(Spoiler alert: no.)
One of the criticisms most often levelled at the theory of evolution is that it’s “just a theory”. The clue’s in the name, after all. So if we’re not really all that sure about it, some people tell us, we ought to at least consider some alternative ideas. If it’s “just a theory”, then it’s apparently not yet a fact, and so to insist that no other explanations should even be considered is unfair to other worldviews, most notably Creationism (and/or Intelligent Design).
There’s a number of things wrong with this.
Let me clarify, though, that my problem isn’t with the labelling of evolution as a “theory”. It may be the case that scientists aren’t always the most effective people to do their own PR work, but their image problem isn’t so hopeless that such a common phrase as “the theory of evolution” isn’t even accurate. It is a theory.
My problems – two of them, I suppose – are about the word “just”.
First of all, saying that evolution is “just” a theory is kinda like saying the United States “only” won thirty-six gold medals at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, or that Sylvia Browne has given “hardly any” desperate parents utterly false information about the whereabouts of their missing children. However much you try and play it down, it’s still quite a lot.
A scientific idea about how stuff works doesn’t get to be a theory the moment someone stands up on a box on a street corner and starts shouting about it, or even the minute they get a paper about it published in a respected journal. A theory is a complete model, which describes a phenomenon, and which has stood up to testing against actual data. It’s a word that’s casually tossed around a lot out in the rest of the world, but in science, theories are tough sons of bitches that have gone through the mill. It’s not a term that denigrates anything; if anything, it’s quite a badge of honour. (I’ve written more about the scientific method before.)
My other problem with this statement is that it’s not even true. Evolution isn’t just a theory. Gould had a great line about this:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
This is to do with those pesky differences between how scientists use words, and how they’re more commonly understood. (What’s with scientists thinking they can just use words to mean what they want them to mean, anyway? Next they’ll be telling us a parsec isn’t really a measurement of time, or something.)
Colloquially, if you’ve no idea of the answer to something, you might take a guess. If you’re got a bit of an idea, and are trying to impress someone who’s easily impressed by slightly long words, you could have a hypothesis. Pretty much interchangeably with that, you may instead come up with a theory. If you’re more sure you know what’s going on, you might make an assertion, or an allegation. And something that’s not even up for discussion any more, because nobody has any doubt about what’s really true, is a fact.
But in a scientific context, these terms don’t line up in a hierarchy of increasing certainty like that, any more than an apple is more definitely a fruit than a strawberry, which itself is better than a pear. A theory is a good thing to have, a model for explaining stuff; it doesn’t mean you’ve still got a way to go before you’ve “proved” anything. Facts are useful, and can be gathered out in the real world as data is observed, but facts are things that need to be explained, and predicted, by some overall vision of what’s going on, and an understanding of what they mean. That’s what a theory is for.
One of Wikipedia’s pages on evolution has a lot more on this, and some quite gripping drama on the discussion page, too.
Hey, thanks, Rube. I have struggled with this misunderstanding for a liong time now, without much success. The religiosos just stick their fingers in their ears and chants “I can’t hear you, it’s only a theory” over and over again. So, you are probably preaching to the choir. Still, a nice exposition.
You are right, evolution shouldn’t be called “just” a theory. That is giving it way to much credit. It is not even a good hypothesis and a detriment to scientific discovery. Let’s get back to real science, like “what is an eye?” and “How does it operate?” How we got an eye is speculative at best, and historical in nature.
Cube
But see, here’s the problem, you’re doing that old strawman bait and switch again. No intelligent human being has a problem with evolution. Christians just have a problem with the unscientific, naturalistic, philosophical conclusion of “therefore we call came from pond scum.” I agree with Gould, evolution IS a fact, but there is also a theoretical part of it that assumes naturalism and uniformitarianism. These are assumptions I stay away from.
Along the same lines, currently observed evidence merely allows us to make inferences about the unobservable past. To say that the concrete, testable, observable phenomena of allele frequencies changing over time proves every inference made about the past is to be willfully ignorant of the difference.
Eric: I don’t think he is pulling a bait and switch, unless I’ve missed something. It looks like Cube is addressing an argument frequently put against evolution. It might not be an argument that you would make, but others have.
Your own personal reasons for believing as you do don’t seem to be very relevant here.
Hi Eric,
Not seeing the bait, or the switch, or the straw in this one – I’ve kept to a fairly limited scope here, and just provided a response to one particular assertion which is often made from the Creationism/ID camp. My only point here is to explain the usage of the term “theory” in a scientific context, so that hopefully it’s clear why the people who say “even scientists admit it’s only a theory” aren’t really making a good argument against it. Some people do say that, and do have a problem with evolution, whatever conclusions that might lead us to draw about their intelligence.
Simplifying the conclusions of evolutionary biology to “therefore we [all] came from pond scum” is, if not a straw man, then somewhere between weasel words and an appeal to ridicule. There are rather more layers of intricacies to it than that in the ways that scientists have actually collected data and worked out their ideas, some of which I hope to write about soon. But this post is really just about the one thing; I’m not saying I’ve proved anything here, or even given any evidence yet to show why evolution is a good theory at all. In this case I’m just discussing how the terms apply.
Cubik
“My only point here is to explain the usage of the term “theory” in a scientific context, so that hopefully it’s clear why the people who say “even scientists admit it’s only a theory” aren’t really making a good argument against it.”
Sure, saying the words “just” and “only” don’t do the theory or the evidence behind it justice. However, it IS a theory based upon several assumptions, two of those being naturalism and uniformitarianism. Ignoring that you must apply these two assumptions to the unobservable and untestable past in order to reach your “every living thing has a common ancestor” conclusion is just irrational.
“Simplifying the conclusions of evolutionary biology to “therefore we [all] came from pond scum” is, if not a straw man, then somewhere between weasel words and an appeal to ridicule.”
I agree, but I reserve the right to poke alittle fun and use alittle sarcasm from time to time. Surely you wouldn’t begrudge me that would you?
“There are rather more layers of intricacies to it than that in the ways that scientists have actually collected data and worked out their ideas, some of which I hope to write about soon.”
I look forward to it.
” In this case I’m just discussing how the terms apply.”
I understand, I merely wanted to point out to you the differences between observable and testable science and the philosophically naturalistic and uniformitarian conclusion of “big” evolution / macroevolution / molecules-to-man evolution / fish to philosopher evolution / we-all-came-from-pond-scum evolution (whichever we should call it so as not too appeal to insult too much). To use them interchangibly, or to attempt to show observable science as evidence of the unobservable stuff, is to pull a bait and switch. If I was jumping the gun and going past the scope of your article, then I apologize.
You say to the unobservable past as if the past is completely mysterious to us. And the “pond scum” theory is based on observable data in the present such as common DNA strands. The idea that the past is unobservable is only true in a very literal definition of every word since scientist can observe the past very well. They can take fossils and date then and show that common characteristics all occurred in the same era and can prove to which era each fossil comes from. You are discounting observable science because no one existed to actually see it happen, but that doesn’t fly anymore in the scientific community. Your argument is best suited for the days of Darwin and is no longer relevant now.
Well argued points. I think I would add that part of the point behind this claim is to put evolution on par with creationism or ID. At which point it becomes necessary to point out that neither of these positions is theory. They are not even close.