There are several common errors made by people who come under the influence of Creation Pseudoscience. One error is failure to understand the meaning of the words "fact" and "theory" within science and the other is failure to distinguish between fact and theory in evolutionary biology.

The facts in any science depend on the available methods of observation. Since methods of observation change and improve, even the facts of science are not constant; they are always open to modification and revision. Only non-scientists retain a belief in "absolute facts". Religious fundamentalists who believe in the Bible as a source of absolute facts about the origins of humans have created a Pseudoscience of Creationism. Since Creation Pseudoscience assumes divine intervention, it is not science. Science does not accept supernatural causation. The "method" of unquestioning acceptance of revelation is not a scientific method of observation, revelation is not an accepted source of facts within science.

What methods of observation are used to bring the facts of science before us? The unaided human senses are acceptable tools for observation, but scientists tend to rely upon mechanical devices and other tools to extend and supplement the human senses. Good historical examples of "changing facts" are available.

Naked eye observations led early people to observe the motion of objects in the sky. To account for the fact that celestial objects appear to move, the geocentric theory was developed which assumed that the earth was stationary and that all celestial bodies move around the earth. When the telescope became available, it was possible to make new observations. Galileo and others became aware of the "new fact" that there are moons (not visible to the naked eye) that move around Jupiter. This fact suggests to any rational observer the possibility that other celestial objects that had previously been assumed to move around the earth, might in fact move around some other celestial object. By this point in time, detailed observations of the motions of the planets were consistent with the movement of planets around the sun. Of course, the catholic church favored geocentric theory over heliocentric, and Galileo was told not to promote the heliocentric theory.

Even though heliocentric theory eventually won the argument and was accepted by the catholic church, scientific theories of orbital dynamics are still a problem within science. Some people have tried to argue that theories of evolution should not be taught in school because "science only deals with facts" and "evolution is not a fact". Such claims are wrong for two reasons. First, science always deals with more than just facts. Facts are always interpreted by way of theory. Facts are meaningless outside of an interpretive theoretical framework. Second, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory. The often stated "evolution is not a fact" only makes sense if it is a contraction of the longer statement, "the theory of evolution is not a fact." This longer statement is irrelevant because nobody claims that any theory is a fact, at least not in the absolute sense implied by Creationists.

However, there is a way by which theoretical ideas can be transformed into observational facts. In other words, what starts out as a collection of confusing observations can lead to a theoretical notion that seems to account for the confusing observations. New methods of observation can then be developed that confirm predictions made by the theory. This is taken by scientists to be very good evidence that the theory is "factual" and that we can credit our selves with having achieved a "virtual observation" of factual character.....the theory is now considered a fact of observation even though it started as a hypothetical idea.

The idea of hypotheticals becoming observed facts is not really that strange. If your bird feeder keeps emptying very rapidly, you can hypothesize that a squirrel is getting into the bird feed. If you watch the feeder, you can confirm your hypothesis and catch the squirrel in the act. Your observation does not prove that the squirrel you see was always responsible every time the feeder was suddenly emptied, but you would be a fool not to accept the fact that the squirrel accounts for your observations. In your mind, the squirrel theory becomes a fact. In science, as in everyday life, the better your observations the more trust you have that a theory is correct. If you constantly watched the feeder for a week and emptying of the feeder always corresponded to a visit by the squirrel, then you would feel that it was a fact that the squirrel was responsible. In science, there is no absolute rule to use by which scientists decide when a theory has become fact. Fact is always relative in science. Each scientist makes his own judgment calls. Often, a large theory is "proved" or becomes "factual" piece by piece.

The theory of planetary dynamics is still an unfinished work. Newton's law of gravitation allowed scientists to understand that the same force that makes an apple fall is what holds the Moon in its orbit. We could just as easily call Newton's law of gravitation a fact or a theory. Since nobody doubts it and since it is not really an explanation of gravity, it seems useful to call it a law. What would a true theory of gravity be like? Usually we are not sure about the nature of "true theories" until after they have been formulated and tested by comparing predictions and new observations. The closest we have to a theory of gravitation is Einstein's theory of general relativity. This theory is really just a more complicated description of the observable facts of how gravitation manifests itself. It was an advance beyond Newton's law and made some interesting predictions which were confirmed by observation. However, it is not a final theory of gravity. Why do we call it a theory rather than a law? This is a matter of taste; it is more complex than what we usually call a law. Current theoretical work involves even more complex mathematical descriptions (String Theory). Just because a "final theory" of gravitation does not exist is no reason to prevent physicists from teaching students about Newton's Law, the Theory of General Relativity, or String Theory, which is as yet totally unsubstantiated by experiments that would test novel predictions of String Theory. Clearly, the objection by Creationists to the teaching of evolution has nothing to do with either the facts or the theories of evolution.

When Creationists claim that there is no factual theory of evolution, they usually mean that biologists are still developing the theory. There has never been a single theory of biological evolution, just as there is no single theory of gravity. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been greatly modified since Darwin's time and continues to change as new observations are made and new interpretations of observations are considered. This is the normal process of science. When Creationists object to the teaching of "evolution as fact" they are simply trying to turn their confused use of language into a "logical argument". People who are ignorant of the facts and theories of evolution can be fooled by the Creationist "arguments".

The facts of biological arguments come from special types of observations. This is no different than the situation for astronomy. When the naked human senses were the only available tools, the fact of change in biological organisms over long periods of time was hard to see. In Darwin's time, geology was developing as a science. The idea of rock strata that represent older ages as you go deeper was being developed. By observing geological features, and natural processes such as the erosion of rocks, estimates of the age of the earth and rock strata could be generated. Power tools, explosives, and even sailing ships going to the far reaches of the planet can be viewed as tools that allowed new geological facts to be gathered. Increasing numbers of fossils were found and it was clear that the fossilized organisms preserved in older (deeper strata) rocks were different and simpler than the fossil organisms of more recent rocks. It became clear and an accepted fact within science that biological evolution had occurred over the course of millions of years. In the past 150 years, many new tools for observation became available and they all confirm the idea of an old earth and changes in life forms through time. Human evolution has occurred during the past 5 million years starting from a common ancestor to chimps and humans in Africa. This is all the fact of evolution.

Creationists sometimes dispute the facts by using the same techniques of argumentation that were applied to Galileo. In Galileo's time, people who did not want to abandon geocentric theory simple discounted the telescope as a trust worthy tool for making observations. This was silly, because they could easily get their own telescope and confirm that all it does is magnify distant objects while accurately reporting to us the relative positions of the observed objects. The is exactly the same situation we have today when Creationists question techniques such as radiochemical dating. It is up to each person to examine these methods and decide if they are trust worthy. The fact that scientists trust these modern methods of observation and Creationists do not is only due to the fact that the methods give the age of the earth and fossils that are older than can be fit into a literal interpretation of the Bible. Any objective (not biased by religious conviction) observer recognized the validity of radiochemical dating once they take the time to learn how it works.

Darwin was the first person to publish an extensive account of a naturalistic theory of biological evolution. His theory depended on the idea of natural selection, so we often speak of the theory of evolution by natural selection. There were other aspects of Darwin's theory such as the idea of common descent, which means that all living things originated from a common ancestral source in the distant past. Theory of biological evolution continues to be modified and worked on within biology. There is no final theory of biological evolution just as there is no final theory of gravity. However, "the" theory of evolution is "mature" in the sense that it has gone through a process of improvement similar to the step from Newton to Einstein. Biologists use the theory of evolution in their daily work just as planetary scientists use the available theories of gravity in order to send space craft to other planets. Biological evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is a useful tool for working biologists. These are the only reasons we need to make evolution a part of the curriculum.

Deceitful attempts by Creationists to mislead and misinform the voting public about evolution and Creationism, are motivated by the same type of religious thinking that led to the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic church. Such religious interference in the public schools has no place within our form of government. Public officials who make curriculum decisions based on their religious convictions are not doing their duty, as the federal courts have consistently ruled. In a democracy, it is up to each individual to become informed and make decisions based on the facts. Creationists know that the facts are not on their side, so they are attempting to keep the facts from the public by keeping evolution out of the public schools.

Return to main evolution page.