Debate about science and religion continues

There is much wisdom in the example Murray Peshkin sets and in the specific topics he mentions. However, as someone who has moved in my career from physics to planetary science to astrobiology, I am sensitive to two areas in which Peshkin’s approach risks sending the wrong message.

The meaning of the word “theory” has evolved over the past century to the point where no one outside of a few academic oases uses its original scientific meaning. Such establishment bastions as the New York Times and National Public Radio, and even many scientists in ordinary conversation, use theory to mean an idea, suggestion, or hypothesis. Common are such phrases as “in theory, such-and-such is true, but in practice …” or “in the absence of evidence, several theories were suggested.” It is certainly possible to explain to a captive audience that the scientific meaning of this word is almost the exact opposite of its colloquial usage. Much better, however, is to talk about gravitation, relativity, plate tectonics, or evolution without the word “theory.” We are likely to communicate more effectively if we do not demand that a lay audience unlearn the familiar meaning of this word.

My second concern is the description of science as based entirely on experiment. We must broaden the definition to include observation and inference about things that have happened in the past or are happening in the universe beyond Earth, since those are the topics that generate the most controversy between science and religion.