Cuz We Said So

From the original source that started the discussion:

The stickers proclaim, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

I'm not sure what they're using as the definition of the word "theory" here, or why they are differentiating it from “fact”. All of science is “theory”, if you use one of the following definitions:

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

(Reference from Merriam-Webster Online. Italics mine.)

That's the whole point of science. There are no facts, only data that may or may not support theories.

But that’s not what the forgers of these stickers are doing. They’re using a less rigorous definition of the word. (Note my similarly clever use of an alternate definition of the word “forge”.)

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

(Note also that this definition was listed sixth. Of six.)

So, while the sticker is, strictly speaking, accurate, it is very misleading, particularly when the audience are children.

On top of everything else, using this fringe definition of theory, they’re wrong. The process of evolution is as much a “fact” as gravity and photosynthesis. It happens. We have documented it within modern history.

What people find specifically troubling about evolution is the implication that human beings are subject to it. Which is, of course, also a fact. We know that humanity has grown in height through history. That we have changed in complexion. That we are less hirsute.

No, they would say, that’s not what is truly troubling. It’s that we evolved from lower animals.

Now, if these people are strict creationists, then they believe the Earth was made 6,000 or so years ago, and they don’t believe in the greater body of established physics (which includes such paganistic concepts as radioactive decay), so they’re just nuts and can therefore be dismissed from this discussion. (And from any say in the teaching of science in our schools, incidentally.)

But what if they are people of faith who make room for the possibility of a universe that is several billion years old, make room for the possibility of a planet nearly as old, but who deny the very specific suggestion that human beings evolved from other species of animals? What then?

Then, what they are doing, quite simply, is putting limits on God. That’s the irony of all of this for me. They’re saying that God is incapable of fashioning a being “in his own image” through anything but the use of rabbit-from-a-hat magic. They are angered, for some reason, by the concept of God using an intricate and complex process to create man. I don't get that. I really don't.

In short, this topic manages to anger me both as a scientist and as a person of faith.

And I think that’s pretty amazing.