I don't know the specifics of this case so I won't comment on them, but I do believe that a belief that the earth is six thousand years old is a valid reason not to hire someone for the science faculty.

I don't know the specifics of this case so I won't comment on them, but I do believe that a belief that the earth is six thousand years old is a valid reason not to hire someone for the science faculty.

 

I agree but that doesn't apply in this case.

I agree but that doesn't apply in this case.

 

:thumb:

You'll have to forgive me, LBBC, but your very question leads me to feel that you are trying to downplay the significance of something being a scientific theory because it is not, in and or itself, a fact. Scientific theories are supported by factual evidence. Parts of a theory can be readjusted based on new evidence (new facts, if you will).

 

Here's an analogy for those that might still be misunderstanding the term 'scientific theory.'

 

Let's say that scientists find a partial skeleton of a dinosaur (which will be our "theory" in the analogy), the first ever discovered of its kind. They can "see" how most pieces fit together, but some of the missing pieces require them to extrapolate or use other logical means to fill in the missing pieces.

 

They put together a replica of the skeleton, based on the pieces that they have and those that they have to use extrapolation/logic to fill in. They call this creature "hexasaurus." Years down the road, another partial skeleton of hexasaurus is found, still missing some pieces, but some of the ones missing from the first skeleton are present in the new one.

 

After examining the new pieces, scientists conclude that their extrapolated pieces do not 100% match with the newly discovered bones. Additionally, the new bones will require some of the still missing bones to be redesigned. Scientists make the needed adjustments and wait until the next hexasaurus discovery so that they can "tweek" their interpretation of the evidence of what hexasaurus was like.

 

Even though adjustments had to be made, based on new evidence, hexasaurus still existed. Was their original interpretation of him 100% "factual"? No, but that doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't show that he existed. All it shows is that the finer steps of how he "worked" will need to be tweeked over time, until all of the pieces are found and put together.

 

Has there been incidents in which theories have been proven wrong when all of the facts come in?

A theory is not a fact. A theory is an explanation to a phenomenon or other circumstance that has been supported through observation, experiments, and analyses of those experiments. It incorporates much evidence but has not be proven completely to explain the phenomenon in-question. It is still subject to further inspection and replication of experiments. If other information comes to light that disproves this theory and is able to be reproduced by other scientists/researchers and they also come to the same conclusion then the theory will be re-worked and revised or will be scrapped all together.