Re: Evolution/Theory

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> always fall short of describing "reality".  We know that Newton's theory of
> gravitation is wrong (it fails to predict some phenomenon).  We know
> that general relativity is at least incomplete and therefore wrong.
> The same can be said for evolution.  Historically scientific
> theories have constantly been updated. Sometimes we update by
> tweaking, sometimes we update by completely replacing old ideas with
> a better model.  We should remember, as I say to my classes often,
> everything we teach in science class is probably wrong, but
> sometimes it is useful.
>
> When we approach the teaching of evolution or creationism (or
> anything else for that matter) in a science class as presenting
> "true" descriptions of life I believe we are going down the wrong
> path.  We should instead equip students to join the debate by
> enlightening them about: 1) the phenomenon we are trying to
> describe.  2) the theories used to describe such phenomenon, past
> and present.  3) the evidence that tends to strengthen the theory
> and the evidence that tends to weaken the theory.  Anything beyond
> this is essentially faith based instruction and is not science.

Agreed, but I think we cannot afford to be unsavvy in today's
climate. Wrong is too strong a word. In fact I would say it is
incorrect usage. For example, if Newton's theory is wrong (to quote
you), then what word do I reserve for Joe Rockhead's theory of
gravitation, which says "the force between objects of mass varies as
the inverse cube?" Demonstrably and trivially incorrect but I need a
word to use when I discuss it with Mr. Rockhead. One that not only
makes the point but also draws a distinction between his theory and
Newton's. If Mr. Rockhead wants to peel back another layer, then we
can relax a little and enter the tangle.

We physics types have an understanding about this. Its utility is
that we don't waste too much time with semantics, slowing down only
when words crucially matter. Examples of both abound on this list.

One problem we all face is that to enter the "tangle" often involves
a lengthy discourse and background discussion. A perfect example is
my recent question on inertial reference frames. To the Newtonist,
the question is not too complicated apparently. Enter GR and there
are some meanings to be revisited. In my experience, we are usually
the only people willing to entertain such difficulties and hardship.
Try doing that with "the public" and you are dead where you stand. I
don't see a way around this, frankly.

Is 2+2=5? Yes, but only for very large values of 2.

When I try to explain something like Newton and Einstein to a
layperson, I start with this old joke, being careful to warn them to
view it as an analogy only (yes I had one person ready to believe
me). The humor makes the mind receptive to what you will say next.
Then: Newton is 500+500=995. Einstein is 500+500=999. Science in
general strives for 500+500=1000.

If one does not care about numbers or denies that they are relevant
to humanity (and many many don't, let's face it), the discussion has
only the value of the chuckle at the joke itself. But if numbers hold
allure for you, you find yourself unable to resist wondering how we
get to 1000. And, since we love to be entertained, we also are drawn
to think about the meaning of very large values of 2.



Stefan Jeglinski