I'm starting to prepare a new page for my Creation/Evolution site at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/ . Its theme will be something to the effect of "statements a creationist should avoid since they immediately reveal that he doesn't know what he is talking about." A few candidates are "why are there still monkeys?", "but they're STILL MOTHS!", and "evolution is just a theory."
Of course, the problem with that last one is that the creationist is substituting a scientific term with a colloquial meaning in which a theory is the same thing as a SWAG ("some wild-a** guess"). Instead, in science a theory is a comprehensive model based on the evidence which explains phenomena (AKA "facts") and which has been tested repeatedly and has not been invalidated by that exhaustive testing. Though what I just wrote does not do it justice.
Several years ago I heard somebody offer a well-rehearsed response to "it's only a theory" that covered all the pertinent points and did so as a piece of highly polished patter. Unfortunately, I can just barely remember it, though I would like to include it in my new page. What I remember starts with something like, "Oh, you mean it's just a comprehensive ...", and includes what I mention in the second paragraph of this message.
Has anybody encountered that response or a similar one that he could present here? Or craft one himself?
quote: You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
1 "Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." American Heritage Dictionary 2 "Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses." Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press 3 A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman 4 "Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." Evolution as Fact and Theory - Stephen Jay Gould 5 The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer
Actually, what I was looking for is a short informative verbal response much less than ten seconds long. Creationists memorize "unanswerable questions" designed to stump us (eg, the list of questions in the Question Evolution campaign for creationist students to inundate their teachers with), so shouldn't we prepare informative responses with enough punch in them to shock their brains into starting to think? For that purpose, we would need no more than a few sentences (or a single extended sentence), not fifteen paragraphs; pack a lot into a small packet, like depleted-uranium rounds but with beneficial side-effects.
Here is basically what I was looking for:
Creationist: Well, evolution is just a theory!
Us: So then evolution is just a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations which is supported by all the relevant observations and which, along with its predictions, has been constantly scrutinised and repeatedly tested for over 150 years and has survived all that testing to be our best explanation for our observations.
Then maybe, after the creationist has picked up his jaw from where he had dropped it, the discussion can proceed into those fifteen paragraphs.
BTW, another less informative response would be to point out to them that "The Bible is just a book!". Less informative, but by pulling their own deceptive game on them might also get them to start to think. Or at least to discuss their claim, something that creationists seem to hate more than anything else.