I'm glad you posted this because I'm sick of writing it. Every time the evolution vs. creationism comes up, I find myself explaining this.
ONCE AND FOR ALL -- The layman's term "theory" is not the same as the scientific term "theory".
The problem stems from the public's lack of knowledge of the most basic scientific word usage and a misunderstanding of scientific method in general.
When I hear people say, "evolution is just a theory" it baffles me. A hypothesis becoming theory is not an easy process. Electricity is a theory. I don't see anyone rallying to put stickers on books reminding kids not to trust lighting fixtures. No one's arguing the theory of relativity either.
Theory is as good as it gets in science. Law is a mathematical term and doesn't even apply to certain instances of scientific findings. In other words, no matter what evidence is available, there are some theories that can never be laws. It's apples and oranges.
It's important to remember that science is a system of building knowledge based on what we know at the time. This is not the fault in science, but what makes science more reliable than faith. When new evidence is presented, studied, published, retested (again and again), etc. the new evidence is accepted. With faith, no matter what evidence is presented, the believer will not change his/her mind and by this method it is impossible to prove or disprove anything. The change in science is its strength, and its basic functioning premise, not a weakness or series of 'mistakes'. Mistakes are when you hold on to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
There is a preponderance of evidence to support evolution theory (otherwise, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a hypothesis). I don't understand why people refuse to accept this. If you believe evolution is bunk, then argue it without bringing in the 'just a theory' stuff because it's a misuse of the terminology.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad you posted this because I'm sick of writing it. Every time the evolution vs. creationism comes up, I find myself explaining this. ONCE AND FOR ALL -- The layman's term "theory" is not the same as the scientific term "theory". The problem stems from the public's lack of knowledge of the most basic scientific word usage and a misunderstanding of scientific method in general. When I hear people say, "evolution is just a theory" it baffles me. A hypothesis becoming theory is not an easy process. Electricity is a theory. I don't see anyone rallying to put stickers on books reminding kids not to trust lighting fixtures. No one's arguing the theory of relativity either. Theory is as good as it gets in science. Law is a mathematical term and doesn't even apply to certain instances of scientific findings. In other words, no matter what evidence is available, there are some theories that can never be laws. It's apples and oranges. It's important to remember that science is a system of building knowledge based on what we know at the time. This is not the fault in science, but what makes science more reliable than faith. When new evidence is presented, studied, published, retested (again and again), etc. the new evidence is accepted. With faith, no matter what evidence is presented, the believer will not change his/her mind and by this method it is impossible to prove or disprove anything. The change in science is its strength, and its basic functioning premise, not a weakness or series of 'mistakes'. Mistakes are when you hold on to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is a preponderance of evidence to support evolution theory (otherwise, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a hypothesis). I don't understand why people refuse to accept this. If you believe evolution is bunk, then argue it without bringing in the 'just a theory' stuff because it's a misuse of the terminology.