Scientific Theory and the Evidence for Evolution


     Some critics insist that since evolution is "just a theory," other "theories" of life on earth should be given equal class time. But such false logic relies on a vague definition of the term "theory." In the sciences, this term has a narrow, precise meaning; it is reserved for those hypotheses for which copious data has been gathered, which have been repeatedly substantiated, and which are no longer likely to be refuted or discarded. Scientists use the term theory as distinguished from fact because, as practitioners of the scientific method, they limit their hypotheses and conclusions to the observable world. And because every experiment is limited in terms of time and space, scientists never claim to prove a hypothesis. Therefore, scientists reserve the term theory for those sets of phenomena that have been thoroughly substantiated through physical evidence; and therefore, if a scientific proposition has reached the status of theory, scientists think of it as fact. For instance, the scientific community and the rest of society cannot conclusively prove the "germ theory", yet we view it, understand it, and teach it as fact. As Stephen J. Gould has noted, "in science fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." In other words, in science fact and theory become almost synonymous. 

     As with other scientific theories, the theory of evolution has been formed by this rigorous process of hypothesis testing and is supported by exhaustive amounts of evidence from all the sciences, including biology, geology, paleontology, and chemistry. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy and geology all provide exhaustive examples and powerful evidence for the well-established components of current evolutionary thinking. Indeed, at this time there is no other scientifically viable theory that can help account for the diversity of life on earth. 

Science and Religion


     Salient differences distinguish religious belief from scientific investigation. Each has its place, but one cannot be substituted for the other. In the science classroom, science should be taught, and this means the presentation of scientific principles based on hypotheses, observations, data and evidence gathering. The attempt to teach the biblical account of creation under the auspices of scientific principle is simply another way to teach religion in the public school system, a practice that directly conflicts with the constitution and its doctrine of the separation of church and state. This doctrine has been consistently upheld from the 1925 Scopes trial to such U.S. supreme Court Rulings as the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas case, 1981
McClean v. Arkansas, and the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard case.

     School curricula should be determined, not by the political mood of the moment, but by scholarly and scientific consensus. And, according to the scientific community, evolution holds the central unifying position in the biological sciences. In this context, any life science curriculum that excludes or misrepresents evolution ceases to follow the methodologies of legitimate science. For if we teach our students that the theory of evolution is not accepted fact, we also put into question scientific advancement in chemistry ("atomic theory"), physics, earth science ("theory of plate tectonics"), astronomy, and all other related fields, as all of these disciplines are built according to similar intellectual stratagems. For these reasons and many more, NC-MSEN strongly advocates the teaching of evolution in science classrooms, for to do otherwise would be a grave disservice to our students, to science, and to a society that values free inquiry.