Oct 302012
 

Brittany J 166x250 We don’t have all the answers, evolution is a theoryAccording to my man Webster, theory is defined as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.” Basically, a theory may be regarded as correct, but it is not given as fact. It has not yet been proven true. So why is it, then, that in collegiate programs, where we are supposed to be receiving the best education possible, theory is presented as fact?

Like many of you, as a freshman I had to take LIFE 102 as an Introduction to Biology course. When we began discussing evolution, what struck me was that this information was never presented as the theory it is. Instead, I was told that this was fact: evolution is the only response we have to the question of where the human species came from.

The problem I had with the system was that I was told that evolution was fact, and yet I didn’t believe in evolution. I came from a private high school, where we were obviously on the whole Intelligent Design bandwagon. All of my science courses at my Lutheran high school were from an evolutionary standpoint, but it was always presented as theory.

Evolution is a theory, just as Intelligent Design is a theory. I cannot prove to you that God exists, but you cannot prove to me that He doesn’t. Hence why these two theories have existed fairly peacefully for years.

So when I came to college, I expected theories to be presented as theories and facts to be presented as facts. It was disheartening to find that this was not the case.

I learned the material, I took the exams, I did fairly well. I passed a course where I did not believe in the curriculum — a first for me. But never, in this course, was there even mention of the fact that other theories exist. Evolution is not the only theory out there, so where is the equal representation?

I am not asking for Intelligent Design to be offered as a course. I am fully aware of the separation of church and state. Being that this is a public university, I expect evolution to be taught.

The change that I would like to see is for professors to admit that they don’t have all the answers. The theory that they are presenting does not house all of the answers to our questions, it is simply the theory that isn’t supposed to step on people’s toes.

So at least make mention of the fact that the theory of evolution is not proven true and is open to experimentation. At least make mention of the fact that there are at least two different tracks one can take in answering the question “where do we come from?”

I don’t have all the answers to that question. But Charles Darwin didn’t either. Since neither of us can prove that God does or does not exist, why don’t we just count our losses and admit that we don’t know?

I’m not saying that God even needs to be mentioned. But spend a little bit of time acknowledging my beliefs, and understand that there are some things about evolution that I may not know. I was taught evolution in my science classes, sure, but I am by no means an expert. Creationism, though, that I know and know well.

Let’s treat these theories equally. Let’s admit that there are things that we don’t know.  Let’s make the little private school kid feel included in the conversation.

I believe in God, in a Higher Power, in Intelligent Design. That has nothing to do with perfect science, it has nothing to do with proving theories. It has everything to do with plain and simple faith. And I would like my faith, my practiced theology, my belief system to be acknowledged and regarded as a valid theory. Just as I promise to regard evolution as a valid theory.

Brittany Jordan is a sophomore psychology major. Her column appears every other Tuesday in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

To read a response column by columnist Res Stecker, click here.

 We don’t have all the answers, evolution is a theory
 Posted by on October 30, 2012 at 12:00 pm Opinion Tagged with: , , ,  Add comments
  • Joe

    There is change. Genetic change by mutation is undisputable fact. Death is another undisputable fact. The combination of these two concepts forms the basis of evolutionary “theory,” where the “theory” is just a description of how it all works, just as music “theory” describes how music works. If you believe in mutation and you believe in death, you believe in evolution as a fact of nature. What works wins. That’s all it is.

  • Marc B.

    “Basically, a theory may be regarded as correct, but it is not given as fact. It has not yet been proven true. So why is it, then, that in collegiate programs, where we are supposed to be receiving the best education possible, theory is presented as fact?”===This paragraph is wrong on so many levels that I think you should refrain from writing articles on evolution until you get a better grasp of scientific methodology. A theory is not a fact and facts are not theories. A theory is simply an explanation that uses things such as facts to support it. The facts of evolution are the “what’s” and “when’s”, while the theory includes the “why’s”, how’s” and the precise mechanisms used. Hence, evolution is not only a fact but it is also a theory. Evolution is a fact because we have observed it occur. Evolution is tested on a daily bases around the world and we can even make predictions from it. Guess what? It has yet to be shown incorrect.

    “So at least make mention of the fact that the theory of evolution is not proven true and is open to experimentation. ” === For someone who claims to have studied evolution using scientific methodology, I find it odd that you say evolution is “not proven true”. Do you know of any scientists claiming something is proven true? It also seems that you think science claims absolutes for theories. Hate to break it to you, but absolutely “proven true” theories do not exist.

    You need to understand that even if you could show the theory (explanation of how evolution occurs) to be incorrect tomorrow, the facts of evolution will remain unscathed. A theory is not a guess and with your education you should have been aware of this.

    • Marc B.

      Sorry, meant to say basis and not bases. I appear to be a latecomer in informing you of your lack of understanding for scientific methodology. I guess I should have read some of the comments before posting mine.

  • Eric Webster

    Ouch poor girl! Be nice people, someone save her. Brittany, when you write next time I would not read the comments and please, please don’t get involved in debates. For your own good. This is painful like watching a televised eye surgery. At the same time it’s entertaining like Jerry Springer before they started using actors.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Philip-Gray/1760400373 Philip Gray

    Apparently at the Colorado State University, they admit students whom believe in intelligent failing..
    At least the answer to life, the universe and everything is still 42 and physics is still all gnomes.

  • JohnVHedtke

    As many others have said, a theory in science is the best explanation that fits the available facts, that has predictive abilities, and that all the available evidence has so far been unable to falsify. The common use of theory–what you’re doing in your article–is more close to “hypothesis,” something that could be the way things happened but has no experimental data nor rigor to back it up.

    Gravity is a theory.

    Atoms are a theory.

    Evolution is a theory.

    These things work pretty well. We can interpolate and extrapolate from them and these projections work.

    “Intelligent design,” on the other hand, is a hypothesis. It is NOT a theory. There are no predictive abilities, because it all boils down to “God made it that way.” It is not potentially falsifiable, because you have to come up with a proof that God didn’t make something that way, which is not a venue for proof. If ID is a theory, then so is every other creation myth out there, including the really sexy Pacific Island ones and anything that involves the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They all have equal scientific weight: zero. But they’re all hypotheses: untestable and without predictive powers.

    Your faith is your faith. It is not science and should never be mistaken for science. You should give science the weight of science and your faith the weight it deserves… which is not science and never should be confused with science. It’s just an opinion.

  • al;ksndjflopjsadfjldkoas

    TITS or GTFO

  • Science Jerk

    Brittany, please look up, “Scientific Theory.” Seriously, just Google it, it really isn’t that difficult. I need you to do this because you’ve fallen into the common trap of using the word ‘theory’ to describe something that is a mere hypothesis. In scientific discourse there is a HUGE distinction between ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis.’

  • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.paliden Arthur Paliden

    Creationism Gives Man Dominion Over God
    —————————————-

    If you believe in Creationism you must reject the underlying science that supports the Theory of Evolution. This includes the rejecting the fundamental principles of chemistry and physics.

    If you reject the fundamental principles of chemistry and physics then you must believe that God preforms each and every chemical reaction in the Universe.

    Now according to the Bible Man has free will. This means that God does not know what Man is going to do nor when he is going to do it.

    So if I have a glass of vinegar and a spoon full of baking soda, it is up to me alone if and when I put the baking soda into the vinegar to to produce CO2. God does not know either because I have free will.

    Yet when I do put the baking soda into the vinegar the expected reaction happens. Which, according to Creationism, can only happen if God is doing it.

    I have summoned God to do my bidding. I have dominion over God.

  • Seraphim

    Theory, in scientific terms, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly through observation and experiment. Intelligent Design is not a theory. It’s barely a hypothesis. As a matter of fact, no, it is not even a hypothesis. To call it that would be to give it footing in the scientific community. It’s an asinine world view made from an ancient book with no modern relevance.

  • Kivahut

    Oh, Brittney. You’re an English (Journalism) major right? A theory is built on data (usually physical), is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. In other word, god can’t be tested, reproduced or falsified, so he can’t be used as a basis for a theory. EVER. If there was a god, the evidence for his existence would be overwhelming; instead, it’s non-existent. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection (I assume that is the theory of evolution you are referring to) is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. ALWAYS. Write about something that you can grasp.

  • asdf

    Get a better dictionary.

  • Kivahut

    Here’s how a science education works.

  • Dandy Dan

    She may not have much upstairs, but the hooters are nice.

  • dave wright

    Compare the theory of gravity to the theory of a monster under a child’s bed.

    Both are “just theories,” but one has an overwhelming amount of data to support it. Should they be given equal time in a classroom? Of COURSE not.

  • dave wright

    I’d also like to point out that the purpose of university is not to make people “feel included.”

  • LearnToThink

    Stopped reading after the1st paragraph. If you can’t understand the basic concept of what a theory is in science do not write about it. For example did you know that gravity is a theory? Not much debate about that now is there.

  • Tom

    Brittany- wise guys get a lot “wiser” when there are other “wise” guys in the room. Let them keep spouting off and trying to sound educated. Don’t even dignify their little attacks with a response. They’ve never seen a paralyzed man walk after being prayed over, and they’ve never seen physical wounds healed after being prayed over. I have, first hand. Nobody can explain that away, besides to simply resort to Obama-like tactics and just call me a “liar.”
    Keep writing and keep believing.

  • MK

    Theory has a more specific meaning in science than what you’ll find in Webster’s, maybe time to go back to basics. BTW, gravity is just a ‘theory’ as well, don’t you just hate how they teach it in physics like it’s some kind of given? Like, how do you know we don’t each have a guardian angel sitting on our back that keeps us from just floating away towards the sun? You never know Brittany, you never know.

  • james

    Brittany. I felt bad for you for not knowing there was a difference in meaning between the common use of the world theory and the scientific one, and that it lead you to write a piece based on this false understanding. Alas, that sympathy evaporated when i started reading your replies to people in these comments.

    When faced with the fact that your entire article is built on a mistake you have stuck your head in the sand and refused to acknowledge it.

    As for evolution itself. Whether you believe it or not is about as consequential as whether you believe in gravity. You are correct in that it pokes a rather large hole in your religion, which is very unfortunate for your religion, and pretty much all other religions. However pretty much all of science pokes holes in your religion, so if you plan to reject evolution you will have to reject everything from geology to astronomy and cosmology.

    As for acknowledging your beliefs, why would i give special preference to your myths over the myths of others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

    As for your religion in general. Ask yourself this. Why is it that the god of your bible is less powerful than a god i can imagine in my head. How is it that it can be possible for me to imagine a creature more powerful than your books god.

    The god of the bible is the product of bronze age thinking. It is a entity which has all the qualities of a man, but more powerful in terms of the most basic primitive ideas, like fire, snakes and natural disasters. The god of the bible is, much like man, a being constrained to existing in one point in time, moving forward through time in a linear fashion. It can be surprised. It can be thwarted by iron chariots. It can be defied. It changes its mind. It uses minions to accomplish goals. It takes time to accomplish things. It requires rest.

    These are not the qualities of a being which exists in all points in time and in all points in space, with infinite power which is what we would consider to define a god character powers today.

    Sorry, but your god is no more real than zeus or apollo, and his bronze age teachings have no place in a science classroom.

  • RM

    I’m surprised you are not complaining that gravity is taught as fact as well.

  • stu

    Brittany,

    Allow me to reiterate what several others have commented before me on this page: scientific theory is not a ‘guess’ or hypothesis, it is built upon mountains of evidence. This is very different from religious beliefs, which are built upon faith, or as I like to call it make believe. Why should your religious belief be taught in science class? If we allow that then should we allow everyones beliefs to be taught? Easily, I will tell you no, none of it should be taught in science class. Religion is not science, just like drinking beer on the couch is not a sport. Once again, your faith (I’m assuming Christianity and Intelligent Design) is not science, nor is it a theory. It is make believe fairy tales that bronze age goat herders created so that they would better understand the world. I hope next time you decide to write an article you research your subjects a bit better.

  • Pingback: Explaining the facts about the modern Theory of Evolution » Rocky Mountain Collegian

  • BornRight

    Brittany,

    Evolution IS INDEED A FACT. A theory becomes a fact when it is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Evolution is supported by all scientific disciplines right from paleontology to genetics to biochemistry, embryology, geology, even physics and astronomy! The evidence only keeps on growing with time.

    On the contrary, Intelligent Design has no evidence from any scientific discipline whatsoever to support its claims. Hence ID is just an idea or blind faith, not even a theory.

    You can believe whatever you want, but don’t even think of teaching ID as a theory in a science class. It simply isn’t science at all.

  • Pingback: Episode 75: Kill the Gays Bill | Cognitive Dissonance the Podcast

  • RobFC

    Evolution is factual; the theory of evolution has been proven by the fossil record. The fallacy in your argument is that the existence of God is antithetical to evolution. It’s not, and you don’t need the recent fad of “Intelligent Design” to explain that. It should be obvious to anyone thinking it through that a divine creator could be responsible for the existence and evolution of all species of life on Earth. Few scientists would actually argue that evolution and divine creation are mutually exclusive. What is at odds with evolution is a certain interpretation of religious manuscripts, such as the Bible, to the effect that God’s creation of the world and of human life literally took place all at once, or in a week’s time. Those who advocate for such a literal interpretation tend to be religious extremists (fundamentalists, evangelicals, whatever description you prefer) who, for their own, non-scientific reasons, wish to see the science of evolution treated as heresy. If you want to, you can treat heliocentric planetary fact as theory, too; you can maintain that the Earth is flat; you can attempt to cure cancer with prayer and leeches; and you can relegate women to the status of property. All of these views find support among various religious extremists’ interpretations of sacred writings; that doesn’t make them true.

  • Thomas Creo

    Anyone with an interest in this topic, or a criticism of Jordan’s article, should watch the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, by Ben Stein.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/