The argument that “evolution is just a theory” usually stems from a misunderstanding of the scientific concept of the word “theory.” The argument is commonly used by laypersons who only have a casual knowledge the theory of evolution. These persons use the argument because they incorrectly believe that “theory” means that there is no “real” proof.
However, the theory of evolution has a very large body of evidence that supports it. Although evolution is generally accepted by the scientific world, it is still labeled a “theory” because a scientist must keep an objective and open mind. As it stands now, many scientists who have devoted their professional lives to the study of the biology and its history accept the theory of evolution.
Persons who use the “just a theory” argument may think that the theory of evolution was “invented” by “armchair scientists,” but this is not so. While the theory of evolution may not have had the backing of a large amount of evidence in its early years, the evidence that supports evolution has steadily grown. The overwhelming amount of evidence (such as the fossil record, genetic similarities between species, etc.) that we now have for evolution naturally leads to the conclusion that evolution actually happened.
A person who denies the theory of evolution because “it is just a theory” needs to do some research and to back up his claims. There is enough evidence for the theory of evolution for scientists to deem it acceptable, and all this evidence must be refuted if evolution is to be denied.
The Essay on Public Schools Theory Evolution Evidence
In my humble opinion, I think public schools have the right to teach about anything they want. Hence the word "public" schools, parents should have that authority as to whether or not they want their child to attend a school where teachings can get disobedient to their religious belief or not. That's why there is a private school. Anybody can believe in God. But, when there is an answer to a ...
B. “We should not worry about air pollution because through natural selection, the human species will develop lungs that can detoxify pollutants.”
Aside from the moral wrongness of the implications behind the above argument (that the weak should be allowed to die), the argument is weak. natural selection is the “survival of the fittest”. What this means is that the weak will die while the strong will survive, allowing them to produce similarly strong offspring. Although there may still be some natural selection to a limited extent (such as people with very weak lungs dying too young before they are able to reproduce), natural selection is no longer a significant factor in the death or survival of specific humans. Natural selection no longer applies to a great extent to modern humans (or at least those who live in developed and developing countries).
This is because through modern medicine and technology, even weak humans will be able to survive and reproduce.
Additionally, natural selection is also a very slow process, but air pollution, in contrast, continuously and rapidly increases, especially if we do not “worry about air pollution” as the argument above states. In this case, natural selection may mean the death of everyone, because even if natural selection were allowed to play its part, air pollution will go out of hand and possibly kill all humans before they can catch up through natural selection.
