From Harold Kirkham
I appreciate your coverage of the battle going on for the hearts and minds of
children in the US in regard to the teaching (or otherwise) of evolution
(21 August, p 4).
However, I feel that your choice of words sometimes unwittingly
aids the forces of irrationality.
When you say some scientist “believes” the Sun captured a tenth planet, or
that another “believes” the retreat of the Antarctic ice sheet could continue,
you are no doubt using the word correctly. They hold these things to be true.
But you provide ammunition for the schemers who wish to put science on a par
with faith, since “believe” has two meanings.
In its recent Science and Creationism, the US National Academy of
Sciences addresses a similar lexical issue. According to the NAS, a “fact” is an
observation that has been confirmed so many times it is accepted as true. A
“theory” is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses. As the NAS
points out, the creationist argument that evolution should be taught “as a
theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the
scientific use.
Such confusion of meaning is quite deliberate. No scientist would imagine, as
the creationists’ argument requires, that a theory (explanation) could turn into
a fact (observation) by the accumulation of evidence. But this point is not well
understood by the public, or the school boards.
Advertisement
Similarly, no scientist would believe (as a matter of faith) that apes and
humans share a common ancestor, though he or she might indeed hold that to be
true. The statements “scientists believe the Earth is 4 billion years old,” and
“creationists believe the Earth is 4 thousand years old” should have completely
different syllogistic as well as numerical values. Continued use of “believe” in
influential magazines such as yours blurs the distinction.
Sunland, California
