One of the most frustrating aspects of discussing evolution with a creationist, or many plain old religionists for that matter is their simple lack of understanding the word “theory.”

All too often, a conversation between an evolutionist and a creationist will end up with the creationist saying, “evolution is just a theory,” and assuming that they just said something true. It’s the lack of the understanding of the word “theory” in science that causes people to make this mistake.

This mistake is also often made by those in the media. Ann Coulter, for instance, often refers to evolution as “just a theory” in her dismissal of it, among many other idiotic statements she has made about evolution.

So what is a theory?

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there are a variety of definitions for the word “theory,” but it’s the last one that is often mistaken as the only definition. The last definition offered is: “6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption.”

An unproved assumption.

This is the way that the word theory is often used when people are talking about evolution. They’ll say, “evolution is just a theory, and many scientists don’t believe in it.” Both of those statements are false in their use. Evolution is in fact a theory, but the implication here is that since it’s “just a theory” then it is an unproved assumption. And obviously the “many scientists don’t believe in it” is a common line used by creationists who are quoting their own made up propaganda. Sure, some scientists don’t believe in evolution, just not the ones that work in the field of evolution.

This is where they also conveniently tell you that gravity is not a theory, because it has been proven, further showing their lack of a grasp of scientific terminology.

The fact is, gravity is a theory, just as evolution is. And they always will be, no matter how proven they are.

Theories will always be theories. They can never graduate to facts or laws. They are different terms for different parts of science.

So what’s the difference between the common use of “theory” and a scientific theory?

Well, let’s define a scientific theory:

“A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with ‘laws of nature,’ suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, ‘It’s only a theory.’ For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because ‘Gravity is only a theory.’”

It is true that gravity is just a theory. Should we not teach it? Or provide a creationist rebuttal or their own theory, that completely lacks scientific merit?

Why evolution is taught and creationism (or intelligent design if you’re being sneaky) is not is that creationists don’t play by the rules of science. If they want to disprove evolution, they can try all they want. That’s the whole point of science.

You come up with a hypothesis of something you observed, you make predictions and test your hypothesis, and you repeat until it works the same way time after time. At this point, you have a theory. It’s called the “scientific method” and it’s the way real science is studied.

I don’t want to make this another evolution/creation article, since there are plenty of those around. I do want to make this about the word “theory” and its misuse by those attempting to disprove evolution.

Science is not all that difficult if you are willing to be patient. The scientific method is not complicated. Evolution is not word-for-word what was in Darwin’s Origin of Species. He simply presented a theory. That theory has been observed and tested for the last century, as scientists do, and cannot be disproved.

I’m sorry to all of the Ann Coulters out there who only get their “science” from the Discovery Institute, but evolution is a fact. It’s technically a theory also, but it is just as much fact. If you spent half of the time you spent learning actual science about global warming, you’d understand that this is not a giant hoax to mess with the religionists. I don’t care about your religion. I don’t agree with it, but I really don’t care what you believe. But you don’t have to fight scientific facts because you think I give a shit who you pray to.

Evolution is a fact. It’s also a theory. (Sorry religionists, I linked to the pinko Wikipedia, so you’ll have to take their facts/theories with a grain of salt)

Do some research and it’s not that difficult to understand.

Discussion

One comment for “Defining the Word ‘Theory’ as Used in Science”

Post a comment