A Modest Proposal

[Elizabeth I]

I've been thinking about the creationist dismissal of evolution with "It's only a theory," conflating hypothesis with the scientific meaning of theory.

I think the crux of the problem is that evolution was first introduced to the general public as a theory (in the scientific sense) and has been called the "theory of evolution," allowing the dishonest conflation to take place.

The people who point out that gravity is, technically, also "only a theory" have gotten close to a potential solution, but not gone all the way.

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts?

 

[Trent Wray]

Hmm. Interesting.

Okay, at what point in history do you think the theory of evolution became so defined by evidence that it could be called a "law"?

IMO, and it could change quickly, evolution is a well backed theory to describe certain aspects concerning change, where as change is more akin to a law. Or perhaps causality is the law. But I'm not sure that evolution should be considered a law, since it only describes a part of a larger whole we have yet to clearly define in a similar way, outside of entropy and other factors.

But I could quickly change.

It's an interesting point you make though

 

[Lucian]

I've been thinking about the creationist dismissal of evolution with "It's only a theory," conflating hypothesis with the scientific meaning of theory.

I think the crux of the problem is that evolution was first introduced to the general public as a theory (in the scientific sense) and has been called the "theory of evolution," allowing the dishonest conflation to take place.

The people who point out that gravity is, technically, also "only a theory" have gotten close to a potential solution, but not gone all the way.

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts?

Actually, I think you're being a bit generous when you say that people who spout "It's just a theory" are conflating hypothesis and theory. It's the fallacy of equivocation and, for people who use that fallacy, "theory" can mean anything from "educated guess" to "wild speculation," as when some drunk guy in a bar says, "Right, my theory is..."

As for calling it the principle or law of evolution, good luck.

 

[Delvo]

"Principle" might work, although I prefer "fact" because it's a more definitive, unambiguous declaration. But "law" is out. Theories and hypotheses are ideas that people came up with to explain reality; a law is a consistent, and predictable observation about reality. Hypotheses and theories only exist in the minds of the people doing the hypothesizing and theorizing; laws are just the way things are, and would still be that way if we were all dead and gone, without anybody around to do any lawizing. And laws are also generally simple first-level observations, not derivations from something else that involves some theorizing or complex reasoning along the way to interpret observations. One simple way to look at the distinction is that laws, at least most of the time (maybe all of the time, but I'm not sure), are written as mathematical formulas and don't need any more explanation than just the definitions of the variables in the formulas. (And those variables would need to be something that can be measured striaghtforwardly, like weight, not a vague, non-numerable concept like "severity of selection pressure".) So, at most, the word "law" could refer to the "fact" that evolution happens, particularly if one were to come up with a short equation expressing it succinctly and without resorting to variables that lack useful definitions. But that's it. All the rest of the details about it, both theoretical and observational, could not be included as part of such a "law".

 

[Simon39759]

I've been thinking about the creationist dismissal of evolution with "It's only a theory," conflating hypothesis with the scientific meaning of theory.

I think the crux of the problem is that evolution was first introduced to the general public as a theory (in the scientific sense) and has been called the "theory of evolution," allowing the dishonest conflation to take place.

The people who point out that gravity is, technically, also "only a theory" have gotten close to a potential solution, but not gone all the way.

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts?

Laws and theories both have their own, and different, definition.
In fact, Gravity is both a series of facts (individual observations of things falling down), a law generalizing these facts (things fall down), and a theory (thigns fall down BECAUSE...).

Similarly, evolution could be a series of facts (skeletons slowly morphing through the fossil record; new genes appearing in the lab and so on); a law (species change over time) and a theory to explain this law (the theory of Evolution through Natural selection).
Indeed, before Darwin, the many of the facts of Evolution had been observed (for example by examining the fossil record) and the law of evolution was well accepted. Darwin really only added a convincing explanation to the ones already offered.

And I have to agree with Lucian, as I often do, the professional creationists that use the 'it's just a theory' bit know better, they have been explained so before. The only reason they use this expression they know faulty is because they also know it will confuse the less informed. Creationists lying... imagine that.


Finally, I did a powerpoint presentation on pretty much the same subject for the last Atlanta Skepticamp.
If you are interested (and trust me with it), you can shoot me your email address and I will mail that to you. Alternatively, I know that the audio is floating around on the intertubes somewhere...

 

[steve s]

I usually just point out to people that Natural Selection is the theory that explains the fact of evolution, just as General Relativity is the theory that explains the fact of gravity.

Steve S

 

[Trent Wray]

"Principle" might work, although I prefer "fact" because it's a more definitive, unambiguous declaration. But "law" is out. Theories and hypotheses are ideas that people came up with to explain reality; a law is a consistent, and predictable observation about reality. Hypotheses and theories only exist in the minds of the people doing the hypothesizing and theorizing; laws are just the way things are, and would still be that way if we were all dead and gone, without anybody around to do any lawizing. And laws are also generally simple first-level observations, not derivations from something else that involves some theorizing or complex reasoning along the way to interpret observations. One simple way to look at the distinction is that laws, at least most of the time (maybe all of the time, but I'm not sure), are written as mathematical formulas and don't need any more explanation than just the definitions of the variables in the formulas. (And those variables would need to be something that can be measured striaghtforwardly, like weight, not a vague, non-numerable concept like "severity of selection pressure".) So, at most, the word "law" could refer to the "fact" that evolution happens, particularly if one were to come up with a short equation expressing it succinctly and without resorting to variables that lack useful definitions. But that's it. All the rest of the details about it, both theoretical and observational, could not be included as part of such a "law".

Hmm ... interesting.

The idea that laws apply when they can be explained mathematically is a good one. Are there any "laws" that cannot be explained mathematically, yet we recognize them as laws anyway?

 

[plumjam]

Thoughts?

I think if you're really serious about understanding reality then you would be more profitably spending your time wondering how its possible for any kind of unguided law or principle to first exist, and then be apparently universally sustained.
Why would that state of affairs ever come about and be maintained over time in an unguided reality?

 

[Ted]

Law vs. Theory

The problem is that scientist play loose with the the definition of theory vs. law. People with an agenda play off of this with the intent of capturing laypersons who either don't care or have an agenda to support their theory of life.

Look at Newton's "Laws" of Motion vs. Einstein’s "Theory" of Relativity. Einstein's theory is more accurate than Newton's laws. However, Einstein is relegated to theory and Newton is relegated to law. Why? Probably because Newton proposed his "finding" a few hundred years before Einstein did and the findings were extremely accurate for the speed of things at the time (and for many applications, today—for example, NASA needn’t use relativistic calculations to send astronauts and spacecraft to the space station, mars, and [previously] the moon). Moreover, Einstein's theory was radical and later found to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. But, Newton's laws were, too. Nonetheless, we have Newton’s laws and Einstein's theories.

Scientists know this, understand this, and don't care. Why? Because they don't care what you call it. In fact, all of science is a theory. They only care whether the theory is built on a house of brick, sticks, straw, or unverifiable propositions.

Enter the people with an agenda, regarding evolution. They don't want evolution to be true. Such folk are also hoping that the layperson is not scientifically literate and has an agenda of his or her own to preserve a personal view of the universe and life. If the agenda-driven person can get a majority (or a large minority) to be apathetic or supportive of the creationism viewpoint, then the goal is accomplished.

Despite the irrelevance of how you label a scientific hypothesis, the agenda-driven person will use the rift between theory and law to unscientifically support a position; “It’s only theory.” No kidding! But is the theory on brick, twigs, straw, or unverifiable propositions. The scientific method requires that theorists base positions on evidence. The agenda-driven person does not. The agenda-drive person will use the faulty logic that if your argument isn’t 100% fact, then mine is viable.

Examine this argument: I say that the red sign is a Stop Sign, but the agenda-driven person says that it is a Go Sign. I base my argument on the evidence that some red signs are Stop Signs and that Stop Signs exist. The agenda-driven person just wants to believe that Stop signs don’t exist and/or that Go Signs exist and they are red. If it turns out that the sign is not a Stop Sign, then I am wrong. However, there is no evidence that the agenda-driven person is correct—there are no Go Signs that exist, therefore, there are certainly no red ones. The evidence merely opens the door that it could be correct. Whatever!

In summation, let’s stop worrying whether a scientific postulate is a law or theory. They are all theories. Moreover, look at evidence for against a particular theory, instead of looking at another theory’s failure to bolster an alternate theory.

 

[Madalch]

In summation, let’s stop worrying whether a scientific postulate is a law or theory. They are all theories. Moreover, look at evidence for against a particular theory, instead of looking at another theory’s failure to bolster an alternate theory.

No. A law is an observed, general fact. The law of conservation of energy (energy is conserved), the law of gravity (mass attracts mass according to this equation), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy increases), etc. A theory is a framework for explaining such facts. The theory of evolution explains how species change and diverge. The oxygen theory of combustion explains how fire occurs. The atomic theory of matter explains most chemistry.

There are no theories that explain -why- entropy increases or -why- energy is conserved. They just do.

 

[SusanB-M1]

#9 Ted
Nice post - and it seems to me too that the 'agenda-driven person' appears to listen to the logical argument, but the next time you converse with said person, his/her brain has done a neat job of re-interpreting the information to fit in with his/her beliefs.

And a hearty welcome to JREF too.

 

[Brainache]

Can we call Natural Selection a law?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts?

If you think people with an irrational agenda can be diverted by the use of the word "law", try arguing with a Freeman On The Land for a bit. My thought is that we should express the ideas of science in the language of science and use the definitions therein correctly, rather than use that language inappropriately in a futile attempt to forestall the equivocation of delusional idiots.

Dave

 

[Elizabeth I]

Laws and theories both have their own, and different, definition.
In fact, Gravity is both a series of facts (individual observations of things falling down), a law generalizing these facts (things fall down), and a theory (thigns fall down BECAUSE...).

Similarly, evolution could be a series of facts (skeletons slowly morphing through the fossil record; new genes appearing in the lab and so on); a law (species change over time) and a theory to explain this law (the theory of Evolution through Natural selection).
Indeed, before Darwin, the many of the facts of Evolution had been observed (for example by examining the fossil record) and the law of evolution was well accepted. Darwin really only added a convincing explanation to the ones already offered.

And I have to agree with Lucian, as I often do, the professional creationists that use the 'it's just a theory' bit know better, they have been explained so before. The only reason they use this expression they know faulty is because they also know it will confuse the less informed. Creationists lying... imagine that.

Finally, I did a powerpoint presentation on pretty much the same subject for the last Atlanta Skepticamp.
If you are interested (and trust me with it), you can shoot me your email address and I will mail that to you. Alternatively, I know that the audio is floating around on the intertubes somewhere...

Oh, I agree that people who wish to mislead will continue to dishonestly conflate the colloquial meanings of words with the scientific meanings. I'm thinking more of the casually engaged listener/reader who hears "theory of evolution," then, "it's only a theory" and thinks "hm, that's true, only a theory, why shouldn't we 'teach the controversy'?" or whatever the argument is. Different phrasing, if it could be developed, might shortstop some of that kind of thing.

 

[Twiler]

I think if you're really serious about understanding reality then you would be more profitably spending your time wondering how its possible for any kind of unguided law or principle to first exist, and then be apparently universally sustained.
Why would that state of affairs ever come about and be maintained over time in an unguided reality?

I don't know.

What's a guided reality?

 

[Sledge]

I think I agree with the OP, but it doesn't go far enough. Rather than changing what we call things to accomodate the stupid or dishonest, why not just hit those people with dictionaries? I'm not sure whether this should be metaphorical (opening a dictionary and making them read the definition) or literal (throwing a dictionary at them). The metaphorical approach would probably do more good in the long term, whilst the literal has the immediate gratification going for it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think I agree with the OP, but it doesn't go far enough. Rather than changing what we call things to accomodate the stupid or dishonest, why not just hit those people with dictionaries?

Ted answered your question rather well, I think, upthread.

Welcome, Ted!


DR

 

[Ladewig]

Oh, I agree that people who wish to mislead will continue to dishonestly conflate the colloquial meanings of words with the scientific meanings. I'm thinking more of the casually engaged listener/reader who hears "theory of evolution," then, "it's only a theory" and thinks "hm, that's true, only a theory, why shouldn't we 'teach the controversy'?" or whatever the argument is. Different phrasing, if it could be developed, might shortstop some of that kind of thing.

Anyone who is as "casually engaged" as that is not really going to be swayed by the use of the word "law." Such people have so little understanding of how science works, that they will not come to the conclusion that evolution is widely and firmly founded on facts, they will instead conclude that scientists use the word law too easily.

 

[sadhatter]

I've been thinking about the creationist dismissal of evolution with "It's only a theory," conflating hypothesis with the scientific meaning of theory.

I think the crux of the problem is that evolution was first introduced to the general public as a theory (in the scientific sense) and has been called the "theory of evolution," allowing the dishonest conflation to take place.

The people who point out that gravity is, technically, also "only a theory" have gotten close to a potential solution, but not gone all the way.

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts?

The one point us skeptics are lacking is marketting.

Religion has had thousands of years to perfect thier technique, and they have another major advantage over us. They do not care if they lie or use other dishonest methods. Their logic being that they are doing good so the end justifies the means.

If we just gave up our morals, we could get a lot more people on our side. Yet that would be spitting in the face of what we stand for, honesty and reason.

If all scientists agreed on some massive religion esque conspiracy to promote the idea by any means necessary, we could start raking in followers. But we hold ourselves to a higher standard. It's frustrating, i find trying to debate on an honest level with creationists akin to playing a video game where your opponent has the ability to cheat. Sure, you could find out how to cheat as well, but then what is the point?

 

[Trent Wray]

The one point us skeptics are lacking is marketting.

Religion has had thousands of years to perfect thier technique, and they have another major advantage over us. They do not care if they lie or use other dishonest methods. Their logic being that they are doing good so the end justifies the means.

If we just gave up our morals, we could get a lot more people on our side. Yet that would be spitting in the face of what we stand for, honesty and reason.

If all scientists agreed on some massive religion esque conspiracy to promote the idea by any means necessary, we could start raking in followers. But we hold ourselves to a higher standard. It's frustrating, i find trying to debate on an honest level with creationists akin to playing a video game where your opponent has the ability to cheat. Sure, you could find out how to cheat as well, but then what is the point?

Not to completely derail this .... so please ignore me if I am .... but is honesty and reason worth standing for, or is honesty and reason methods one uses to stand for something else?