Science about more than theory

RE: Arguing against 'factual science'

The author, in his letter, claims that evolution is not “factual science,” seeming to infer that it is a “conjecture” and a “dubious hypothesis” because in his view it isn’t observable or testable.

He goes further to claim that science and naturalism are two different things, that science is not allowed to make predictions, and that any attempts at explaining past events are mere guesses and, presumably, a sheer waste of time.

The first claim is empirically untrue.

In science, “theory” is entirely different from “conjecture” and “hypothesis” — It is a model that explains and offers a causal mechanism for the known facts.

It is considered a successful theory if it can make reliable predictions about future discoveries, which theories such as the Theory of Evolution, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Heliocentric Theory have done and continue to do.

The mountain of direct and supporting evidence from molecular biology, paleontology, embryology, geology, and many, many other fields of science is too large and well-documented to require any elaboration from me.

This includes direct observation of evolution, both “macro-“ and “micro-“, in real time. Scientists sometimes disagree about the details of how evolution happens, but the fact that it does happen has been the scientific consensus for quite some time, and has survived all challenges to the contrary.

The wild claim that “naturalism” has somehow supplanted science is a bit like protesting that religion plays too great a role in theology.

Science is naturalistic by definition, because all explanations are either natural or supernatural, and science simply does not deal with the supernatural. If it did, (as the creationist Michael Behe was forced embarrassingly to admit in a Kansas courtroom), science would be redefined so broadly as to include astrology, the ether theory of light, along with any and all pseudoscience and superstition.

While we do agree that scientists should be wary of making assumptions, a theory as long-established and well-evidenced as evolution simply can’t be called an assumption.

Nor can the principle that science seeks natural causes.

We also agree that unscrupulous extrapolating is dangerous — After all, how much hand-wringing and outright hysteria has been whipped up by the extrapolations made by Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich, among others?

But an extrapolation is defined as “the calculation of the value of a function outside the range of known values”, and all of what evolution deals with (which, by the way, does not include first or ultimate causes) falls within the known facts of science.

And all this is merely to stick to scientific principle. For details, don’t take my word for it as a layman – Ask a biologist, or better yet multiple biologists, who are unaffiliated with any political or activist group.

Martin von Dach