Q&A: Theory versus Hypothesis
Theory versus Hypothesis
Question
I saw the following excerpt online (quoted as part of an article in favor of evolution):
“According to the scientific method, a theory is a well-founded explanation supported by a considerable body of evidence. Many people misunderstand the meaning of the word ‘theory’ and confuse it with a ‘hypothesis.’ Since according to the scientific method every scientific explanation is falsifiable given appropriate evidence, theory is the strongest term that can be given to any scientific explanation. For that matter, Einstein’s theory of relativity is also a theory, the laws of thermodynamics are a theory, and the laws of gravity are likewise a theory. Evolutionary theory is the fundamental law of nature, perhaps the only one, in the life sciences. It is falsifiable, but so far no reliable evidence has been found that successfully refutes it.”
I am not well versed in the terminology used in the scientific world at universities, but is the author correct in what he says? For example, are laws in physics defined only as theories, like evolution, and nothing beyond that?
Answer
Certainly. The confusion between a theory and a hypothesis is used by many apologists, but it’s just a common piece of nonsense. This also isn’t a matter of terminology accepted in one world or another. The terminology is not important. The claim is that evolution is a scientific theory like thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics and the like. There is a difference when evolution is used to describe the past rather than the present, and I discussed that in my book God Plays Dice.