Excellent post, Irishman! It’s a little wordy, but that’s because it’s thorough, and it explains the situation very well. My analogy was going to be that different states, different counties, even different roads have different speed limits, but that doesn’t invalidate speed limits. You can’t get out of a speeding ticket in a school zone by arguing that 60mph is legal on the highway.

IT seems Behe is he is mixing up the technical definition of theory and the everyday definition of the theory. Scientists use both, but they use them in completely different contexts. When scientists formally refer to a theory, such as in the form of “the theory of ____” or “_____ theory”, they are using the technical definition. This is the type of theory you read about in textbooks. However, scientists are human. They also use theory in the common sense, meaning a hunch or a guess. This would be of the form “my theory on the results is ____”. When they say something like that, they may be using it in the common sense (although not always, context is important). They don’t always do it, and not every scientists does it, but it happens. However, Behe is taking the use of theory from one context and trying to apply it to another context when no scientist would use it in that way, and then trying to use this as evidence to support the idea that scientists use the common defintion in all contexts.

> Okay. So what exactly is wrong with Behe’s thesis that contemporary scientists use the word “theory� more broadly than I learned it in high school? I was told then that a “theory� necessarily had to verified either through repetition (the classic norm) or observation.

There’s a fair amount of confusion over some terminology.
A theory is at its heart an explanation of some phenomenon. It is an overarching, comprehensive explanation that ties together multiple lines of data and the collective data on the subject. A hypothesis is a proposal – it can be a proposed law (or principle), which is a description of some behavior, or it can be a proposed explanation. A hypothesis is more than just a guess, it is a guess based upon some preliminary or limited set of data. A hypothesis gets evaluated through the testing process, whereby the scientists determine what the outcome of their hypothesis should be and develop tests that should provide results to either match the predicted outcome, or conflict with that outcome. Conflicting is called “falsification� – you disprove your hypothesis. If you get confirmed results, you then repeat the test. Other scientists try to use your methods and duplicate the results – repetition. Some forms of science are amenable to repetition, but others (such as anthropology) may require a different means of testing – gathering new data to see if it fits. In order for the proposed explanation to be accepted in the science community, it must pass the tests given.

It must also be integrated with the existing body of scientific knowledge. One can’t just throw out some new explanation that conflicts with everything known about a topic and expect it to be accepted. One has to show how the new explanation also fits with other related phenomenon. For instance, Evolution is tied in neatly with geology, paleontology, archeology, medicine, chemistry, and physics. Where biology overlaps those other disciplines, evolution provides results that are consistent with the knowledge obtained from those disciplines.

Where does scientific consensus fit into the picture? The essence of science is eliminating all sources of error. Flawed data gives flawed results. However, the sources of flawed data come not just through inept data collection (poor handling of equipment), but also flawed methods for collecting the data (i.e. collecting meaningless data and treating it as meaningful). Plus, a critical aspect comes in interpreting the data. Poor interpretation and stretching beyond the reasonable conclusions from the data are probable means for providing bad science results. Also, scientists have to protect against their own desires – you want the theory to be true, so you inadvertently overlook some flaw. This is where peer review comes in. You submit your results, data, testing methods, and analysis for others in the community to scrutinize – usually someone who has a vested interest in you being wrong. They fine-tooth-comb your paper to find those errors that you couldn’t see yourself. Once the methods have not been invalidated and the interpretation of the results not shown faulty, then the science community builds consensus.

Consensus is the cumulative judgment of all the science community knowledgeable about the topic. Consensus is when the majority of the community is reasonably convinced of the accuracy of a particular idea, concept, or theory. Ideally this is each person achieving an independent evaluation, but as with any human endeavor people influence each other. To some extent, consensus is a floating goal post – there’s no official number of people that make consensus versus less than consensus. In practice a consensus is typically when an overwhelming majority of people share the same opinion. If the numbers are evenly split or close to evenly split, then the topic is still controversial and needs further testing and evaluation.

Consensus isn’t perfect. As with any human endeavor, it is made up by people with their own agendas, their own personal interests and beliefs, their own reputations. As such, people can become attached to their own conventional wisdom and find it hard to change in light of new information. That is also why you will never see 100% consensus on any topic – there’s always someone with some different perspective, some view or belief or agenda that colors their interpretation and keeps them disagreeing.

Is consensus ever wrong? Certainly. History is replete with examples where the community at large held one view contrary to new concepts that turn out to be correct. An example that comes readily to mind is Plate Tectonics. But scientific consensus can be corrected, especially when more data is collected and more testing completed, and a more comprehensive version of that idea is fleshed out. Perhaps there are some cases where the community is overly resistant to change, but we would rather that than people jump willy-nilly to every new idea down the pipe. The general principle is that the community has to be convinced, which is what keeps science testing and digging deeper and trying harder to prove the point.

And just because sometimes consensus is wrong or slow to change does not mean that any new idea contrary to consensus is valid. The Galileo Effect – they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Copernicus. Yes, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

>I’m no fundamentalist, but I’ve been bothered for years by the science community’s acceptance of evolution as “fact� when the “theory� is not a theory, at least not the way I learned.

Please explain.

After seeing and doing this for a while I simply reached the conclusion for myself that these ID people (at least the ones being active on the forums) are only trying to push their ill advised and clouded view of the world, the universe and everything else onto us….

So while you’re right that this colors the discourse this is true for both sides…or why would any open minded person push something like ID ?
Or rephrased “Someone trying to push ID into schools can’t be right in the head, why discuss seriously with them ?”
This is the difference between science and faith. Science is always up for debate, faith isn’t. Therefore you can’t discuss this with an ID because he is attacking ET (which is ok since it’s science) but doesn’t allow (or acknoledges) any attacks on his own theory, because it’s faith.
No need to treat them as equals because they aren’t.

I do consider the biblical literalists as naive and muddled thinkers. I also note that many are fairly uninformed on their own religions’ and denominations histories, doctrines, etc. And I’m sure they have their own opinions about me.

That’s not the point. You can think whatever you want to about whomever you want. But the point is to not let it color the discourse. A dismissive and disrespectful attitude 1) sets a tone that others imitate, a tone that is negative and detracts from the purpose of the site; 2) turns away the very people you’re trying to reach, people who are uninformed or misinformed but are open-minded and just need the right encouragement and information – being disrespectful and derogatory toward them and their beliefs or their families will shut them down before you can make any headway; and 3) is just generally rude, and I try not to be rude.