It’s Pi day!

Happy Pi day, y’all!

To celebrate, look at one million digits of pi.

Darwin Day

In the run-up to my recital last night, I forgot that it was Darwin Day. I hope you all celebrated appropriately.

More on “Just a Theory”

Really, it’s “just a theory!”

Just a Theory

I keep reading this bunk from anti-evolutionists that evolution is “just a theory.” Well gosh, so is gravitation! Anyway, Stephen Jay Gould has put it best:

In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”–part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science–that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, ” Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Discover, May 1981

Just a theory, indeed.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

The National Academies of Science have produced a very thorough book on science, evolution, and creationism. It’s called, appropriately enough, Science, Evolution, and Creationism. It’s freely available for online reading or downloading. I’d like to highlight a few things from the Frequently Asked Questions.

One question asks what’s wrong with teaching critical thinking or “controversies” with regard to evolution? Part of the answer is:

There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes. However, arguments that attempt to confuse students by suggesting that there are fundamental weaknesses in the science of evolution are unwarranted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory. Creationist ideas lie outside of the realm of science, and introducing them in science courses has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts.

Another question asks whether it would be “fair” to teach creationism along with evolution. Answer:

Different religions hold very different views and teachings about the origins and diversity of life on Earth. Because creationism is based on specific sets of religious convictions, teaching it in science classes would mean imposing a particular religious view on students and thus is unconstitutional, according to several major rulings in federal district courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.

I found the whole book very interesting and thorough. Go read it!

Food Quacks

I found a great website today that shows how to spot quacks and vitamin pushers. The main thrust is that a balanced diet will give you everything you need as far as nutrients go. There is really no need to load up your body with expensive “supplements.” There is no real benefit to “organic” food.

Foods “certified” as “organic” are not safer or more nutritious than other foods. In fact, except for their high price, they are not significantly different.

Worth taking a look.