RE: Behe testimony at Dover trial

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Thu Oct 20 2005 - 16:09:28 EDT

George is quite right in the way physicists use the term "theory." Of
course, physicists do also use the term "phenomenology" as the early
stage of a possible "theory." For instance, mathematician Johann Balmer
made use of his mathematical skills and understanding of physics to
produce a formula that gave the wavelengths of the observed lines of the
hydrogen atom. The latter was phenomenology. Subsequently, Bohr invented
his "solar" model of the hydrogen atom, Schrodinger introduced his wave
equation and, of course, Dirac wrote his famous equation and so on.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:52 PM
To: Denyse O'Leary; 'Pim van Meurs'; 'Charles Carrigan';
Subject: Re: Behe testimony at Dover trial

----- Original Message -----
From: "Denyse O'Leary" <>
To: "'Pim van Meurs'" <>; "'Charles Carrigan'"
<>; <>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: Behe testimony at Dover trial

> "Seems that Behe indeed accepted astrology as a science under his
> definitions.I can't wait to see the transcripts."
> You don't need to wait to see the transcripts. You can ask for
> clarification, as I have done:
> - 0 -
> Here is a link, with excerpts pasted below:
> Reported: "Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged
> the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
> justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on
> Tuesday.
> Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
> University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of
> was so broad it would also include astrology."
> Factual background:
> The line of questions came when Eric Rothschild, counsel for the
> plaintiffs,
> asked Behe about the definition of the term "theory." Behe explained
> the National Academy of Science's (NAS) definition of a theory is not
> typically used by scientists. The NAS defines "theory" as:
> "In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
> natural
> world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses. The
> contention that evolution should be taught as "theory, not as fact"
> confuses
> the common use of these words through the accumulation of evidence.
> Rather,
> theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that
> develop
> from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection.
> incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses,
> logical inferences."
> (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of
> 2nd
> Ed. (1999), pg. 2)
> This definition does not actually represent how scientists usually use
> word in their technical writing. To witness this fact, perform a
> search for the phrase "new theory" (go to pub med and type " "new
> "
> [leave in the double quotes]) and you'll find hundreds of hits showing
> scientists using the word "theory" to describe a "new" idea which can
> explain a lot of things, but may not yet be "well-substantiated" and
> not
> yet enjoy evidentiary support from many scientific studies.
> Many scientists who have used the phrase "new theory" use the term
> upon the new findings of a single study. The phrase "new theory" is
> antithetical to the idea of "extensive observation, experimentation,
> creative reflection" and the phrase should not exist in scientific
> literature if the NAS is correct in its definition.

I have to agree that the NAS definition of "theory" represents a
view of the word than that used (usually implicitly) by scientists, &
especially by theoretical physics - the tribe I'm most familiar with.
don't have any problem with referring to "Einstein's last unified field
theory" in spite of the fact that there have been NO observational
confirmations of the distinctive claims of the theory (i.e., beyond
that apply to its limiting cases in general relativity for vacuum and
Maxwell's electrodynamics), & in fact there are some serious challenges
it. Similarly, no cosmologist that I know of 50 years ago objected to
talking about the big bang "theory" or steady state "theory" even if
were strongly opposed to one or the other, & in spite of the fact that
neither at that time could be called "well-substantiated."

This problem doesn't really come up in discourse among scientists - at
in my experience. I.e., no scientist objects to calling someone else's
views a "theory" even if he/she considers them wrong. Where the problem

occurs is at the popular level where "theory" is sometimes taken to mean
especially by anti-evolutionists - to mean pure guesswork or
That's why it's usually accompanied with the word "just" - i.e.,
is just a theory." & the implication is that one guess is as good as
another. & evolution is not "just a theory" in that sense.


Received on Thu Oct 20 16:11:24 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 16:11:24 EDT