Oh, science, is there anything you can't do?
Well, sure. Of course there is. Just as there are many things science either cannot (currently) or does not (currently) know. Almost no one with even a basic understanding of science will say otherwise, not seriously at least. And that is where what I consider the main problem facing science today, in America, comes in.
Creationism.
You see, many Creationists believe that science cannot be trusted because it changes frequently (as new discoveries replace old models shown to be incorrect) and can't (currently) answer every question we've ever had. What never changes and can answer everything? Their holy book of choice, in the USA this tends to be the Bible, of course! I suppose we should ignore all the changes that have been made to the Bible, and how it gets interpreted, over time, right?
So, how did the universe come into being? God did it! How did the Earth form? God did it! How did life appear on Earth? God did it! Scientists, when met with something they don't know or understand, work to seek the answers. Most Creationists don't seem to be able to handle any mystery, any unknowns, and attribute everything to variations of, "God did it." There is nothing scientific about this sort of world view regarding life, the universe, and everything.
Yet, whether under the label of Intelligent Design or Creationism, those who believe such nonsense are pushing their scientifically illiterate opinions about the nature of the world onto everyone else. Whether it is in
Tennessee,
Indiana,
New Hampshire, or any number of other states, science (and more specifically, science education) is under attack. Sure in some states these bills are meeting defeat, like in the above article about New Hampshire's bill or in
Oklahoma, but in others they aren't meeting their demise like they should be.
Look, if you want to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago by man being sculpted out of dirt and a cosmic geneticist cloning a woman out of a rib, go for it. If you want to believe, despite there being no evidence for it, that the entire Earth flooded and two (or seven depending on whether they were "clean" or not) of almost every species on the planet boarded a small boat and survived an absolutely complete global flood, you go right ahead. Frankly, I don't care if you believe that a giant walrus regurgitated the universe into being five minutes ago, complete with everything we would need to falsely believe the cosmos is about 14 billion years old.
You are, after all, free to your beliefs. However, the very instant you begin to push your unsubstantiated beliefs as fact onto others, the very moment education and progress become blocked because of magical thinking, then you've just over stepped your bounds and we've got ourselves a problem.
Much of this hostility towards science is based on evolution, and the theory of evolution. Evolution, you see, disproves the stories of, basically, every religion's creation myth. Naturally this would lead to the religious opposing evolution (with its corresponding theory), and please do not confuse the process of evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact, whether you like it or not.The theory of evolution, however, is different from simply saying, "evolution." Evolution is the process, the theory of evolution explains the process.
There is a difference.
Many of the assaults against evolution, it seems, are based on the use of the word "theory," as in, "the theory of evolution." In science, ample evidence is required for something to become a theory, it is not just a random idea someone has. The latter is what Creationists seem to believe the word "theory" means, even when used in a scientific manner. Personally, I'm fond of Isaac Asimov's take on this,
“Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
So what, exactly, is the definition of a scientific theory?
The appropriate definition to use when looking up the word at
Dictionary.com is the first one;
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
About.com explains it as;
A scientific theory
summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported
with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no
evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically,
if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis
can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One
definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
It is rather sad that the most common argument against evolution seems to be over the misunderstanding of a word's definition. Then again, you never see Creationists/ID-iots arguing against the theory of gravity or germ theory, do you?
To draw things to a close, I'd like to suggest that if you don't accept evolution, odds are you don't understand it. Whether it is intentional or not (as many religious speakers make sure their audience gets a very biased, very inaccurate, view of evolution and its theory), simple conversation reveals that most Creationists seem to lack even the most basic of understandings of evolution. Destroying science education for the sake of what amounts to fairy tales will not help anyone. It will, in fact, only hurt those no longer learning actual science.
Now, since I touched on evidence earlier, here are some links to read a little about some of the evidence we have for evolution;
Fossil Evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
http://www.enotes.com/topic/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
Gene Evidence:
http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/42290.aspx
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm
Observational Evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolutionguide.blogspot.com/2010/07/observed-speciation.html
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/13511-observed-speciation/
To be fair, here are some links to evidence we have for Creationism/Intelligent Design;
*crickets chirping*
