Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Joe Heafner wrote:
> It's been a long time since I learned the official
> heirarchy of terms like "theory", "law", and "hypothesis",

There is no such hierarchy.

Part of the problem is that scientists use the word
"theory" in one sense, while non-scientists use the
word in another sense.

 -- In science, Einstein's "theory" of general relativity
is at least as well-founded as Newton's "law" of gravity.

 -- To non-scientists, a "theory" is hardly more than a
wild-ass guess.... whereas a "law" is absolute, immutable,
and unquestionable.

> but I wish someone would come up with something
> better than "theory". No matter how many times we
> explain that is shouldn't carry a connotation of
> uncertainty, it always does.

The main problem lies not in the words, but in the
ideas.  (But see below for some remarks about words.)

Scientists see an element of uncertainty in everything.
There is, for example, a nonzero chance that the sun
won't come up tomorrow.  I'm betting that it will come
up, but you don't really know for sure.

We are alas dealing with a bunch of nonscientists who want
to live without doubt, without uncertainty.  Therefore the
humility and open-mindedness that are characteristic of
science are anathema to them.

Getting rid of the word "theory" will help a little, but
only a little.  Suggestions:
 -- Speak of the laws of evolution, rather than the theory
    of evolution.  To scientists it means the same thing, but
    lunatics will have a harder time twisting the meaning.
    Note that we already speak of the law of natural selection
    and the laws of heredity.
 -- Better yet, speak simply of evolution.  There's no need
    to call it a theory or a law or anything else.  It's just
    evolution.  Note that most people on this list already
    speak of general relativity and special relativity without
    prefixing the words "theory of ..."