Help For The Layman

[mik3cap]

Do you think people would have a better understanding of the situation if evolution is referred to as a "scientific model" rather than a "scientific theory"? "Theory" apparently has too many connotations for the average uninformed person to grasp. Is it not accurate to refer to evolution as a model, the same way that there's a "standard model" of particles and their interactions in physics?

I know it's not possible to convince average uninformed persons of religious conviction of anything. But I'm hoping that maybe we can get the fence-sitting folks less convinced of absolute rightness a bit more over to the side of overwhelming evidence if we change the language slightly. Of course, I suppose it's possible for anti-science folks to just come up with a dismissive "Well, it's just a MODEL, that means it's like a TOY, it's not reeeeal..."

Comments

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

I think he meant, "convince people to reject any of the products of their magical thinking."

The word model usually implies something that can be calculated within a range -- like a cell-based weather system or a random point-mutation model of genetic ancestry. But if you're not targeting a scientific audience...

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

So a model is generally more quantitative and measureable than a theory?

If there's even a slight bit of flexibility in the definition that can allow it to apply to evolution, I say we go for it. Too many people say "just a theory" and don't understand that's just plain inaccurate when applied to evolution.