Evolution ‘Controversies’ and other Conspiracies

In a recent story, it was indicated that roughly one-third of people in the U.S. still refuse to accept that evolution has occurred.

This is not me promoting an agenda. This is not an attack on religious people, this is simply and solely me, stating a fact.

Evolution has occurred. We have reams of evidence to support it.

Contrary to those who dislike the concept, there is no ‘controversy’. None. Any scientist who claims that there is is either operating outside of their actual specialty (most common) or is pushing an agenda.

There are many who want to claim that evolution is ‘merely a theory’. That is correct, but the issue is that these people are misusing the word. Theory does not mean ‘guess’, as they think.

We have a Theory about gravity, too.

In both these cases (and many more) Theory means that we have observed facts about a situation, and have developed an explanation based on those facts. For the explanation to be a valid theory, it must fit the observed facts – taking all observed facts into account.

This is what science does. Theories are not proposed prior to, or in the absence of facts. They are explanations of those observed facts.

Sadly, evolution is not the only area where people misunderstand how science works. There are any number of conspiracy theories out there that make the same mistakes.

Whether you’re talking about the anti-vaccination crowd, the Velikovsky-ites, or people who think that there really are aliens among us (or unknown creatures), every one of them assumes that science is some kind of monolithic establishment.

There is no ‘scientific establishment’ per se. What there is, is a bunch of scientists following a specific method of doing things. That scientific method is responsible for the theory of gravity – without which we could not have gotten a single satellite into orbit, much less landed anything on the moon or other planets.

That process is, unsurprisingly, called the scientific method. And that method is this: Make observations, create a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, repeat as necessary. (This is, obviously, paraphrased, but it’s essentially accurate.)

You take observations about what’s happening, then come up with an idea as to why it’s happening. Then you develop a way to test that idea. To be a valid test, there has to be a way for the idea to be proven wrong. Then, if it is proven wrong, you go back to the beginning, figure out what you mis-interpreted, and try again.

But that’s not the end. Once you’ve successfully tested your idea, you send it to other scientists in your field, and they test your idea. It’s not enough that you’ve managed to get it right, because you could have some agenda that drives your test, whether or not you intend it to.

So other scientists take your observations, look at your test protocols, and assuming they don’t find any issues with your test, try to replicate it. If they get the same results you did, congratulations, your idea is one step close to being a theory.

This takes time, and you have to be very clear about what you’re testing, why you’re testing it, and what you expect to see.

Science has, in the last 100 years, accepted many very odd ideas, because those ideas were based on the available observations, were testable, and passed the tests. Continental Drift is one, and the cataclysm theory of lunar formation another. Neither was widely accepted at first, but the preponderance of evidence built until it would require active denial to withhold it.

Evolution has such a preponderance of evidence. Only active denial on the part of the creationists allows them to ignore that.

Belief vs. Science

In a prior post, I mentioned my dislike of organized religion, while maintaining my respect and acceptance of religion at the individual level.  Today, I want to remind people of the demarcations we must – by necessity – place between religion and many other things, primarily law and science, though I’m only going to speak about science here.

Again, I don’t care what you believe.  The Earth is 6,000 years old?  Okay.  Aliens created humanity?  Fine.  We’re all intergalactic ghosts from an aeons old society?  Right.

What I do care about, however, is what you do.  So long as your belief is yours, and you share it with those who are willing to listen, I don’t have any issues with you at all.

The moment, however, that you claim your beliefs are the absolute truth, and that, therefore, all people must accept them as such, we have a problem.

Unless, of course, you can prove them.  And not by referencing your holy writings or your prophets, but by the same yardstick science uses.

You devise a theory, then you work out ways to test that theory.  You work out ways to prove your theory wrong.  If your hypotheses cannot be disproven – if there’s no way for your test to fail – then it’s not a valid hypothesis, and is not science.

You set up the test in such a way as to ensure that your own biases are accounted for and the test is protected against them (and those of the other testers).  Ideally, you set it up so that the results speak for themselves.

Then, once you have a result, you repeat the test again and again.  And if you get the same results, you write it up, publish it, and let other scientists perform the experiment themselves.  That’s called Peer Review, and it’s essential if you want to be taken seriously.  And the best way to be taken seriously is to give it to people who don’t agree with you.  If your test proves your theory (and they are decent scientists) you’ll convince them – but they’ll put it through a rigorous test.

That’s how science advances.  And that’s why religious belief cannot – and should not – ever be presented as scientific fact.  Because it cannot be tested.  It can only be accepted, as an article of faith, so it can never be properly a theory.