All I wanted to convey is that I’m a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism. Is it best for Darwin skeptics to call evolution “just a theory, not a fact”? Is it correct to call evolution a “fact”? Under such a strong definition of “theory,” does evolution qualify as a “theory”? Are Darwinists correct to define “theory” as “a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world” or “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence”? In this tangled web of ambiguously defined terms, the Darwin-skeptic is then confronted by a number of confusing questions of rhetoric and semantics: She innocently had no intent to violate any rules of semantics or misuse any terms she merely wanted to communicate her skepticism of neo-Darwinism. Upon receiving such a scolding, the Darwin-skeptic who said that evolution is “just a theory, but not a fact” may feel quite bad. … Evolution, because it’s a theory, is a higher form of knowledge than a fact.Īdditionally, earlier this year the NCSE’s Glenn Branch co-wrote an article in an evolution-education journal taking the condescending approach: it labeled those who use the “evolution is ‘just a theory’ line as being “pejorative” and favorably cited a Darwinist who scolded, “To claim that evolution is ‘just a theory’ is to reveal both a profound ignorance of modern biological knowledge and a deep misunderstanding of the basic nature of science.” People are either genuinely mistaken of the word’s intent, or they are well aware of the word’s scientific definition, but still use the nonscientific definition in an effort to spawn doubt. The common antecedents that result in this misuse of the word are manifested in either genuine ignorance, or disguised ignorance. One of the greatest misconceptions about evolution is embedded in the misuse of the word ‘theory’ in its application to science.
Similarly, an opinion article recently condescended: Ken Miller just wrote a book titled, “Only a theory,” basically opposing people who use such an argument. Some people who oppose neo-Darwinian evolution are fond of calling evolution “only a theory” or “just a theory, but not a fact.” After using such a phrase, they are immediately scolded by Darwinists, who tell them that “a theory” is a “well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world” and that evolution should be considered “both fact and theory.” In fact, a recent article in The Scientist suggests that, “public discontent with classical evolution as an inclusive theory stems partly from an intuitive appreciation of its limits.” (Eric Smith, “Before Darwin,” The Scientist, June 2008:32-38.) But in this highly nuanced debate, such Darwin-skeptics must avoid semantic land mines if they are to accurately, clearly, and effectively communicate their views. Many members of the general public who are skeptics of Darwinian evolution are intelligent people with a decent understanding of some of the scientific weaknesses with neo-Darwinian evolution. Is “Evolution” a “Theory” or “Fact” or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics? Casey Luskin JIntelligent Design Share Facebook Twitter Print arroba Email
0 kommentar(er)
