Rou

Just a theory? JUST?

Let's say for a minute that we grant creationists that evolution is a theory that could potentially be subject to change. It's true, even if the likelihood of a major change is beyond the odds of winning the lottery. But just for a second, assume that a fact is discovered tomorrow that throws the theory into a tailspin.

It's happened before. Newton's theory was replaced with Einstein's. But that didn't mean that gravity changed. The facts never change. Our explanation for them does. Likewise, evolution occurs. We've seen it. Genetics and fossil records have so much supporting evidence that it's nearly impossible to comprehend. Nothing you do or say will change that because it's a fact. We may change our explanation. Maybe it's not natural selection driving the changes. Maybe it's something else. But that doesn't alter the observation that evolution occurs. Plants evolve. Animals evolve. People evolve. Every living thing today evolved from something that came before.

Of course, the idea that evolutionary theory could need to be re-written is a huge presupposition. Even granting them that huge concession, we see that their attempts to discredit evolution are flawed at the very core. I honestly believe that it comes from a tragic misunderstanding of the terminology of science. Theory, in everyday use means conjecture; some unproven idea. In scientific usage, a theory is well tested model that explains observations and offers up predictions for future behavior. It's not JUST a theory.

Until people learn the difference between the two usages, I don't think this debate will ever go away. The battleground for this is the classroom. Proponents of intelligent design and creationism (I repeat myself) are pushing to teach the idea of "just a theory" in classrooms. Sadly, they are fighting for science classes to fail the children the same way it failed the parents decades before.