i dont want to start an ideological war becuase god knows i will lose but evolution is a theory just as gravity is a theory, while it is accepted as exsiting by the scientific community there is always room for modification to the exsiting rules.
Yes. But, there is a widespread misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "theory" when it is applied to science. For a large number of people, theory
is synonymous of supposition
: an idea that has been proposed but not fully proved, and therefore somehow doubtful. But, in science, this is absolutely not
the case!! A theory is a scientific concept that has reached a very high degree of achievement after being tested and over-tested countless times. It is a very large and solid piece of work. Saying to a scientist that evolution or gravity is "just" a theory, it is like saying to a mountaineer that the Everest is "just" a mountain...
To take your example, gravity: Its law was first formulated by Newton. And then, a few centuries later, Einstein came to change all that with his relativity. Does it mean Newton law is not valid anymore? No, its validity is still the same. It simply means that relativity has a larger validity window (relativity is valid at speeds near the speed of light, while Newton law is not). It is more general.
To illustrate it: imagine you have "apple" theory, which explains every apple. And then, someone propose and demonstrate the "fruit" theory, which explains every fruit. Does it make the "apple" theory wrong? No, it still applies for apples, but it isn't valid for oranges...
Beyond the simple notion clarification, I react to this topic because when someone says "evolution is just a theory", there is often the idea of intelligent design behind. I don't know if it is the case here, perhaps not, but nonetheless the ambiguity is there.
What highly irritates me with intelligent design, is when people try to deconstruct the work done by numerous scientists (theory of evolution) in order to promote their beliefs. It is outrageous obscurantism, not less. Intelligent design is not science: people working on it have set the conclusions from the start (following their religious beliefs) and they try to make the data fit that conclusion in order to support it... This is simply anti-scientific, unacceptable.
I realise that my last paragraph is potentially polemic. Nevermind
I think it needed to be said, so everything is clear.