For
him, our ideas about our ancestors have changed, proving once more that
evolution was a theory, and therefore we should be free to teach other
theories alongside evolution in our classrooms.
How to respond? The usual answer is that we should teach students the meaning of the word “theory”
as used in science – that is, a hypothesis (or idea) that has stood up
to repeated testing. Pence’s argument will then be exposed to be what
philosophers call an equivocation – an argument that only seems to make sense because the same word is being used in two different senses.
Just words
Evolution,
Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution
is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of
the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The
formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation
of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.”
Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not
weakness.
If you take this approach, you have failed to understand the purpose of Pence’s rhetoric, or why it is so appealing to creationists.
Pence is an accomplished politician, and knows exactly how to appeal to
his intended audience. He is also an accomplished trial lawyer, which
makes him a conjuror with words, and like any skilful conjuror he has
pulled off his trick by distraction. Pence has drawn us into a
discussion about words, when our focus should be on the evidence.
I
would suggest the opposite approach. The problem is not really with the
word “theory” at all. Students will have learned its meaning in the
same way they learn meanings in general: by seeing how the word is used.
How to slam dunk creationists when it comes to the theory of evolution
1 comment:
Thank you for nice information
Please visit our website
https://uhamka.ac.id/
Muhammad Al Aziiz
Post a Comment