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

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

That word's either too overused or too little understood by the masses to be of any worth.

[purly.livejournal.com]

I think you're underestimating "the masses" understanding of basic English. IMHO, disagreeing with evolution does not equate to having a poor vocabulary.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

It's not about vocabulary. It's about understanding scientific jargon - and I don't expect non-scientists to understand all the jargon.

People can disagree all they want, as long as they don't disagree on the basis of "just a theory". Because evolution isn't just a theory... a century of comparative anatomy and several decades of genetic science and the entire foundation of biology make it fact. I'd rather people debate the "cause" of evolution than its factual basis, which isn't really up for debate even a tiny bit.