Just a theory

Creationism vs. Evolution is a hot topic at the moment. A common criticism (or more often: slur) against Evolution is that it is “just” a theory. It is so easy to roll your eyes at this, but it is a criticism that is not without merit if only because the word has an overloaded meaning:

  • Common usage; “in theory” as opposed to, and often different to, “in practice”.
  • Scientific usage.
  • Mathematical usage; a truth derived from fact.

To any slur against Evolution on its basis as a “theory”, you need to shift the person from the common usage of the word to the scientific. My problem is I’ve often found explaining the scientific method to a novice very hard. A slippery-slope of “weak” prepositions that seems a far cry from the popular view of science and scientific certainty.

So it was nice to find this quote today that I think sums it up quite well (via about.com):

“A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.”

This is from a 1996 writing by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (full text).

I like this quote because it moves a “weakness” of scientific theories — a theory is not a truth but merely something that matches the facts — to a strength: their explanatory power.

Explaining power and truth

Scientific theories are not truths.

Or rather, they may be true but we don’t care about that so much. We only care a) if they are demonstrably not true, and more importantly b) that they are useful. There is no better example of this than Newtonian physics, which is a theory of how objects should move. Newtonian physics is demonstrably false. But the predictions (explanations) it makes for every-day sized objects are very very very close to correct. In addition, Newtonian calculations are much easier to do than the calculations of Relativistic physics (which is the rival theory). So Newtonian theory is useful.

And many other things being equal, useful trumps truth.

Well, perhaps that is a bit hyperbolic. Maybe it just trumps being false.

Anyway, and going back to the late Pontiff’s quote, we must keep these two things separate:

  • the extent to which a theory matches observations made so far; and
  • accepting something as a fact.

The first of these is the domain of the scientific method. Which is a very interesting domain, and one I have had fair exposure to.

The second of these is the domain of philosophy, epistemology (study of knowledge) and belief. Which is also very interesting, but one to which I am new.

This entry was written by spud, posted on July 24, 2007 at 12:16 pm, filed under General. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://byandlarge.net/scuttlebutt/ Dave Pinn

    I really like that quote, and I like your exegesis even more.

    Something occurred to me: I don’t think you can use ‘explanations’ synonymously with ‘predictions’; the former looks backwards to past observations, the latter looks forward to expected observations.

    In the realm of science, you can, by experimentation generate new observations to test the predictive power of your theory; in the realm of history, once you have assembled all of the facts, that’s all you have. So history works with a finite set of observations, and there are always gaps in the knowledge base.

    Can we accept a proposition as true if we have a limited set of observations? Yes, I think so; certainly we do that in the court room. At some point the number of facts corroborating a theory becomes so great that we justified in accepting it as fact.

    What has all of this to do with evolution? I’m not sure. I’m a Christian, and I believe that the bible is divine truth revealed. I don’t know that the bible refutes the possibility of evolution, and the preponderance of biologists do seem to accept it. On the other hand, I have not yet seen any conclusive evidence for evolution myself; for example, an irrefutably transitional form.

  • Ivan

    The current Creationism vs. Evolution debacle is simply the result of biblical literalism, mainly in the US.

    The 1991 International Social Survey Program asked: “The Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word.”
    33.5% of US polled agreed.

    That’s right… belief that “God wrote it”.

    Literalism typically stems from ignorance. Those who believe most… know least.
    Anyone with the briefest knowledge on the origins of the Bible knows this isn’t so. Even the Vatican doesn’t believe this.

    For a brief intro watch “Who Wrote the Bible?” http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/canyoubelieve_it/debates/bible.html
    Nothing like seeing a Vatican representative say “Man wrote the Bible”. Fallible, greedy, corruptible man.

    God created man? Sure, why not. The Bible doesn’t say God didn’t use evolution as the tool to make it happen.

    Christian faith & evolution aren’t incompatible… Biblical literalism & evolution are incompatible.

    For thought: Shortly after telling Moses not to steal or lie (LEVITICUS 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another) he gives out stylist advice (LEVITICUS 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard) And THIS is divine truth revealed?

  • http://byandlarge.net/scuttlebutt/ Dave Pinn

    The bible writers wrote in many styles, including, similie, metaphor, and plain speech. It would be wrong to interpret the poetic bits literally, just as it would be wrong to interpret the plain speech parts as if they were metaphor. The bible writings mean what their writers intended to convey. To that extent, I agree with you.

    I believe that the bible writings are inspired by God, even the poetic bits. One’s treatment of the style of writing is a concern that is distinct from its origin and inspiration.

    You wrote, “Those who believe most… know least.” How do you know that?

  • http://squizlog.keithpitty.org Keith Pitty

    Dave: You wrote, “The bible writings mean what their writers intended to convey.” How do you know which style the writers were using for which parts? It seems to me that as science has advanced, it has been too easy for Christians to revise their interpretation of sections of the bible. Leaving evolution aside, how do you reconcile the science of geology with the book of Genesis? I suspect that you interpret Genesis very differently from someone who lived 300 years ago.

  • http://byandlarge.net/scuttlebutt/ Dave Pinn

    Finding a metaphor isn’t rocket science.

    Often, people who don’t like what the bible says try to obfuscate the process of interpreting the bible, so that they feel justified in dismissing it in it’s entirety. I’m not saying that you do that, Keith, but some do. Yes, the bible is complicated; it is in fact a collection of 66 books written by about 40 writers over a long period ending about 2000 years ago; but that does not mean that it is impossible to understand. The essential matters, about who God is, and how we should relate to him, are abundantly clear.

    To address the Genesis/geology thing – I guess you mean the age of the earth, and the duration of its creation – it remains an open issue with me. Whatever the mechanics of creation, the bible is absolutely clear that the cause is God, and the purpose is his glory.

  • http://madbean.com/ spud

    It’s not enough I actually bother to post something to my blog for a change, but people have to leave intriguing comments that I now feel I must reply too? Shesh! :P

    @Dave: definitely, “explanation” and “prediction” point in different chronological directions. I didn’t intend to conflate them, rather to remind that the scientific method’s scope includes both directions.

    Can we accept a proposition as true if we have a limited set of observations?

    I agree we can, and I’m find the whole philosophical topic of “accepting as true” extremely interesting. I hope to blog more on that once/if I come to any understanding.

    Regarding evolution and transitional forms… on the one hand I pull the “useful trumps truth” card. But yes, on the other hand, what about going ahead and accepting evolution by natural selection as the truth (or as false). Or in fact any scientific theory whatsoever? How do we go about that (the scientific method itself of course doesn’t say). Good question.

    By the way, I love the phrase “accept as true”. I think it totally describes the action undertaken, there really is a sense of “accepting” or “taking in” or “imbibing”.

    @Ivan, I definitely agree that the spark of the current EvC debate is biblical literalism, what is often called by US commentators as Christian fundamentalism.

  • http://madbean.com/ spud

    @Ivan, Dave, Keith: yeah, that old bible, hey? What to we do about that?

    Now I think Dave might agree with me here. I think we have to say that using the bible as a source of truth (as opposed to finding it describes things you independently agree with, eg the Golden Rule) requires, presupposes, that you have already accepted the truth of God. The truth of God as revealed in the bible.

    If that is so, then there is no use attacking the bible per-se. Or rather, given that presupposition, there is definitely a line of moderate[1] theology that does follow rational processes. A frank and honest and (presuppositionally) inspired attempt to look at the bible for truth. And both that line of theology, and atheists, can rationally argue against many literal interpretations because they are demonstrably false (um… I want to supply an example here… a naff one is the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus? One or both must be wrong?).

    Rather, we should look at why the bible is being used in the first place. I’m sure Dave has a presuppositional view here, but there are other reasons why the bible is used for truth, the classic being simple tradition: being brought up to believe it and just assuming it is true.

    [1] “Moderate” Christianity… I’m not going to bother defining that but it seems to have some common meaning in many christian/atheist discussions.

  • http://mlearning.edublogs.org Leonard

    I find it interesting when Creationists refer to evolution as a “theory,” but don’t regard religion as a “theory”.

    If I was to read the Creation myths of the native Americans, or the indigenous Australians, to a Christian, they would probably think they were rather quaint ways of explaining how the earth all came to be. According to the Australian Aborigines, for example, the world was created by a rainbow serpant, who wound his way around the world, creating its physical features. The creations of various significant physical formations also have their own separate creation myths.

    The “truth” of these creation myths seems self-apparent to the Aborigines: Uluru, the Murray River, and the Olgas exist, therefore, ipso facto, they were “created”.

    Now anyone outside of that culture looks at those stories and says, well, it’s a useful way to think about how those formations came to be. But it’s just a theory, right?

    The creation myth in Genesis is no more and no less believable that the story of the Rainbow Serpant. But it was written by man, just as the Rainbow Serpant was invented by man, to explain how all of this came to be. Apparently, if the world exists, it must, ipso facto, have been “created,” just as Uluru, the Murray river, and the Olgas must have been “created” to the Australian aborigines.

    The various stories are all very interesting… but no human was there to accurately document creation (whether it took 7 days or 4 billion years), which makes all of the stories “theories”. However, for me, the theory of evolution seems rather more useful in our current world than the theory that a giant snake created the world – or, indeed, a guy with a flowing robe and a white beard.

  • http://squizlog.keithpitty.org Keith Pitty

    Matt: Regarding the acceptance of a scientific theory, as you point out in your original post, absolute truth is not within the domain of science. I’m sure you are familiar with the work of Thomas Kuhn, who argued that science undergoes paradigm shifts or revolutions as new evidence is discovered that disrupts the acceptance of an existing theory. In other words, science doesn’t provide a way of proving that evolution, or any other theory, is absolutely true. It merely provides the framework within which certain theories are generally accepted as the best explanation of the evidence for a period of time.

    Personally, I find it more helpful to rely on being informed by science, other evidence-based disciplines (e.g. psychology) and my experiences in life than to put my faith in one or more spiritual beings interpreted from scriptures.

    On the matter of people using the bible because they were brought up to believe it and assume it is true, I am going to jump on a tangential hobby-horse. I think that religious upbringing and the consequential acceptance of one religion as “true” raises the issue of tolerance of other beliefs as one of vital importance. Obviously there are a number of major religious traditions on this planet. Within each tradition – notably Christianity, Islam and Judaism – there are those who fervently believe that their religion is absolutely true and all others are false. Some of these, whom we label as “fundamentalists”, directly play a role in causing bloody conflicts. Others contribute to the spread of intolerance and ignorance. The fact that such a high percentage of Americans believe the bible literally is alarming. So, without ranting any more, let me say that I think there is a great opportunity for religious moderates to do more to promote inter-faith tolerance.

    Peace.

  • http://madbean.com/ spud

    @Keith: Yeah, Kuhn’s the man.

    Personally, I find it more helpful to rely on being informed by science, other evidence-based disciplines (e.g. psychology) and my experiences in life…

    Yeah, totally. And “informed” is a great word there. I also like “certainty”, as in “I accept theory T as true with certainty P”.

    But then how do we (or do we even try to) address “truth”. I don’t have the answer to that question.

    Peace back at ya.

  • Ivan

    You wrote, “Those who believe most… know least.” How do you know that?

    Because I’m stupid, know it and believe nothing. I barely believe what I think most of the time. It’s the people who don’t know they’re stupid and do believe absolutely what they think that I worry about.

    People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many intellectual domains. This overestimation occurs because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

    BTW: That was a [in]direct rip-off. If you haven’t read this, you should: “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments” http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf (That’s a general “BTW” comment and not an insult aimed at you Dave ;-) Peace, Love & Mung Beans! )

  • Ivan

    Whoa! Have you ever had so many comments on a post before?

    Next time you’ve got a comment lull, may try a post on Censorship, Abortion, Gun control, Marijuana, Nukes, Terrorism, Bestiality, Global Warming, Holocaust Denial, or Michael Jackson. ;-)

  • http://byandlarge.net/scuttlebutt/ Dave Pinn

    Ivan, since you, by your admission, are stupid, and “barely believe what [you] think most of the time”, why would anybody pay any heed to unsupported assertions that you make, like “Those who believe most… know least.”?

  • Ivan

    Why would anybody pay any heed to unsupported assertions that you make, like “Those who believe most… know least.”?

    Good question. Why would anybody pay heed to any unsupported assertions? Who’d do that? That’d be silly (albeit tax deductible).

    I put it out there for the universe to do with it what it will. People will always believe what they have a NEED to believe. Personally, I can live with no absolute truth.

    But I live in hope, that in thousands of years, there’ll be people with such need… and my unsupported assertions (so easily questionable at the moment) are taken as divine truth revealed.

    Super-Sweet.

  • http://www.idm.me.uk Ian

    I started writing a response, which grew too large, so I posted it on my blog at:

    http://www.idm.me.uk/2007/08/itsjusta_theory.html