Evolution is a law, and not a theory.
From something Clive Thompson wrote in Wired this month: an article in which he suggests that we stop calling The Theory of Evolution a "theory," and instead star referring to it as a law.
It's an interesting piece, and something relevant to all of us in the communications business. I remember seeing (name-drop alert!) Bill Clinton speak this summer, and he related a few very funny but very pointed examples of how the Republicans are "better branders" than the Democrats: they are certainly more aggressive, but also seem to have a better understanding of the simple truth the that success of any piece of communications, or language, rests in how it's received and not in how it's presented. If you want your message to be understood, it's better to be "wrong" but clear to a large number of people than "right" but clear to a smaller number of people. This is the reason that "incorrect" words become a part of our generally-accepted lexicon: "impact," for instance, is not a verb, but everyone uses it as one now. It's reached a tipping point, and we can't pretend not to understand it anymore.
So back to evolution: calling it a "theory," which, in the scientific sense is technically accurate, makes it a lot easier for Creationists to attack it. A law - like the Law of Gravity, as Thompson points out, something that has been proven - only gets called a law when there is a 100% belief in it. Scientists, especially as a group, are cautious and precise by nature - thankfully! - and therefore will only refer to something that they are 99% certain about as a "theory," as something else may come along and disprove it.
Which is great ammunition for all of those Intelligent Designers and Creationists, no? Thompson makes the excellent point that the culture wars are fundamentally about language and communication. Call it the "Theory of Evolution," and while that's technically accurate, it's less "true" in that people view a theory as something unproven - which this isn't. There is more evidence and support for evolution than there is for any other explanation as to how we got to where we are today. Call it the"law of evolution," even though it isn't, and you're closer to how the scientific community feels about it.
That being said, the comments section following Thompson's article illustrate this perfectly. Some asshat takes Thompson to task for his use of the term "law," and wants it to be called a "hypothesis" of evolution., instead, totally missing the point of the article. Sigh. Call that the theory of idiocy, I guess.
It's an interesting piece, and something relevant to all of us in the communications business. I remember seeing (name-drop alert!) Bill Clinton speak this summer, and he related a few very funny but very pointed examples of how the Republicans are "better branders" than the Democrats: they are certainly more aggressive, but also seem to have a better understanding of the simple truth the that success of any piece of communications, or language, rests in how it's received and not in how it's presented. If you want your message to be understood, it's better to be "wrong" but clear to a large number of people than "right" but clear to a smaller number of people. This is the reason that "incorrect" words become a part of our generally-accepted lexicon: "impact," for instance, is not a verb, but everyone uses it as one now. It's reached a tipping point, and we can't pretend not to understand it anymore.
So back to evolution: calling it a "theory," which, in the scientific sense is technically accurate, makes it a lot easier for Creationists to attack it. A law - like the Law of Gravity, as Thompson points out, something that has been proven - only gets called a law when there is a 100% belief in it. Scientists, especially as a group, are cautious and precise by nature - thankfully! - and therefore will only refer to something that they are 99% certain about as a "theory," as something else may come along and disprove it.
Which is great ammunition for all of those Intelligent Designers and Creationists, no? Thompson makes the excellent point that the culture wars are fundamentally about language and communication. Call it the "Theory of Evolution," and while that's technically accurate, it's less "true" in that people view a theory as something unproven - which this isn't. There is more evidence and support for evolution than there is for any other explanation as to how we got to where we are today. Call it the"law of evolution," even though it isn't, and you're closer to how the scientific community feels about it.
That being said, the comments section following Thompson's article illustrate this perfectly. Some asshat takes Thompson to task for his use of the term "law," and wants it to be called a "hypothesis" of evolution., instead, totally missing the point of the article. Sigh. Call that the theory of idiocy, I guess.
Labels: Communication
