Is There a Better Word?

If I was ever in a situation where someone actually posed that question — “Do you believe in evolution?” — my response would be, “No. I know evolution is a valid theory with a preponderance of verifiable evidence.”

I went to a Catholic high school (in Canada), and it actually was on our biology test. The question was: name 3 individuals who contributed to the theory of evolution. We all wrote paragraphs about Darwin, etc… and we all got the ZERO on the question because we were supposed to start our statements with “The FACT of evolution…” My teacher drilled that into our heads and I’ve never forgotten it.

I often wonder if the lack of 2 word really harms many in the way we think. It makes it much more non intuitive to see that knowing something through hard facts, and knowing something through lack of evidence are the same things. 

And not forcing people to be corrected when they misuse the word, allows us to get away with thinking  that something with little evidence is the same as something for which there is lots of evidence.

Take the case of Casey Anthony, how many “believed” she was guilty? But was there really substantial good evidence? Probably a case where “believe” is a good word. 

But if asked, “Do you believe, the moon orbits the earth?” The word “believe” seems like an understatement there.

Often I almost wonder if the answer should not be something more like “The moon orbits the earth.” or “Evolution is true.” And leave the word “believe” out entirely.

Also, to the term “Theory”. I wish science would do a better job of defining it. It does not automatically mean that it is proven. Take for example “String Theory”. There is no proof for that yet, but it shares the term Theory with Gravity. It seems to me that there should be an additional qualifier to a theory name to tell whether its still just a hypothesis.  Likely I’m just showing my ignorance here, but it does seem that it is used at times when it should not be, which just cheapens the validity of true Theories that have lots of proof for them.

I remember reading an article on JREF some years ago that addressed a point very similar to this.  Religious people have Faith and it defines their conviction.  I have Confidence.  Confidence based on an observable, testable, and repeatedly demonstrated universe.  I have Confidence in Evolution.

The only problem with the word “confidence” is, it’s also used to describe con-men, short for confidence men. If someone says they have confidence in evolution, a theist might say they were conned.

Which is why I always specify that my confidence is derived from skeptical review of the evidence.

There are two separate definitions of theory at work here. In the case of “string theory”, we’re using the definition meaning “field of study.” The same, for example, goes for “germ theory.”

The definition of theory as in “theory of evolution” or “big bang theory” is an explanation for an event (or for a type of event) based on observed facts, logic, and possibly other proven theories.

No, you have it al wrong!
Not falling to the floor is caused by not believing in gravity.

Evolution is.

Steve84 you’re confusing theorem (math based) and theory. Scientific proof is confirmation of predictions based on evidence, you don’t need math for this other than statistics.

As for the idea that there are ‘theories’ that are unproven, that’s because they’re ‘theoretical’ or highly probable, based on the math and knowledge that we have. The testing will come but at this stage the math or evidence we have confirms it. 

A theory is not a law, it’s not absolute. It’s what we know based on what we understand. It can be added to, like evolution, but it can also be disproved.

The simplest and most direct response to being asked if you believe in evolution is to state that “evolution is true.” Then, if they ask you to prove it, share the evidence. Or hand them Jerry Coyne’s book.

I concur. Good approach.

How about, what evidence do you have that there is a mechanism that prevents descendants from being so much changed from their ancestors that they are speciated from them?

If each generation of a population is nearly indistinguishable from the prior one, the existence of such a mechanism is inconceivable. Unless it’s a magical mechanism. And there’s no evidence of that either.

I have a problem with the word, “belief”.  I often hear, “Atheism is a belief like religion.”  The difference is, religion is based upon faith.  Faith is professing continued acceptance without supporting evidence and often in the face of contradictory evidence.

Atheism is based upon observable facts, such as the contradictions and impossibilities of religion.  It is also based upon the total lack of any supporting evidence.  It is knowing, not believing.  That’s a huge difference to me. 

I do not “believe” in evolution, I accept the evidence that it is a fact.