It is in fact both, as Larry Moran points out in a very nice essay at Sandwalk. It’s an update of an essay he first wrote in 1993, but he’s updated it constantly. And even if you read the earlier versions, the latest is a must-read for anyone with an interest in evolution, or those who must deal with evolution-deniers who dismiss the concept as “only a theory.”
Evolution: fact or theory?
August 18, 2011 • 11:53 am
This is good to remember: “One can hardly challenge the predictive success of modern physics, but one should remember that one is describing nature, and not always understanding it.”
Explanation and prediction are the hallmarks of science and evidence-based knowledge. It may be rhetorically inconvenient, but science is always contingent on new data and probabilistic. As are “facts.”
Many of the religious fundamentalists exploit the fact that the general public does not really understand what science is and how scientists think, and so they can browbeat much of the general public. See
http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/
That article was written by Moshe Averick, whom Jerry has posted about before. He’s especially strident and contemptuous of anyone who disagrees with him.
…as we are of him…
Ah, well. I’ve just invited his contempt. Several times.
/@
Moshe Averick says:
“I spent two years researching the state of Origin of Life research and would debate anyone on the subject, including Dawkins or Myers. (or Jerry Coyne for that matter.)”
Excellent article, but for people who need a succinct explanation, Not Just A Theory lays it all out in very clear language in a very short time. I visited this site years ago, and I not only understood it immediately, I also had the perfect rebuttal to “Evolution is only a theory” within about two minutes.
Here’s a quotation from that site.
Do you think that’s true?
What do you think?
No fair, that’s a trick question, Larry.
a better question would be:
Do you think that’s completely accurate?
hint 1: think about everything that has come since Origins was published.
hint 2: Do we actually call the modern theory of evolution “Evolution by Natural Selection”?
why not?
…and yes, it IS a valid critique of that article, though if the intention is to use it just to demonstrate the difference between the scientific and layperson concepts of “theory”, then it’s fine.
If biology used exclusive theories instead of inclusive (which of course no areas does, but at least in a manageable way in some), that wouldn’t be a trick question. Then many orders of evolution theories would have been abandoned, and Moran would not have any trick to conjure up/no reason to be annoyed.
I truly do not follow the logic of thinking that if biological theories were exclusionary, we still wouldn’t have the same issue in this particular case.
selection is one mechanism of an over-arching theory. It could be called a sub-theory if the question addressed was: How much of evolution is explained by selection?
physics does the same thing, so does chemistry.
Thanks for that, Ichthyic.
By necessity, the article is very short. Not even an “article”, really, more like a blurb. In that context, I think it serves its function very well. It’s designed to answer the question “Evolution: fact or theory?”, and I don’t think it can be done much better.
As for the statement:
If your objection that it is incomplete or over-simplified, I obviously agree. Natural selection is but one mechanism by which evolution occurs. But I came by that knowledge much later, long after I’d gotten past the basic obstacles to understanding addressed by the page.
So yeah, in short…the page is a primer. It helped get me started on my path to learning, so I’m confident it can do it for others.
So, the article has an incorrect definition of modern evolutionary theory and it also contains a factually incorrect statement (that natural selection is supported by all the relevant observations).
Other than that it’s a good article on the theory of evolution! Is that your position?
Strange.
The sole purpose of the website is to debunk the “it’s only a theory” meme, which it does pretty well (give them kudos for that), rather than explain the theory in any detail.
But, yes, it could be better. Maybe someone knowledgeable could email notjustatheory@gmail.com to suggest some simple changes to improve it?
😉
/@
you could, alan.
it is something you cited, after all.
it would indeed be a good idea to get them to make some relatively simple corrections to it.
strike that, redirect to Nom de Plume.
😛
…i really really hate nested commentary.
*sigh*
This is a great aggregation of statements re “fact” and “theory”. I especially like the reference to mathematics and “proof”, as people often tell me “You can’t prove it!” Well, that’s a misapplication of the idea of ‘proof’, as the statement by Gould makes clear: proofs work only in a closed system, like law and math (e.g. the dunking stool for the accused was considered “proof” of guilt or innocence of the accusation of being a witch.) Gov Perry of Texas is the latest to misapply “proof”, as he said, “You cannot prove (anthropogenic) global warming…”
You cannot “prove” that your house will burn down in the future either. But is that a reason to eschew insurance???
I would say that proof only works for axiomatic systems, which are a negligent subset of algorithmic systems. But the mapping axiomatic closed is probably useful.
I really like that last “counter example”!
The parser ate my text. Let me try again:
the mapping axiomatic ↔ closed.
As Steve Jones is so fond of quoting, “Darwinian man, though well-behaved, at best is only a monkey shaved.” – W. S. Gilbert.
Dawkins’ attempt to fix the “theory” problem by coining the neologism of “theorum” never took off.
I have a counterproposal:
Use “hypothesis” for “untested speculation.” (“My hypothesis is that he’s cheating with her sister.”)
Use “theory” only for big-ticket scientific explanatory frameworks. (“The theory of evolution doesn’t need your belief; accept it or don’t, but it still is true.”)
This “theory” problem has really done untold harm. I can’t tell you how many of my (college) students have said “but it’s just a theory,” when we begin discussing evolution.
“Dawkins’ attempt to fix the “theory” problem by coining the neologism of “theorum” never took off.”
it’s too bad really, it did work.
it was useful in separating various aspects of a larger theory too.
like selection as theorum, and evolution as theory.
*shrug*
no matter what though, you STILL will have the problem you describe of having to explain to students (that probably should know better, if our secondary educational system were better) what the various terms like hypothesis, law, and theory actually mean.
FWIW, I find it fixes more problems than it creates, and is well worth spending a day in a freshman science course to explain.
This “theory” problem has really done untold harm.
You know what else hasn’t helped? That “Ascent of Man” picture, where the monkey gradually transforms into a human. I think this has probably led to more misunderstanding about evolution than anything else.
I used to be a ham radio operator way, way, back before the hobby essentially died due to not keeping pace with technology. I once bought a new transceiver and eagerly read through the owner’s manual, but got confused when I came to a section in the back titled “Theory of Operation.”
Theory of Operation?
THEORY of Operation???
You mean to tell me they’re not even sure how this thing WORKS???
As I read through that section, with all of its impressive technical jargon about the circuitry and what the various stages did, it became clear to me that they knew EXACTLY how it worked. That was the moment I realized there must be another meaning for that word that I didn’t know about, and I really ought to learn what it was.
[subscribing]
please tell me!!!! where did the first bit of matter come from?
from necessity.
Erm…first, you do understand, don’t you, that the Theory of Evolution by Random Mutation and Natural Selection — the topic at hand — is a theory of the generational development of living organisms, don’t you? The Theory says nothing at all about the origins of life — let alone the origins of matter.
If you’re serious about wanting to know the origins of matter, you’re much better off addressing those questions to a cosmologist than an evolutionary biologist. But, since you ask, the (very) short answer is that the first matter coalesced out of the “photon soup” a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, when the Hubble expansion of the universe had caused it to cool enough for stable matter to exist.
Cheers,
b&
Same place all matter came from.
As I said when you asked this on another thread, there wasn’t a where back then – or a then.
“…those who must deal with evolution-deniers who dismiss the concept as “only a theory.””
Any adult you meet like this is only worth a polite smile while you look for a trashcan to dump their literature in once you find a sane person to talk to.
The problem is that evolution deniers can be found throughout the society…including on school boards and, until a few years ago, even in the Oval Office.
I’d have to check, but I think Romney might be the only serious Republican candidate who isn’t a denier.
Cheers,
b&
(i) In the UK and Commonwealth, students learning a musical instrument may take standardized music exams, Grade 1 to Grade 8.
Each Grade exam is in two parts: Theory and Practice. Theory is all about harmony, and (what we call) crotchets and quavers etc etc.
(ii) To get a UK drivers license one must pass a Theory test (about road law etc.)
before taking the practical test.
Do physicists use the word “theory” slightly differently? Many of their theories would seem to be more aptly described as conjectures or hypotheses.
Yes, physicists have a more flexible use of the term “theory,” which often depends of the context. We have “quantum theory,” which is accepted as a corpus of verified knowledge. But they will also say that according to theory (the standard model of particles and fields) neutrinos don’t have mass. But measurements/experiments show that neutrinos do have mass. So the theory has to be fixed.
Um… where in the Standard Model are neutrinos predicted to have zero rest mass?
I don’t recall that at all.
The Standard Model had assumed that neutrinos are massless, although adding massive neutrinos to the basic framework is not difficult.
From a textbook that predates the confirmation of neutrino oscillations (which require neutrinos to be massive), Quarks & Leptons, by Francis Halzen & Alan D. Martin (my Ph.D. supervisor):
Regardless of the details, the idea of a massive neutrino had been long entertained within the Standard Model.
But, I agree, some physicists are rather cavalier with the word; M-theory is probably the most egregious example, as it is far from being validated.
Although maybe physicists are cleverer than other scientists and can easily distinguish between the two meanings depending on context! 😀
/@
* ̅νR, of course! :-/
Yes, I should have said that neutrino masses were not required in the Standard Model, about 15-20 years ago. But neutrino oscillations, if I remember correctly, came as a surprise, and were the solution to the observed “neutrino deficit” of the sun (which was a riddle for a few decades). But my example is a bit outdated, and I agree that probably neutrino masses now fit in the SM.
A better, current example would be the Higgs theory and Supersymmetry. Both are not yet experimentally verified, (although there are hints for the Higgs), and it seems that possibly one of the two theories will prevail.
Hmm… I rarely hear people say “Higgs theory” or “supersymmetry theory” … “Higgs mechanism” and just “supersymmetry” are commoner. But, yes, they are referred to as “this theory” in articles and texts. Are biologists innocent in this respect? 😉
/@
Ant Allan: “Although maybe physicists are cleverer than other scientists and can easily distinguish between the two meanings depending on context!”
I think this is also valid for the life sciences. The problem is that the concept of “theory,” as used by scientists, is largely misunderstood by the general public. They equate “theory” with “absolute truth,” which in fact is a religious concept. And as soon they perceive a gap or discrepancy (such as the time it will take for the glaciers of Mount Everest to melt, which was in fact a typo), they reject the whole theory. Fundamental Evangelists exploit this all the time, for example, they try to find open questions in the Theory of Evolution in order to disqualify it.
I know, I know. I was just being facetious. Hence the “:-D”.
/@
Yes, I understood that. I just quoted you to get to the way how some groups (fundamentalists and climate sceptics) treat the term “theory.” BTW, isn’t the Higss mechanism not inspired by the “BCS theory?”