Mennonite Weekly Review

It was fascinating, yet distressing, to come across a large ad in The New York Times placed by an organization apparently called “Defend Science” located in Berkeley, Calif.

Please don’t get me wrong: science does need defending. The rules of science, though sometimes offensive to those with certain agendas, have served us well over the centuries. Foremost is the rule that science is judged by one and only one arbiter: what is there. Dogma, religious worldviews, popular opinion and political agendas must play no role in science.

When these basic rules are violated, we no longer have science, we have theology or philosophy or some other branch of nonscientific endeavor. These may be wonderful branches of human enquiry, but they are not science and they should not all mix to make a confusing and misleading jumble.

It is therefore frightening, and I would think somewhat embarrassing, when the spokesperson for “Defend Science” starts out by declaring evolution as a fact. Wrong. Evolution is a theory.

This has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not; others more interested and more knowledgeable than I are welcome to debate that issue. It has to do with the way science works.

Facts are observations recorded and used to support or repudiate hypotheses. If these hypotheses appear to conform to reality (the facts) then, through the process of peer review and publication, the hypotheses can become accepted theories. This is the process that has brought us the theory of evolution.

The Big Bang and plate tectonics are also theories, supported by sufficient facts so that most of us are convinced of their validity. This does not make them subtly morph into facts themselves.

In common vocabulary, the word “theory” invokes a feeling of uncertainty; for example a person may say, “Well, it’s only a theory.” In the realm of scientific research, the word “theory” has a much stronger meaning and implies a greater degree of certainty.

Perhaps this would partially explain the eagerness on behalf of “Defend Science” to tell the public that evolution is not a theory but a fact. There could be a fear that if evolution is promoted as “only” a theory, it would imply that the scientific community has strong doubts about its validity.

However, the defense of science should involve educating the general public as to the nature of science, not redefining and twisting meanings to accommodate and propagate a misconception.