| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
|
Hi all,
In her 2004 book “Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction” (Greenwood Press), Eugenie Scott does a great job of spelling out the distinctions between a fact, a hypothesis, a law, and a theory in science. She emphasizes that a theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of observations, NOT just a really well-established observation.
That students do not understand the distinction was made very plain to me a few weeks ago. After students read the section from Eugenie’s book, I talked with my freshman class about the differences among the four concepts. When I finished with “So, for example, plate tectonics is a theory,” a student’s hand rocketed up.
“You mean, we don’t even know for sure whether the plates move or not?!”
Sigh…. I tried to re-explain the distinction. That the plates move is an observation / fact. We can watch them move with satellites; we know they move. The theory of plate tectonics is a set of EXPLANATIONS for WHY they move, HOW they move, and HOW that movement causes the effects that it does.
Similarly, that life is all related to each other and has changed over time are observations we can make. In this sense, “evolution” is a fact. Natural selection is an EXPLANATION for HOW life has changed over time to produce a community of descent.
Intelligent design, as Peter noted, offers no EXPLANATION for all the observations that we can make about life supporting the idea of evolution. Hence, it is not a scientific theory.
The “public” nearly universally thinks that a theory is a weak, unsure, opinion about a fact, and this misunderstanding is *deeply* rooted. I’m not sure how to combat it—my attempt in class seems not to have worked very well!
Peg
Dr. Peg Yacobucci Associate Professor Bowling Green State University Dept. of Geology 190 Overman Hall Bowling Green, OH 43403-0211 Office: 419-372-7982 Fax: 419-372-7205 Email: mmyacob@bgsu.edu
-----Original Message-----
The problem we are having is that the word "theory" in our general culture equates closely with "an idea," and many ideas can coexist. In science the word "theory" designates a consensus view of the scientific community. I think, but may be incorrect, that only one theory in a given scientific realm is possible at a time-or there would be no consensus.
Plate tectonics was a hypothesis until it became a consensus view, at which point it could be called a theory.
Of course, any theory in science is subject to revision and even can be overturned. Using plate tectonics as an example, moving continents were discussed for many years but there was only a hypothesis with little support until the beginning of the plate tectonics revolution. In the early stages of this revolution the problems with a stable earth became apparent. Even those not associated with the plate tectonics hypothesis recognized numerous problems with the then current explanations of a stable earth (e.g. the fit of the continents, difficulty in explaining mountain building, thrust plates, island arcs, etc.). Plate tectonics began to have many advocates when it provided solutions to these problems.
At present the Theory of Evolution does not have fundamental problems within the scientific community. Intelligent design solves no problems that the Theory of Evolution does not already cover. Intelligent design has no advocates within the scientific community. Read through the abstracts of the geological and biological national meetings. Evolution is not seen as problematic. The scientific community fully accepts the Theory of Evolution, and there are no contenders for the throne.
In the scientific world, intelligent design is not a theory. It is at best a very poorly framed hypothesis. There is no way to test the hypothesis. The hypothesis lacks credibility in the scientific community (see contents of abstract volumes and the major journals.)
We are saddled with a term that has dual meanings. We should make this distinction before we start any discussion with people who may not understand what a scientific theory is. We should also make it clear that Intelligent Design is a poorly framed hypothesis, while evolution is a theory overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community. |
Partial index: