I was wandering about darwin's theory which is controversial theory and there are no enough evidence to prove it right or falsify it, since I'm a biology student so i studied basic way of a hypothesis going to be a law ,the last thing to be a law is theory...am i right? Hmmm if yes then it's been about more than 130 years since darwin died and there is still no response to his theory?why this taking so long? Are we supporting Darwin because if we don't then we gonna recreate our basic embryology and evolution? If no then why we aren't making it a scientific law?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes. Theory of relatility is controversial. It needs some more modifications to be completed, as well as Darwin's theory. $\endgroup$ – Tho H. Ho Jan 8 '17 at 18:32
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the definitions of terms such as hypothesis, evidence, theory, law, axiome belong to the field of philosophy of science. You should give it a try at Philosophy.SE. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jan 8 '17 at 18:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Despite being a subject of philosophy, we already have a post that answer your question here. The post could as well be close as a duplicate. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jan 8 '17 at 18:56
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Tho H. Ho is very obviously wrong! I would love to be able to down vote his comments! The theory of evolution (often called "modern evolutionary synthesis") is a theory. A theory is a a set of hypoteses extremely strongly supported by evidences. There is nothing controversial about the theory of evolution, just like there is nothing controversial about the theory of gravity. None of these theories will ever become laws because a law is just something different from a theory (not something better). $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jan 8 '17 at 18:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ThoH.Ho I hope you did not take it with too much offense. If you just google hypothesis, evidence, theory, law you'll get many websites that make short intro to the semantic of these terms. These definitions are a matter of philosophy of science (a very interesting field of philosophy IMO). $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jan 8 '17 at 22:43

Scientific Laws differ from Scientific Theories in that Laws do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena. Scientific Laws are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.

Examples are like Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply. Such laws do not explain how and why they work.


Darwin's Theory of Evolution in contrast contains both observation, and a proposes an explanation of the phenomena of species formation.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.