With regard to evolution, how do you feel about this?

Question

I read an article in Wired magazine the other day which advocated scientists start referring to evolution as a law rather than a theory.

The idea was that theists and supporters of intelligent design have seized on the phrase "theory of evolution" to indicate that scientists are not confident in the idea. They use a layman's definition of theory which mean something you think but can't really prove. However, when a scientist uses the word theory, they often mean something that would be more equivalent to the layman's definition of law.

Mastermind: the point of the article was that science should consider using the word "law" in place of "theory" in many places - not just with evolution.

I don't really have an issue either way, because I understand what is meant by theory.

Answer 1

I haven't read the article, but just based on your question, I would disagree with the concept of reclassifying evolution as a law simply as a reaction to creationist's misuse of the term "theory." Scientists should NOT change their terminology simply to better respond to anti-scientists. I.e. it is misguided for scientists to try and match their terms to layman's terms ... there are *reasons* why scientists use the far more precise terms that they use.

>"However, when a scientist uses the word theory, they often mean something that would be more equivalent to the layman's definition of law."

If this is what the author of the article wrote (and not just your paraphrasing), then I disagree *strongly*. There is a fundamental difference between a law and a theory in science.

1. A law is a *descriptive* statement.

2. A theory is an *explanatory* statement.

This is why a theory can never become a law, and a law can never become a theory.

However, I suspect that the author of the article had more of a basis for his or her proposal.

When people refer to "evolution", they rarely clarify whether they are talking about the *process* of evolution (inherited change over generations), or the *theory* of evolution (the explanation of *how* that process occurs, and how it explains all modern species from earlier ancestors).

A *law* can certainly describe that *process* of evolution. If the statement is made in the form "whenever conditions X, Y, and Z are met, then evolution occurs", and if that statement is shown to be universally true, then evolution can indeed be described as a law. The statement of natural selection is pretty close to such a law ... "when there is variation, inheritance, and competition, evolution will occur."

{edit}

I agree with gribblin's excellent answer. And Mastermind's claim that only physicists understand the scientific method, is undermined by his own understanding of the scientific method.

"The scientific method (the basis of all modern knowledge) requires for theories to be tested to be proven true." No. Theories (including in physics) are indeed tested, but not "proven true." You "prove" things in math, not science.

"You can't do that with evolution (in fact attempt to prove that non-living matter can become living matter of empircally failed)." This is a complete mistatement of the scope of evolution ... making the classic creationist mistake of conflating evolution with the question of abiogenesis (life from non-life) which is *not* part of evolution theory.

Answer 2

Evolution is both a theory and a law.

It is a Law because populations of organisms do change over time. This has been observed time and again, and it is evolution. So it is a law.

However, the idea that this process is how all the different species on earth came to be. *That* is a Theory. One I believe, BTW, but still a theory.

It is similar to the way that Gravity is a Law, but the theory of gravitation is a theory. Mass is attracted to other mass - that is a Law. But how it happens (gravitons with negative momentum, superstring theory), well, these ideas are Theory.


I think that re-phrasing the whole thing would be as fundamental a re-writing of what Science is and how it works as trying to posit the ideas of Intelligent Design as "science" (which requires you to re-define "science").
I don't think we should go that far.
_______________________________________________
Edit (in response to Mastermind):
Physicists are emphatically *not* the only scientists who know how to use the scientific method. In fact, as you have stated that the scientific method can be used to prove things true shows *you* do not understand the scientific method - which can only be used to show that things are either *untrue* or *possible*!
To quote Christiaan Huygens: "I believe that we do not know anything for certain, but everything probably."

Answer 3

It matters very little. We have the Law of Parity. Some refer to the Theory of Gravity. There is Dollo's Law of the Irreversability of Evolution. That last would make evolution a meta-law, I guess. How about the Law of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection?

No matter what you call it, creationists are going to keep referring to "Darwin'sTheory of Evolution" (i.e. natural selection) as if Darwin discovered evolution.

Answer 4

Considering we still have the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, atomic theory, etc I think it is rediculous to call evolution a law. It has always astounded me how physicist are generally the only ones in the scientific community who realize the implications of the scientific method (I think there is a lot of job justification that must go on in the biology field).

The scientific method (the basis of all modern knowledge) requires for theories to be tested to be proven true. You can't do that with evolution (in fact attempt to prove that non-living matter can become living matter of empircally failed). To call it a law is both scientifically dishonest and ignorant.

Answer 5

most scientists believe the theory of natural selection to indeed be a law though it is not classified as such because it continually is being "tweaked" over time as new fossils and the study of molecular DNA and the comparison between organisms is researched. By all streches of the imagination though, natural selection is a fact will little to be doubted.

Answer 6

Evolution itself is not a "law", but the forces that make it happen are laws. Examples would be the law of "survival of the fittest" or the law that DNA is allowed to mutate to some extent to allow for species to slowly adapt to a changing environment.