Agnostic Forums - View Single Post

Faydwyn · 10-07-2006, 08:29 PM

Here’s something I wrote for my Physical Anthropology class…

Colloquial Use of the Word “Theory” Versus the Scientific Use

Every one has the right to believe what one desires. But belief and science are not necessarily one and the same. Proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design claim that their “theory” is as valid as the “theory” of Evolution. Perhaps this comes from a misunderstanding of what “theory” means in the context of science.

Stephen J. Gould says that “in the American vernacular, ‘theory’ often means ‘imperfect fact’--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.”(1) In science, however, a Theory is a hypothesis or explanation that is verifiable by repeated testing and data collection. It is “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."(2) In this sense the Theory of Evolution is a valid Theory (and is even considered to be fact by the vast majority of scientists). There is abundant evidence for it that stands up to the Scientific Method. However, Intelligent Design is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. This interpretation is not verifiable by the Scientific Method. Thus, the theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Additionally, further misconceptions might occur when debate about evolution ensues between scientists. But the debate is not about whether or not evolution is true, but about its mechanisms. R. C. Lewontin in "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth” writes that “what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution” not evolution itself. (3) In the National Geographic News article “Does ‘Intelligent Design’ Threaten the Definition of Science?” John Roach writes, “According to [Eugenie] Scott, anybody who surveys the peer-reviewed scientific literature will uncover articles documenting disagreements over the pattern and process of evolution, ‘but they won't find arguments over whether living things have common ancestors.’"(4)

If we were to not use the scientific definition of a “theory” when determining what is taught as science curriculum, the creation stories of a wide variety of cultures, from the Ancient Greeks to the Navajo, would also be taught. However, like Intelligent Design, these explanations are not verifiable by the Scientific Method.

Because Intelligent Design is not verifiable by science, its place in a science classroom is questionable. As individuals are free to believe what they will, they are also free to teach that belief to their children. However, within the context of a science classroom, only those explanations that are verifiable by science and the Scientific Method should be taught.

(1), (2), (3) Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
(4) Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?

10-07-2006, 08:29 PM	#46 (permalink)
Faydwyn Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: California Posts: 91	Here’s something I wrote for my Physical Anthropology class… Colloquial Use of the Word “Theory” Versus the Scientific Use Every one has the right to believe what one desires. But belief and science are not necessarily one and the same. Proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design claim that their “theory” is as valid as the “theory” of Evolution. Perhaps this comes from a misunderstanding of what “theory” means in the context of science. Stephen J. Gould says that “in the American vernacular, ‘theory’ often means ‘imperfect fact’--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.”(1) In science, however, a Theory is a hypothesis or explanation that is verifiable by repeated testing and data collection. It is “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."(2) In this sense the Theory of Evolution is a valid Theory (and is even considered to be fact by the vast majority of scientists). There is abundant evidence for it that stands up to the Scientific Method. However, Intelligent Design is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. This interpretation is not verifiable by the Scientific Method. Thus, the theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory in the scientific sense of the word. Additionally, further misconceptions might occur when debate about evolution ensues between scientists. But the debate is not about whether or not evolution is true, but about its mechanisms. R. C. Lewontin in "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth” writes that “what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution” not evolution itself. (3) In the National Geographic News article “Does ‘Intelligent Design’ Threaten the Definition of Science?” John Roach writes, “According to [Eugenie] Scott, anybody who surveys the peer-reviewed scientific literature will uncover articles documenting disagreements over the pattern and process of evolution, ‘but they won't find arguments over whether living things have common ancestors.’"(4) If we were to not use the scientific definition of a “theory” when determining what is taught as science curriculum, the creation stories of a wide variety of cultures, from the Ancient Greeks to the Navajo, would also be taught. However, like Intelligent Design, these explanations are not verifiable by the Scientific Method. Because Intelligent Design is not verifiable by science, its place in a science classroom is questionable. As individuals are free to believe what they will, they are also free to teach that belief to their children. However, within the context of a science classroom, only those explanations that are verifiable by science and the Scientific Method should be taught. (1), (2), (3) Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (4) Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?