Tony Odom
ED 503
In the general public, the word “theory” is often used in a context rendering it equivalent
to “opinion.” In science, a “theory” is not equivalent to an “opinion” at all. A scientific theory
is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that serves as a
general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. A theory can change with
the acquisition of new knowledge, and is never considered a “proof.” "Proof" only exists in
mathematics. Technically, there is no "proof" of gravity, atoms or germs either, hence the
reasoning behind the "theory of gravity" and "germ theory" and "atomic theory.” It is also why
“doctors are only practicing medicine.”1 In science, evidence is the foundation. Based upon the
evidence, theories are formulated. As progress is made, new evidence will either validate or
invalidate the theory
The theory of evolution is based upon the idea that life's diversity can be explained as the
result of millions of years of gradual change. These changes were brought about both through
random processes like mutation and genetic drift, and deterministic processes like adaptation and
selection. Evolution describes a natural, discernible process that has a mountain of evidence to
support it. The evidence is observable, testable and measurable, making the theory potentially
falsifiable. As such, this theory is thoroughly scientific. However, the theory of evolution is
often targeted by religious groups as “just a theory” and therefore no better or more valid than
one of their “alternative” theories. Therefore, they argue, their theories should be taught
1
Carter, Kenneth & Welsh, Jeni. (Summer 2010) Avoiding Mixed Metaphor: The Pedagogy of the Debate over
Evolution and Intelligent Design Liberal Education 46-53.
alongside and given equal weight to evolution. But careful examination of these theories will
show that they have no place being taught in a science classroom. The two main “alternative”
theories are intelligent design and creationism
Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that an intelligent entity or force is responsible
for not only the diversity of life on earth, but it's origin as well (something evolution doesn’t do).
This entity supposedly created life, the universe and everything either through an intricate
network of guided interconnected natural processes, or through some supernatural phenomena.
The problem with this theory is that it posits two hypotheses which can neither be observed nor
tested. There is no evidence in any reputable scientific journal which gives credence to the
existence of an outside extra-terrestrial entity or force that "created" life. There is also no
evidence in any reputable scientific journal that supports the idea that an extra-terrestrial entity or
force was even necessary for life to have come about. There is also no evidence (nor would
there be) that supernatural phenomena even occur. Science studies the natural, discernible
universe. Science seeks natural explanations of natural phenomena based on evidence.
Supernatural entities using supernatural means are outside the realm of what science studies.2
Creationism is based on the idea that a god or gods created life, the universe and
everything either through an intricate network of guided interconnected natural processes, or
through supernatural phenomena. With this idea, scientifically speaking, there are two problems.
First of all, if a god or gods were observable, measurable, testable, and potentially falsifiable,
they wouldn't be gods as they would lack the supernatural characteristics that gods have. Second,
once again the existence of supernatural phenomena and entities lies outside the realm of
2
MacKenzie, Jim (March 2009) How biology teachers can respond to Intelligent Design Cambridge Journal of
Education 53-97
scientific study, which is the study of the natural and discernible.....in other words, that which is
observable, measurable, testable, and potentially falsifiable, The only evidence for creationism is
provided by the myriad of holy books, sacred scrolls and mystic stories of the various cultures of
the world. Since none of these are supported by anything resembling scientific evidence and
since all rely on supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, it is safe to conclude that it is
useless to discuss creationism within the context of science, or as a viable scientific theory. If
creationism were treated as science and held up to the standards of science, it would only lead to
an abandoning of the faith.3
Another obstacle facing a teacher of science is the misconceptions about what evolution
is and is not. Many people tend to confuse evolution with the “Big Bang” theory of how the
universe began. Evolution and the Big Bang theories are not the same thing. Evolution and the
Big Bang aren't even in the same scientific fields of study. Evolution is a biological science
theory which deals with the origin of life’s diversity on earth. The Big Bang theory is a
cosmological theory dealing with the origin of space and time. Neither evolution nor the Big
Bang has anything to do with the creation of the earth or the origin of life.
A popular misconception is that evolution teaches that “random chance” governs how
things happen. In reality, of the six evolutionary processes, only two (mutation and genetic drift)
can be described as "random." The other four (adaptation, gene flow, natural selection and
speciation) are determined by a myriad of factors and can hardly be classified as "random
chance."
Another common misconception is that evolution and atheism are one in the same, and
that accepting one inevitably leads to accepting the other. Whether or not a god or gods exist has
3
Henderson, James R. (Fall 2007) Teaching Evolution to Creationists Sociological Viewpoints 73-84
nothing to do with science. Supernatural entities using supernatural means are outside the realm
of what science studies. Science studies the natural, discernible universe. A "god" by definition
is a supernatural entity. This line of reasoning also creates a false dichotomy. One need not
reject the existence of a god or gods to accept the reality of evolution. Many people of faith
reconcile that evolution was the method through which their god worked.
Michael Behe, creationist author of "Darwin's Black Box" reaffirmed in the Kitzmiller v.
Dover trial his 1996 statement that evolution could not explain the development of the immune
system. He was then presented with 58 peer-reviewed articles, nine books and several textbook
chapters which did just that. Behe testified under oath that he had not only not read them he
didn't need to because he already knew what they said.. This is an extremely dangerous line of
thinking that lamentably, many people outside of the scientific community have adopted with
respect to the science of evolution. Part of this has to do with ignorance. However, part of it can
be attributed to unscrupulous individuals who attempt to blur the lines between “science” and
their own brand of “pseudo-science” in a brazen attempt to empower themselves. Teachers who
teach evolution are often confronted and harassed by people of a similar ideology to Behe.
Though legally, “science” has never been defined, it is beholden to us as educators to draw that
line and defend it. If not, then the advancement of our civilization could come to a grinding halt.