Should we stop talking about 'the theory of evolution' and instead talk about 'the law of evolution'?
From evolution to climate change, the real culture wars are about language, not science. To win these wars, science needs to change the way it talks about knowledge.
Creationists and fans of ‘intelligent design’ have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don’t conform to their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.”
This is the central argument of evolution deniers: evolution is an unproven ‘theory’. For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it’s true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word ‘theory’ means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It’s hardly a term of disparagement.
But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you’ve pulled out of your, uh, hat. It’s an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: “Ah, well, that’s just your theory.” Scientists use ‘theory’ in one specific way, the public another ¬ and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.
Turns out, the real culture war in science isn’t about science at all ¬ it’s about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.
Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, Australian-born physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate with an essay arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They’re an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they’re 99 per cent certain of a theory, they know there’s always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.
So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge – particularly in areas like evolution or relativity – they hedge their bets. They say they “believe” something to be true, as in, “We believe that the Jurassic period was characterised by humid tropical weather.”
This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like “scientists believe”, they read it as, “Scientists can’t really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith.” After all, “That’s just what you believe” is a common way to dismiss someone out-of-hand.
Of course, anti-evolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That’s why they love plugging words such as ‘theory’ in science. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language ¬ its precision, its carefulness ¬ and wield them as weapons against science itself.
There is a defence against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the anti-evolutionists insist on exploiting the public’s misunderstanding of words such as ‘theory’ and ‘believe’, then we shouldn’t fight it. “We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we’re talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon,” Quinn argues.
What does she suggest? For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let’s stop using the word ‘theory’ entirely. Instead, let’s revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as ‘law’.
As with Newton’s law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as ‘theory’ does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.
Evolution is solid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: when we troop into the doctor’s office each winter to get a flu shot ¬ an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease ¬ we’re treating evolution as a law. So why not just say ‘the law of evolution’?
Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, “I don’t believe in the theory of evolution,” they may sound reasonable. However, if they announce, “I don’t believe in the law of evolution,” they sound insane. It’s tantamount to saying, “I don’t believe in the law of gravity.”
It’s time to realise that we’re simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We’re never going to fully communicate what’s beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigour. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle ¬ in no uncertain terms.
At least, that’s my theory.
Via: CosmoMag
Creationists and fans of ‘intelligent design’ have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don’t conform to their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.”
This is the central argument of evolution deniers: evolution is an unproven ‘theory’. For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it’s true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word ‘theory’ means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It’s hardly a term of disparagement.
But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you’ve pulled out of your, uh, hat. It’s an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: “Ah, well, that’s just your theory.” Scientists use ‘theory’ in one specific way, the public another ¬ and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.
Turns out, the real culture war in science isn’t about science at all ¬ it’s about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.
Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, Australian-born physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate with an essay arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They’re an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they’re 99 per cent certain of a theory, they know there’s always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.
So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge – particularly in areas like evolution or relativity – they hedge their bets. They say they “believe” something to be true, as in, “We believe that the Jurassic period was characterised by humid tropical weather.”
This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like “scientists believe”, they read it as, “Scientists can’t really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith.” After all, “That’s just what you believe” is a common way to dismiss someone out-of-hand.
Of course, anti-evolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That’s why they love plugging words such as ‘theory’ in science. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language ¬ its precision, its carefulness ¬ and wield them as weapons against science itself.
There is a defence against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the anti-evolutionists insist on exploiting the public’s misunderstanding of words such as ‘theory’ and ‘believe’, then we shouldn’t fight it. “We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we’re talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon,” Quinn argues.
What does she suggest? For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let’s stop using the word ‘theory’ entirely. Instead, let’s revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as ‘law’.
As with Newton’s law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as ‘theory’ does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.
Evolution is solid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: when we troop into the doctor’s office each winter to get a flu shot ¬ an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease ¬ we’re treating evolution as a law. So why not just say ‘the law of evolution’?
Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, “I don’t believe in the theory of evolution,” they may sound reasonable. However, if they announce, “I don’t believe in the law of evolution,” they sound insane. It’s tantamount to saying, “I don’t believe in the law of gravity.”
It’s time to realise that we’re simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We’re never going to fully communicate what’s beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigour. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle ¬ in no uncertain terms.
At least, that’s my theory.
Via: CosmoMag
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
wow. dude. that's just incredible. these people really don't see that if their belief can't withstand critical examination then it's not worth anything. if they were so convinced of the power of their beliefs then it seems to me they'd relish the challenge.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on -
You'd think so. Any belief that is so weak that simple questioning can destroy it can't have been very strong in the first place.
-
Permalink Reply by LaRae Meadows on -
No. The law of evolution will suffer the same language barrier problem. They will say "Laws are written by people, voted on by people, changed by activist judges and ignored by prosecutors. Then by initiative measure, we'll pass a new law saying evolution does not exist." Thus not disussing the merits and problems of evolution or creationism. I like the Fact of Evolution. That's much easier and means the same thing to theists and nontheists alike.
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on -
That.. is freakin' awesome!
-
Permalink Reply by Sisyphus Fragment on -
No, we should make them learn the definition of what a scientific theory is. Which is what we are doing slowly but surely.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremy Roney on -
As a future biology teacher I hope to do my personal best to remedy this situation, sitting through an evolution unit this past week as a practicum observer (pre-student teacher) I found myself cringing many times over and ready to jump out of my seat to stop the teacher from saying what she was saying (which sadly I could not do). In the end it is bad science to call evolution a Law, it is simply too complex and not understood well enough to be at that point. While we know life DOES change over time, we cannot be so sure of the how that exactly occurs... unlike gravity it cannot be observed so perfectly, nor measured so exactly. I would also like to note that evolution has no bearing on the origin of life, it simply states that life changes over time. If one accepts that a creator did not create us exactly as we are today then both are acceptable. Until such a time comes when we are finally able to be entirely sure as to how exactly evolutionary change occurs I suppose I will simply have to settle for laughing at intelligent design videos as a warm-up in evolution labs.
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Tholen on -
I agree 100%. There's is no theory of gravity or any of the other laws, but we talk about the theory of evolution. Even to most the contaminated evangelistic nut would not argue about most laws that science has discovered, but evolution they, through their ignorance, will argue with you all day on evolution. BTW, the same thing is true of the science of behavior, or determinism, only in this case it includes most people in general, religious as well as atheists. It really is parallel. There is no theory of determinism. Something that can be proven time and time again in experiments, not to say in practical everyday ways is hardly a theory. I know the rather poor examples I have given in the past, will not be very convincing. But there really are no short cuts to understanding determinism. I wish to hell there were. To me some of the arguments against determinism are as far fetched as the arguments against atheism.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on
-
There most certainly is a theory of gravity, as well as atomic theory, germ theory, and numerous other theories.
A theory, a law, and a fact are three separate things.
A fact is an observed occurrence. Apples fall down. Igniting hydrogen in the presence of oxygen results in H20.
A law, as doone quoted earlier in the thread, "differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law." A law is usually an equation, such a Newton's three laws, Boyle's Law, and so forth. The Law of Gravity is the equation that defines the attraction of two bodies.
Theories are overall structures that attempt to explain the facts and laws that have been discovered and developed. Thus, we have the fact of gravity, the law of gravity, and the theory of gravity.
Again quoting doone, quoting Gould: "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its | natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on
-
I'd say that those are more principles than laws, as they lack a stated formula. Kind of like Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Dan 2 minutes ago. 510 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Fantastic and Courageous Act by Arizona Law Maker!
Posted by Robert Karp on May 23, 2013 at 10:33am 1 Comment 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
