But its not Proven
Objectivity
Empirical science deals with reality. Given no human being is omniscient there is always the possibility that a theory of empirical science might not be entirely correct. No matter how thorough our scrutiny it is possible that sometime in the future reality will deliver an unexpected bit of evidence that shows our theory to be flawed. To deny this possibility is to abandon objectivity.
Validity
Yet some naïvely insist a scientific theory must be proven -found to be perfect, unshakable for all of time- to be valid. Given no theory of empirical science can achieve such a high bar (the equivalence of absolute truth) such reasoning will dismiss famous high confidence theories such as:
- Heliocentrism - Copernicus
- General Relativity (e.g. E = mc²) - Einstein
- Universal Gravitation - Newton
- Cell theory - Hooke, Schleiden, Schwann, et. al.
- Electromagnetism - Faraday, Maxwell, et. al.
- Plate Tectonics - Wegener
- Quantum theory - Planck, Heisenberg, Feynman, et. al.
- Evolution - Darwin, et. al.
We live in an age of awe-inspiring technology all of which is ultimately based upon the theories of empirical science - none of which are declared by the scientific community to be literally proven. Our technology clearly works yet the science which underlies all engineering and manufacturing must be considered invalid by some if we presume consistency in their argument.
Confidence, not Certainty
Consider now the heliocentric model. This is the model which shows the sun to be the center of our solar system. It is safe to say that based upon substantial evidence, the scientific community is supremely confident in this theory. Yet when pressed even heliocentrism cannot be deemed proven. Although unlikely, it is possible that the planetary orbits as we see them in the universe are an illusion of our three dimensional space and are subject to some yet to be discovered cosmological dynamics. If you think that is too far fetched then consider the fact that our notion of time (absolute time) is an illusion. Per Relativity, time is relative and operates within a curved spacetime. If, as Einstein noted, ' Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one .' it is prudent to presume everything is suspect. Science wisely never presumes it has full understanding of reality. Stated differently, science never declares a theory of empirical science to be literally proven. It instead establishes levels of confidence .
Evolution
The argument ' but it's not proven ' rarely applies to heliocentrism or general relativity. Most of the time this is used to discredit evolution - one of the most highly corroborated theories in empirical science. To be clear, the National Science Foundation† notes that the scientific community is as confident in evolution as it is in the heliocentric model (i.e. the sun is the center of our solar system):
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
In short, species do and have evolved over time based upon genetic mutation and the ever changing rules of the environment. Science is working to learn how evolution played out (the exact species and lineage) but the process of biochemical evolution is not even remotely in question.
But still it's not Proven
Evolution, and every other theory of empirical science, will never be proven. Ultimately there is a very simple reason for this. It is not possible to preclude the possibility that the future might bring contradicting evidence. Why is this? Do we not prove things in mathematics and propositional logic all the time? The difference is that formal systems such as arithmetic are man-made. We made all the rules and thus there are no unknowns. When it comes to arithmetic we are indeed omniscient. We can literally prove that 1+1=2 under the rules of arithmetic. Reality, however, goes by rules not of our making. We will never know if we have found all the rules and, accordingly, we can never literally prove any theory of empirical science. At best we grow extremely confident (0.999?).
Those who attempt to discredit a theory of empirical science by claiming it is not proven do not understand science.
Who is online
82 visitors