In his new book Only a Theory, Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University, and author of a number of books, including one on high school biology, explores the issues surrounding the teaching of evolution in American schools.  He begins his book in the following way:

“In a courtroom even a whisper can catch your attention, especially one that comes right at you with a smile and a wink.

‘Only a theory,’ she said, shaking her head just enough to get my attention as I walked past her.  ‘It’s only a theory—and we’re gonna win.’  Her smile was genuine, and its certainty was unmistakable.

She didn’t win—at least not that day and not in that court—but the quiet confidence of the remark has stayed with me ever since.  It has provoked me to doubt, wonder, and even fear—and it’s my inspiration for writing this book.” (Miller, Kenneth, Only A Theory, p. 1).

The phrase, Only a Theory, has become a mantra for many people who cast doubt on science, especially evolution, that has resulted in some districts pasting stickers on biology textbooks warning the reader the books contains material on evolution, and that it should be approached with an open mind (Cobb County, Georgia, where I live!).  Kansas changed the definition of science to fit politicians views on the teaching of evolution (or not teaching it).

I’ve written elsewhere in this weblog about the evolution controversy, and in this post, I am interested in using the phrase, “only a theory” as way to talk about the nature of science, and how theory is fundamental to what we hope students might take away from our courses in science (at any level, k-12, college, graduate school).  Only a theory brings up the question, “what is science?”  And our understanding of this is crucial to the way we teach science.

Miller offers this as an answer to the question, “what is science?”: He says, ‘Properly explained, science is nothing more than organized common sense.”  A little later in the chapter he adds “science, first and foremost, is a revolutionary activity.  In fact, he goes on to relate the nature of science to “good, old-fashioned American rebelliousness.”  In Miller’s view, science is fueled by independent-minded individuals for whom a primary virtue is disrespect for authority.  And in fact he says: “And there you have it. Disrespect—that’s the key.”  I like the way he connects the individualism that grew out of the American Revolution, and fostered the same kind of culture of disrespect, initiative and free inquiry, the underlying fabric of science.  This is not to say that science has not, and does not flouish in other cultures, indeed, the Chinese inventions and discoveries in science and technology preceded Western science by centuries.  And indigenous science has emerged in cultures very different than Euro-Western cultures.

But in all of these cases, the sense of inquiry and exploration has led women and men to develop ideas in science which we call theories.  And these ideas are not “just theories.”  They are powerful ideas based on observation, data collection, interpretation, huntches.  Messy it might be, its idiosyncratic to the inventor, ust as a painting is a personal expression of an artist.

Just as plate tectonics theory is the most important idea in the geological sciences, evolution is the central-organizing theory of the biological sciences.  It’s a robust idea, co-discovered by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace in the 19th Century, and instead of doubt being cast on its verocity, the theory has become more powerful as new discoveries and data have accumualted over the past 150 years.

When we teach and help student undertand theories in science, we are indeed teaching them the nature of science, and we hopefully help the students leave our courses with a new appreciation for the beauty that is implicit in these ideas.  Ideas that some call “just a theory.”  And there you have it.