Framing Evolution

 
Clive Thompson wrote an article for Wired titled Clive Thompson on Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law.

It falls into the category of "with friends like this who need enemies." Thompson is upset about the way in which creationists misuse the word theory.

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.

But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.

We all agree that this is a problem when we're trying to explain evolutionary theory to the general public. We need to explain that a theory is not just some wide-eyed speculation but a solid explanation of facts that has stood the test of time. Theories are as good as it gets in science. The Theory of Natural Selection, for example, is not in dispute.

It's a pain to have to do this but it's our obligation as scientists to explain science correctly, right? Clive Thompson has another suggestion.

For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let's stop using the word theory entirely. Instead, let's revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as "law." As with Newton's law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as theory does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.

Evolution is supersolid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: When we troop into the doctor's office each winter to get a flu shot — an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease — we're treating evolution as a law. So why not just say "the law of evolution"?

Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution," they may sound fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, "I don't believe in the law of evolution," they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, "I don't believe in the law of gravity."

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.

No, no, no! Theories are not laws and under no circumstances should scientists abandon science in order to score political points.

On the other hand, Mooney and Nisbet would be proud [What Is Framing?].

---

[Photo Credit: Clive Thompson from University of British Columbia]

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]