The Discovery Channel tells me that most back problems are a symptom of bipedal movement. But am I not supposed to be walking on two feet? Did you know that snakes have hip bones? But snakes have no legs so why do they need hip bones?

I think that the intelligent designer, as that first week of creation began to wind down, grew tired and sloppy. Do you think he just overlooked the appendix, thinking we would figure out a way to take care of it?

Perhaps this intelligent designer wasn’t just lazy. Maybe there is another explanation. Scientists say that the theory of evolution can provide us with answers to questions concerning the common source of back trouble, the legless nature of snakes and that annoying nub of flesh we call an appendix.

But what is evolution?

Evolution describes the process by which species of living things undergo changes over time, with these changes sometimes resulting in the formation of new, separate species.

But many critics of evolution claim that because evolution is just a “theory” it shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Critics in Cobb County School District in suburban Georgia recently tried to place evolution disclaimer stickers on science textbooks. A U.S. District Judge ruled the stickers unconstitutional. The disclaimer stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

And what, pray tell, is a theory?

A theory is, according to the strict scientific definition of the word, a general set of principles, supported by evidence, that explains some aspect of nature. So in this case a theory is not, as most people understand it to be; an unproven idea based on pure speculation. So why (if we are to understand the scientific definition correctly) all this continuing controversy surrounding the theory of evolution?

Sacramento State Biology Professor Melanie Loo said that much of the controversy stems from the fact that many critics of evolution do not understand what science is. “They play upon a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. The dichotomy is you either believe science or religion,” Loo said.

And what is the difference between the two?

Science provides demonstrable evidence to support theories about nature. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; it tells us nothing demonstrable about natural phenomena.

Science is defined as a process of learning about nature by observation and experiment. It is through this process that empirical evidence is gathered to tell us about the way the world works. A significant piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is the common occurrence of homologous physical structures in a diverse group of organisms. Homologous refers to the similarity in structure owing to inheritance from a common ancestor. Whales, cats, bats, and gorillas have similar bone structures in their forelimbs despite the differences in function. For instance, bats have wings while gorillas have arms.

Scientists have also been able to conduct successful experimental demonstrations in laboratories and in nature. One such example is of UC Santa Barbara Science Professor John Endler. Endler proved that male guppies evolved brighter coloration and larger tails to attract more mates. Critics of evolution, despite all of this evidence, continue to ignore the validity of a scientific theory that is, by definition, verifiable.

Interjecting belief and faith into a realm that requires their absence in order to achieve objectivity respects neither belief nor faith. Those who cannot understand the difference between empirically verifiable and faith, or who willfully ignore the difference, are in no position to criticize those who respect the distinction.

Contact Kyle Hardwick at [email protected]