Evolution and theory.
Several weeks ago I learned that one of my fellow law students misunderstood what the term "theory" means in science by suggesting, during a discussion of the Establishment Clause in my First Amendment class, that "intelligent design" ought to be taught alongside evolution. Before that I had assumed that the only people who believed this hogwash were hucksters and the unschooled. And while perhaps a solid backing in biology, or even science generally, is not necessarily found in law students, they do tend to be at least modestly educated.
So, let me see if I can put this in terms lawyers can understand. A "theory," as the term is used in science, is not synonymous with "speculation" or "conjecture." Rather, a "theory" is well-supported by empirical evidence, fits with prior theories, and is the best (usually simplest) explanation that fits with the evidence. Talk of a theory being "unproven" is misleading. Theories, because they are only models to account for the observed evidence, cannot be proven. At least not in the "beyond all doubt" sense that scientists employ.
Lawyers also talk about "proof." But we mean "proven beyond reasonable doubt," "proven by clear and convincing evidence," or "proven by a preponderance of the evidence." All of which are substantially less rigorous standards than science demands.
Perhaps the clearest (if not most accurate) way to put this is to say that a scientific hypothesis must satisfy a preponderance standard. And a theory must satisfy a reasonable doubt standard.
Just remember that to be called a "theory" there can be no conclusive contrary evidence, there must be quite a bit of conclusive supporting evidence, and the model must be the best explanation out there.
And evolution is a theory in this sense.
So, let me see if I can put this in terms lawyers can understand. A "theory," as the term is used in science, is not synonymous with "speculation" or "conjecture." Rather, a "theory" is well-supported by empirical evidence, fits with prior theories, and is the best (usually simplest) explanation that fits with the evidence. Talk of a theory being "unproven" is misleading. Theories, because they are only models to account for the observed evidence, cannot be proven. At least not in the "beyond all doubt" sense that scientists employ.
Lawyers also talk about "proof." But we mean "proven beyond reasonable doubt," "proven by clear and convincing evidence," or "proven by a preponderance of the evidence." All of which are substantially less rigorous standards than science demands.
Perhaps the clearest (if not most accurate) way to put this is to say that a scientific hypothesis must satisfy a preponderance standard. And a theory must satisfy a reasonable doubt standard.
Just remember that to be called a "theory" there can be no conclusive contrary evidence, there must be quite a bit of conclusive supporting evidence, and the model must be the best explanation out there.
And evolution is a theory in this sense.
2 Comments:
regardless, i think evolution is incomplete and i don't accept it... i don't feel the need to resort to god though, i'll just wait for scientists to figure it out. - molino
I am not trying to argue in support of evolution as a theory. I don't know enough biology to have a firm understanding of its merits and flaws. I am simply suggesting that evolution is a scientific theory in the sense that it explains many observable phenomena, is testable, has predictive power, and is better than anything else out there. Whereas "ID" is not a scientific theory in that it is not testable, explains fewer observable phenomena, has no predictive power, and is less simple and efficient an explanation.
Post a Comment
<< Home