THEORY UNDERSTOOD

Writing in the Washington Post this morning, Steve Olson explains clearly the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis (and maybe conjecture, too). I have long hoped somebody with standing would take on this task, not because hill-billy Christians who so vigorously espouse a creationist theory can understand or accept what he explains, but because maybe his essay will help people who are inclined to accept scientific explanations but who lack scientific training to understand the role of theory in scientific discourse. We've let the creationists get by too long with their treatment of theory as a pejorative term. It is not. As Olson makes clear, a theory is a long established body of research and evidence that enables us to understand aspects of the world which we inhabit. I have sent him an email thanking him for his article.

Scientific theories do not answer all questions. Some things we do not know yet, and may never know, but we are making progress in adding new details to the paradigms we have. Science allows us to continue adapting and changing our theories as new information becomes available. It is self-correcting. Creationism, on the other hand, does not allow for change or improvements in understanding. It only allows us to bury deeper and deeper into faith.

In point of fact, both science and religion are myths. I do not mean that they are lies, but myths, fundamental explanatory systems that connect our brains with the physical world (yes, religion does connect us with the physical world). For the past several hundred years in the Western world we have been in process of shifting from a fundamentally religious explanatory system to a scientific one. Presently these two myths still co-exist in our culture and generally in a relatively peaceful manner. It is only when proponents of one myth get overly ambitious and try to impose their mode of explanation on everybody else that conflict arises. We are seeing that now in the efforts of fundamentalists, evangelicals they're called, to impose creationists teachings in the public schools.

Now comes the meta question: What do we have either myth? The short answer is given above, the need to connect our brains with the physical world. But that only removes the question one step backward without adding any information. I suspect that the reason we have myths is the perennial search of the human brain for answers to fundamental questions about ourselves, how and why we got here, and where the world comes from. The drive for answers to these questions is so powerful that we will pursue the search whether we have a productive methodology or not. If our present systems of understanding are not adequate to answer a burning question, we will simply make up an answer. We do it all the time. The justifications and excuses by which we rationalize our failures and shortcomings, not to mention our efforts to influence other people, attest to the power of this answer creating process within us.