mik3cap: (Default)
[personal profile] 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..."

on 2008-02-18 11:41 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] mikecap.livejournal.com
Also, I think there's a major difference in degree between religious belief and religious conviction, hence my use of that word. A person with conviction will almost always be fundamentalist.

Profile

mik3cap: (Default)
mik3cap

June 2010

S M T W T F S
  12345
6 7891011 12
131415 16 171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 22nd, 2025 12:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios