I don't believe in Evolution

Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, has a new article in ScienceNews that makes a valuable contribution to the way scientists talk about evolution. She argues that scientists should stop saying that they believe in evolution, because it allows creations to set up the false dichotomy of your belief vs. my belief. Scott states:

What your audience hears is more important than what you say.… What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.

Right. This is something I've hinted at in previous posts; The only thing the average person needs to "believe" is that the universe exists. Everything else, from the big bang to the source of biological diversity, is both observable and testable. Genie continues:

You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics.

John Wilkins has a nice essay posted on The Talk Origins Archive, where he explores the differences between metaphysics and the scientific method. In it he quotes renown evolutionary biologist Ken Miller:

It is crucial for creationists that they convince their audience that evolution is not scientific, because both sides agree that creationism is not.

So if a scientist says that they believe in evolution, they are playing right into the hand of creationist propaganda. Alternatively, Genie suggests saying that you “accept evolution,” but I disagree. Saying that you accept something gives the opponent free ground to simply reject it based on any number of personal or logical grounds.

I think the best way for scientists to create the correct dichotomy between religious and scientific world views is by saying that they understand evolution. I understand the processes of heredity and natural selection, and I understand how it leads to the gradual change in allele frequencies in a population over time. The opposition doesn't understand the process, because they don't understand how material processes create biological diversity. Conversely, if a creationist tries to make the analogous argument by suggesting that we are similarly misunderstanding biblical truths, scientists can counter with the fact that not only are those "truths" completely subjective, they are completely irrelevant to the conversation.

I completely agree with Dr. Scott that the war for sound science education in America will be won through effective communication and outreach. Lets just make sure our communication is as effective as possible.