RubySoho
Winston
I Have a Theory About How Wrong People Are...
April 4th 2008 21:08
...when I hear them say that evolution is "just" a theory. My theory is that they are entirely ignorant of how the word is used in scientific terms. My evidence? Read on.
"Just a theory". Those words burrow deeply into my pet peeve territory. By saying this they are attempting to be dismissive by treating the word "theory" as being synonymous with "guess" or "conjecture" (like when you have a 'theory' about who the killer is in a horror movie you're watching, I suppose). That's a common usage for the word but it is not correct in the scientific sense, and that is where people go astray. Wikipedia has this to say regarding the meaning of the word theory from a scientific perspective (I liked this explanation, as it was a bit more concise than others I found):
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the theory of general relativity.
To put it simply, a theory is a set of testable observations that allow us to make predictions based on the data gathered. It's not a hunch. It's not a guess. It is years of work and experimentation which results in a reliable explanation of some aspect of the world around us. To equate a scientific theory with a "guess" is to do gross injustice to science and to those who have spent their lives advancing the knowledge of mankind.
Did everyone catch the part where the Wikipedia article mentioned that gravity and relativity are also theories? That's right, they are. They are not provable in a definitive sense, as there will forever be the possibility that any future test of these theories could result in something unforeseen (however minutely unlikely that might be). And yet these theories allow us to launch satellites into space and send probes to the outskirts of the solar system. They are the fulcrum of the entire discipline of physics. Do scientists "guess" every time we launch a new satellite? No. They have precise mathematics and the dependable models of these theories to lean on, and the results are as predictable as the rising of the sun, time after time after time.
Still I hear people say of evolution, "it's just a theory". With that line of reasoning one could dismiss nearly all of science out of hand. The amount of evidence in support of evolution is monumental. It is currently the best model we have to explain what we see regarding the diversity of life. Does this mean that we know everything there is to know? Of course not. We are gaining more knowledge and altering details here and there all the time. But, as of right now, everything we find supports the theory of evolution. Everything. It isn't necessary to take my word for it. Dr. Francis Collins is head of the Human Genome Project, the team that sequenced the DNA of homo sapiens. He is one of the preeminent biologists alive today. He is also an evangelical Christian. In an interview on beliefnet.com he had this to say:
"It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
Collins is a deeply religious, Bible-believing Christian. But data is what it is. He has my respect for acknowledging that. Worldviews have to fit the evidence, you can't try to force the evidence to fit your worldview. It is plausible that some day we will find data to suggest that we on are the wrong track, but until such a time comes it is completely foolish to stick that word "just" before the word theory. That's a fact.
"Just a theory". Those words burrow deeply into my pet peeve territory. By saying this they are attempting to be dismissive by treating the word "theory" as being synonymous with "guess" or "conjecture" (like when you have a 'theory' about who the killer is in a horror movie you're watching, I suppose). That's a common usage for the word but it is not correct in the scientific sense, and that is where people go astray. Wikipedia has this to say regarding the meaning of the word theory from a scientific perspective (I liked this explanation, as it was a bit more concise than others I found):
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the theory of general relativity.
To put it simply, a theory is a set of testable observations that allow us to make predictions based on the data gathered. It's not a hunch. It's not a guess. It is years of work and experimentation which results in a reliable explanation of some aspect of the world around us. To equate a scientific theory with a "guess" is to do gross injustice to science and to those who have spent their lives advancing the knowledge of mankind.
Did everyone catch the part where the Wikipedia article mentioned that gravity and relativity are also theories? That's right, they are. They are not provable in a definitive sense, as there will forever be the possibility that any future test of these theories could result in something unforeseen (however minutely unlikely that might be). And yet these theories allow us to launch satellites into space and send probes to the outskirts of the solar system. They are the fulcrum of the entire discipline of physics. Do scientists "guess" every time we launch a new satellite? No. They have precise mathematics and the dependable models of these theories to lean on, and the results are as predictable as the rising of the sun, time after time after time.
Still I hear people say of evolution, "it's just a theory". With that line of reasoning one could dismiss nearly all of science out of hand. The amount of evidence in support of evolution is monumental. It is currently the best model we have to explain what we see regarding the diversity of life. Does this mean that we know everything there is to know? Of course not. We are gaining more knowledge and altering details here and there all the time. But, as of right now, everything we find supports the theory of evolution. Everything. It isn't necessary to take my word for it. Dr. Francis Collins is head of the Human Genome Project, the team that sequenced the DNA of homo sapiens. He is one of the preeminent biologists alive today. He is also an evangelical Christian. In an interview on beliefnet.com he had this to say:
"It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
Collins is a deeply religious, Bible-believing Christian. But data is what it is. He has my respect for acknowledging that. Worldviews have to fit the evidence, you can't try to force the evidence to fit your worldview. It is plausible that some day we will find data to suggest that we on are the wrong track, but until such a time comes it is completely foolish to stick that word "just" before the word theory. That's a fact.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Onesnap
I don't think a public school should make this call for their students.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Yes it irks me when people say "evolution is just a theory". Just. Just.
What they don't realise is that scientists now regard evolution a successful theory, in that it accounts for all known facts, hypotheses and observations in the area. Scientists no longer test to see if we have evolved but how we have evolved.
There is an excellent article by Ed Buckner from the Skeptical Enquirer up on livescience.com. Follow this
Really Long Link
Excellent post Winston.
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I actually subscribe to that magazine (it's great!), but that issue is from before I started. I will read it today, thanks!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
The rest of them may well be stupid
Thanks Louie!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by dQuarters
We, as humans, argue about this because as the most mentally complex creatures on this Earth we are free to do so. Our origins are not something we can afford to rest on wild speculation, ancient texts, or even TESTABLE models based on popular ideas.
You can do with your belief as you wish. But until there is PROOF, to me the human evolutionists are no less presumptuous than the creationists. Have you seen evolution? Have you smelt, heard, tasted or even felt evolution? Or is your evolution just another man with a beard in the sky?
Meh. I'm not a scientist. Though I'm not a holy man either. I guess we just pick and choose what we care to believe, then judge others for what they've picked and chosen.
I find it incredible how people fight off old stories with new ones. I guess it's just our nature.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Also, we do not "pick and choose" what we believe. Belief is not subject to the will: you must be convinced by something. I don't "choose" to believe in evolution for the hell of it. I do so because the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. If you are not compelled by the evidence after you've looked into it, then so be it. But at least look. Even I have read books and articles by creationists/intelligent design proponents, painful though I found them to be. Information is key here, man.
Comment by dQuarters
I think you should broaden your understanding of the word creation to include more than just the bible's deffiniton. We've created many breeds of animal in our short time here. And we did so while not even grasping evolution as a concept. In fact all we needed was good old fashion doggy-style to do it. But I guess even sex could be called science, since it's often a case of testable methods being employed.
Care to argue semantics yet? ... Me either.
"We don't pick and choose what we believe. Belief is not subject to the will: you must be convinced by something." Okay... but then why is everyone convinced by different 'somethings', no matter how ingenious the mind? What is it that drives theory if not will to know clearer that which is pondered? Does will not require belief that one will find answers through testing of theories? And finally, does it not require both belief AND trust in that the scientists doing the testing are honest and reliable, seeing as us (the masses) are doing a lot of pondering and no testing?
I believe that the going theory of this evolutionary process does hold weight and has effected the habits, reproduction and alteration of the inhabitants of this our planet Earth for many more years than we've been around. But I'm not talking about Evolution, and neither are you. It's the origins of the human race we argue. No one cares about how newts got here, unless it bears on how WE got here.
I assume you're sold on the premise where we come from primates. Fine by me. It's as good an explanation as any. But it's not the truth until it's proven. And if it's NOT true and we just pile all of this information behind it to prop the theory up, it's still no more than JUST a theory. And further, to someone who believes another theory, it's just another belief in a fairy tale.
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
Comment by dQuarters
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
Because really, it doesn't matter. I have the same answer for both questions. My theory is this: everything came from magic. Yes, that's right. Magic. Wizardry to the nth degree, if you will.
Think about it. You walk down the street. The Sun drops below the horizon, and all of a sudden, these so called "lights" start glowing. They say it's caused by the harnessing of electricity, but no, that's not the case. I'm no scientist, and in no way will I trust one.
So why did I come to this magical conclusion? Well, my faith rides on Zerlark, the Great Mystic of Milford.
He came to me in a dream one night, and said this: "Do not take that which you take for granted, for granted... those lights you see? The microwave you use? Those movies you watch? That car you drive? The Sun that heats? The water that cools? The air you breathe? The telescopes that seek? The newts you chase? The medicines you take? The clothes you wear? The DNA you trust? You do not know how these work. And yet you believe in their power. These things are not proven by science! Why, scientists are nothing but hoaxers! The very people you trust to bring you light and heat and knowledge are LYING TO YOU! Because they know it is I, Great Zerlark! These are my doings! Now write me a book."
And thus begun my theory, that which berates and spits upon science like the stupid hole that she is. F**k you, Ben Franklin. F**k you, Dr. Kaku. This is Zerlark's house.
Comment by dQuarters
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
d, I don't want this to go on all day, and I certainly don't feel like getting into a posting war. Eventually someone (probably me) is going to say something mean, and then everyone is going to feel bad, etc. and so forth, and no one wants that. So, I'm going to clear out everything I want to say here, and then I'm done. In the end it's not my job to convince anyone of anything, so I don't want to spend a lot of energy on something that ultimately doesn't matter.
I think you should broaden your understanding of the word creation to include more than just the bible's deffiniton.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Broaden it to include what? The Hindu concept of Brahma? The Raelians? The Egyptian creator god Amun? This Native American myth about some mud and a turtle? I know that there are tons of creation stories outside of the Bible, and none of them are remotely relevant, except as cultural artifacts. Are you referring to animal breeding? Breeding animals for specific traits is not creation, it is guided evolution. Sex by itself is not science, but animal breeding certainly has elements of science in it. It requires absolutely no knowledge of evolution to breed animals, though, as we've seen. What am I missing?
Does will not require belief that one will find answers through testing of theories?
No. It requires evidence, independent from presupposition, that the scientific method will provide answers. For hundreds of years now, scientific testing has yielded evidence either for or against countless ideas. One does not have to believe that: it's a simple fact. Facts have nothing to do with belief; they are quite independent from it. Which brings me to this point. I'm going to do something I rarely do here, as frequently the types of discussions I have on this blog are somewhat subjective. This one is not. So, I will say that, in this instance, you are incorrect. Factually, undeniably incorrect.
My post was not about the details of the theory of evolution, it was about how the word "theory" is misconstrued in the scientific sense. With that being the case, I'm not going to offer reams of data about why you should believe evolution. There is lots of information out there from people infinitely more competent than myself that you can check out if you want. What I am disputing is the notion that evolution is just another theory, of equal validity to creationism, intelligent design, cosmic turtles or whatever else. All ideas are not created equal. There can be two or three or a million competing ideas about something. It doesn't mean they're all equally valid. Up to this point, the theory of evolution (which deals with the fact that evolution occurs -- the theory does not deal with "if" but rather with the details of "how") is the only well-formed, robust model to describe all the data that we see. The only one. If you study it at all, you see that to call it "just" a theory, or to put it on equal footing in any sense with the pseudo-magical competition, is a total fallacy.
I've never "seen" an electron. In fact, no one has. If you've studied chemistry or physics, then you know about orbital shells in atoms. All those are are predictions of where an electron might be in relation to its orbit around the atomic nucleus at any given time. Since an electron exists as both a wave and a particle, you can't really pin it down and "look" at it. We know what we know about them from circumstantial evidence. That knowledge is foundational to chemistry, physics, to all our ideas about electro-magnetism, not to mention being critical to our development of numerous pieces of medical equipment, and the list goes on. All from something no one has ever seen, but has been demonstrated through testing. You don't have to believe in electrons (and you'll certainly never see one). They're there, and they don't care if you believe in them or not. It's the same with evolution.
But I'm not talking about Evolution, and neither are you. It's the origins of the human race we argue. No one cares about how newts got here, unless it bears on how WE got here.
Well, since we got here the same way that newts did, I certainly AM talking about them just as much as I'm talking about us. It more than bears on how we got here, it's the same conversation. So I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say? That we got here differently? Since that contradicts everything else we know, I guess I would need to see some evidence to think along those lines.
But it's not the truth until it's proven.
Well....I suppose that's valid to an extent, depending on how you look at it. There IS a definite truth, we know that for sure. And ALL the evidence points towards this theory that we're discussing. However, we cannot, and probably never will be able to, prove it conclusively. However, "proof" as you're using it is not a word that the scientific community uses. It is an invalid point. As I want to make this as clear as possible, I found a statement on talkorigins.org that sums up this idea better than I could:
In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.
So. We haven't "proven" gravity either. Or relativity. Or any other number of things. But the evidence is so solid and reliable that, even though the subjects will always remain open to revision, they provide nearly irrefutable weight to their claims. Again, this is how it is with evolution.
This has been long, and I doubt that I have convinced you to see things my way. And that's OK, it isn't necessary that we agree. I think I've made my point as clearly as I know how, and that's all I can do. I've actually enjoyed this, you've made me revisit my thoughts on this subject, and I like that. Sorry for how long my reply was, it required a lot of space (and I took stuff out of this!)
Thanks d.
Comment by dQuarters