At the end of my first-year lecture on evolutionary theory, I said that I didn’t believe in the theory of evolution – I accepted it as the best possible current explanation for for the enormous body of information we have about life’s diversity & relationships. One of my students was quite puzzled by this (at least, I hope it’s just one!) – how, they said, could I stand up there & teach them something I didn’t believe in?
This caused me to wonder about my teaching – perhaps I hadn’t explained myself as clearly as I might have done… But it also highlights the difference between science & what we might call ‘other ways of knowing’ about the world. Science simply isn’t a matter of blind faith (belief) – it’s evidence-based. And the data scientists gain is assessed for accuracy & relevance. If the weight of the evidence suggests that a re-think is necessary, then that’s what will happen. Nor are scientific theories cast in concrete – they are always subject to change if the evidence warrants this. And in fact they’re constantly undergoing rather rigorous testing – after all, if someone could conclusively demonstrate that the theory of evolution was not an accurate explanation, then that someone would be in line for a Nobel prize.
So that’s why I don’t ‘believe’ in evolution 🙂
Cory says:
I must admit when you said that at the end of the lecture I was a bit confused, having read your blog before you were our lecturer! I quickly realised what you were saying though :p
Alison Campbell says:
My bad – I really did stuff that up, didn’t I?
Jim thomerson says:
Good for you. I cringe every time I read or hear, “Scientists believe . . . ” Scientists do not believe, we think! As a colleague said, “I do not believe in evolution. I have studied the matter and I am convinced of it.” Belief very often implies a rigid, immutable faith, and thus confuses if used in discourse about science.