Evolution is only a theory
Or, E=mc2 is only an equation, not a number.
I’ll get this out of the way first: Yes, I am atheist. But this is not intended to be an argument in and of itself. This is only my plea to improve the ongoing debate by getting a pesky non-point off the table so we can all have a more relevant way to begin conversations, and so the confusion of nonsense no longer qualifies as a battle won.
Inevitably, at some point during a debate pitting Creation against Evolution, someone will cry, “But evolution is only a theory, not a fact!” Unfortunately, this often times disables any possible productive conversation, not because it isn’t true, but because it doesn’t matter, and it’s not always immediately obvious to those involved just why it doesn’t matter.
Saying “evolution is only a theory, not a fact,” is analogous to saying “E=MC2 is only an equation, not a number!” Well, it isn’t a number, and that’s obvious, and also its validity isn’t hinged on being a number because it never claimed to be one in the first place. You put numbers into equations to get answers, just as you put facts into theories to get explanations.
The rub here is that people who make this argument apparently believe that a theory is just a good idea that has yet to be awarded the honor of being true. A theory, though, is a scientific term for the organization and explanation of known principles and facts. The words “fact” and “theory” are not antonyms, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Because bodies of matter are known to be attracted to each other relative to their masses (a fact), a Theory of Gravity was developed to explain what exactly is happening, and to predict what will happen under future circumstances with a variety of variables. A theory is something that is accepted as true until an experiment reliably proves otherwise. Theories do not grow up one day to become facts; facts comprise theories. It isn’t called the Theory of Gravity because no one really understands it, or because it’s a good guess, or because on rare occasions objects or people begin falling in the wrong direction. It’s called a theory because it’s a reliable and testable conclusion drawn from facts and observations that remain consistent over and over again. Unfortunately, the science is inherently unimportant to a person who doesn’t understand its usefulness beyond misusing vocabulary to construct a sentence that sounds logical. Ironically, it’s hard for someone to realize this because the sentence was made up to reject an idea he or she believes was made up in the first place.
It is this type of willful blindness that erodes the quality of a discussion about science, because it assumes that all someone has to do is passionately and purposefully throw a deepity at the problem to make it go away. But the truth is, this phrase is nothing more than a religious cultural meme which suggests that those who study the mechanics of our biology and galaxy (thereby enabling any and all technological and medical advances) are somehow conspiring to weave some intricate lie to hide or ignore a truth only known to creationists because of a socially accepted assumption that peoples of antiquity understood more about how the universe works than we do now. In marketing, this principle is represented when the first brand to market is the most popular and therefore assumed to be the best, while the actual best solution is often produced by the less popular second and third brands building on the first’s idea. By the very nature of knowledge and discovery, it is more likely that new ideas are better or more correct than older ones, even if everyone still prefers the older ones out of comfort and routine.
A theory is not a guess. The Bible, on the other hand, was a guess, and not a very good one. That does not mean the bible does not contain some universal truths or spiritual practices that are helpful to some, but it isn’t science that is the collection of folk tales made up by superstitious people during the iron and middle ages, and any discussion is futile when one party, based on what he or she wishes or hopes is true, presupposes that theories are only stories made up by scientists while claiming that bible stories are the only historically and scientifically accurate “facts” ever revealed.
If you end up in a debate where someone tries to corner you with this particular gem of truthiness, my response should provide a quick way to get the train back on track and a little further along before finding yourself stuck with something like, oh I don’t know, “Then, why aren’t there half evolved monkey-men?”
