster in the next step? Not at all—mathematicians and statisticians have long been the enemy of evolutionists. The probability of evolution happening is effectively zero. The statistical odds are so unfathomably astronomical, that belief in blind chance requires blind belief. Even many evolutionists acknowledge this fact, which is why multiverse theories are popular, because if there are an infinite number of universes in existence, theoretically, the probability of evolution occurring in one of them goes from being statistically zero, to statistically inevitable. But is there any empirical evidence for a multiverse? No. It's all theoretical and almost entirely untestable, unobservable, and unprovable. The evidence we do observe is detrimental to evolutionary theory, so we have to theorize creative ways to get around that inconvenient fact.

This leaves us with one last definition that seems to apply to the term theory—general acceptance (part of definition #3). This of course falls prey to the appeal to popularity logical fallacy (most believe it, so it must be true) or even worse, the appeal to authority fallacy (scientists are experts, therefore what they say must be true). Never mind the fact that by definition, science is never settled—this argument is inherently flawed in that truth is not determined via a democratic process or via peer-reviewed (which many scientists acknowledge is a completely broken and corrupt system) papers as reality does not conform to either popular or "expert" opinion. Many scientific theories which were once nearly universally thought to be true have since been relegated to the dustbin of history, such as the steady-state theory of cosmology, which was supplanted by the big bang theory.

So, in the end, is evolution a theory? Yes and no—it depends on which definition you're using. Is it an idea that is intended to explain facts or events (the fact that the universe and life exists)? Yes. Is it an idea that is presented as possibly being true but that is not known or proven to be true? That depends on who you're asking—many laymen and scientists alike present evolution as being proven to be true while others acknowledge the lack of actual evidence. Is it a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena? No, it is not plausible without invoking hypothesized infinite universes, but yes, it is generally accepted. Is it a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation? Absolutely. We've spent two hundred years assuming it to be true and building complex systems, models and mythology around an idea which we have zero empirical evidence for. Is it a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject? Yes, it is probably the most systematic view in science today. Concise? Not exactly, it's enormously complex and convoluted—a patchwork of different theories connected only by the common thread of naturalism.

So, we've established that by and large, calling evolution a theory is certainly not a misuse of the term. However, by now it should be equally obvious that a theory is not a fact, nor is it even necessarily well-substantiated. A theory is a possible explanation of an observable fact, but that does not make the theory itself fact. To complicate matters, in science, an idea never really graduates from the theory phase—it simply becomes a more plausible and/or accepted theory. In this spectrum of theories in science, there are highly tenuous and disputed theories and there are theories which are well-substantiated, testable, and widely regarded as gospel truth. Evolution enjoys the privileged position of being widely accepted, despite the lack of empirical evidence to justify such dogmatic adherence. But in a culture which has largely embraced materialism, it is winner by default.

If you've made it this far, you're probably wondering if things should be clearer at this point. The truth is, probably not. But I hope you now have a better understanding of the problem and the arguments. A scientific theory can be little more than a hypothesis, or it could be an extremely well-substantiated framework based on empirical observations and experimentational data. Those who accept the molecules-to-man evolutionary explanations of how the universe came to be have a tendency to think their belief is a product of scientific fact rather than an ideology founded squarely on faith. They call their views scientific and they want the authority of empirical science to be associated with their beliefs, but the evidence simply isn't there. In fact, the evidence is increasingly pointing elsewhere.

"The literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

-Michael Ruse, Philosopher of science, Florida State University, "Saving Darwinism from Darwinians," National Post, May 13, 2000, B-3

"We conclude—unexpectedly—that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

-H.A Orr and J.A. Coyne, American Naturalist, 1992, p. 726

"Evolutionists have 'Physics Envy.' They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It's not. The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics... I think this is what the public discerns—that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science."

-John Chaikowsky, "Geology v. Physics," Geotimes (vol. 50, April 2005), p. 6

"…Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."

-Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician, Physicist, Philosopher of Science, "Cosmos, Bios, Theos," 1992 p. 113

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

-Richard Lewontin, Leading evolutionary geneticist, Harvard University, "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review of Books, 1997

"But about intelligent design... I read 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen Meyer… I found it one of the best books I’ve read, in terms of really putting the finger on the questions... What I didn’t like was the final answer, of course… I think that we must have a more naturalistic answer to these processes. There must be. Otherwise, I’ll be out of a job."

-Joana Xavier, Origin of Life Researcher, University College London, Interview with Perry Marshall, "The Biggest Mystery in the History of the Universe," 2023

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

-Sir Arthur Keith, evolutionary anthropologist, President of the Royal Anthropological Institute, (wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, in 1959)

"…What they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don’t understand. I certainly don’t want any intrusion of religious ideas in the name of science—but I don’t want this bland soup that’s taught as evolution in the name of science, either. It’s not science—it’s catechism. …All that’s there is teaching the same old pap for 150 years, modified by neo-Darwinists but not in any useful way."

-Carl Woese, "Famed Microbiologist on Teaching Evolution: Don't Start Until College," Wired Science, Feb 22, 2008

"I now believe there is a God... I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations… My discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not faith."

-Antony Flew, "There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," 2008

"The evidence against Darwinism was a critical factor in my acceptance of creationism, which opened the door to my acceptance of Christianity, biblical reliability, and a young-earth creation worldview. Like many scientists who came before me, I discovered that the evidence supports the truth of the Bible."

-Jerry Bergman, Professor of biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, & microbiology, Northwestern State University, "Creation Conversion: From Atheist to Creationist," 2015