russ_watters said:
No, he doesn't have it backwards. Here's another way to look at it: In science, theories are often named after the factual observation they are intended to describe. Some examples:
Newton's theory of gravity is named for the physical phenomena known as "gravity". Its purpose is to describe the functioning of that phenomena. The phenomena of "gravity" is known to exist - it is a fact. That is, indeed, a requirement under the definition of "theory".
Plate techtonic theory is a theory discussing the observed fact that the continents of the world float on plates above the Earth's mantle.
Chaos theory is a theory discussing the phenomena of highly complex (chaotic is almost slang there...) systems. That's not a very good way to describe it, but what you are trying to describe there is the observed phenomena of evolution.
When Darwin first proposed the theory, it required a logical leap. He saw different, similar birds and concluded that they actually had related ancestors. He didn't have access to the tree of life to know for sure (ie, via dna or fossil record). Now we do have access to that tree (in large part). Now we do know that birds that appear to be related are related via common ancestors. That observed phenomena - that animal species change over time - is called "evolution".
So similar to the way I described it above:
The theory of evolution seeks to explain the observed phenomena of evolution.
Sorry to say, but you are wrong in several parts of your statement.
First, he DOES have it backwards. Evolution is first and foremost a theory, hence the name "Theory of Evolution", which you will find in any biology textbook. By the scientific definition, a theory is an assertion that is made and backed up by a set of observable phenomena and experiments.
Second, in regards to gravity: You say that "the phenomen[on] of gravity is known to exists- it is a fact". This statement is false. The correct statement would be to say that the phenomenon that objects tend to fall towards a center of mass is a fact. Gravity, as it stands, is not a law or fact. It is still a theory.
Third, in regards to your statement, "but what you are trying to describe there is
the observed phenomena of evolution. ": No, I am trying to describe exactly that which i wrote.
Fourth, in regards to "The theory of evolution seeks to explain the observed phenomena of evolution.": You are incorrect in saying this. The theory of evolution, which is proposed to be driven by natural selection, is an extrapolation of the observed phenomenon that accumulating mutations result in new phenotypes. Though this may sound like splitting hairs, there are important differences between the two statements. The reason what you are saying is wrong is that you cannot 'observe evolution'. Evolution can never be observed in a single organism- that is because single organisms do not evolve. Evolution in the correct sense of the word is a change in the genetic material of a POPULATION of organisms from one generation to the next. In order to "observe evolution" one would have to have the capacity to observe the entire population of organisms' genomes. At the time, this is very close to impossible to do since observing an entire population's genetics from one generation to the next is not economically or experimentally feasible.
To be clear, I am not trying to argue the semantics here, but many of the things you wrote are widely held (though inherently false) statements about the true (scientific) definition of words, and it IS important to distinguish between correct and incorrect usages of these words. The way that you and I are explaining things is generally very similar, though for scientific discussions, even the use of a single incorrect notion can make your statement false, i.e your statement about gravity being a fact.
