Saint John's Theory

     Repent and reform, ye violators of vocabulary, as I, Saint John the Amenable, return once again from a long sabbatical to set aright another linguistic aberration. It has come to my attention that a person in Florida who holds a great deal of sway over how the children of that state are educated, has dismissed evolution as “only a theory,” saying that as such it should not be taught as fact.
     This is merely the latest in a lengthy line of attempted obfuscations meant to spread ignorance in order to prolong the existence of competing ideas which have no evidence to support them whatsoever, and are therefore generally referred to as ‘beliefs’, ‘opinions’, or ‘nonsense.’
     The issue at hand is that those who feel their beliefs are threatened by science and fact are exceedingly quick to conflate ‘theory’ and ‘speculation’, as opposed to acknowledging that in the scientific community, a ‘theory’ is an explanation of natural phenomena that is supported by empirical evidence and actual fact. A theory can also be challenged and tested, often without threats of eternal condemnation and immediate violence. Another key thing to point out is that proponents of a theory often have more than one primary source with which they can support their theory. Although as far as this saint is concerned, perhaps the greatest thing about theories is that they are subject to change, as our understanding of the universe grows.
     A theory is not, as our dear Floridian educator implied, easily dismissed as just some silly thing that a bunch of people accept as truth for no definite reason. The proper term for things of this nature is the aforementioned ‘belief’, if one is polite, or ‘nonsense’, if one is me.
     Examples of beliefs would those of the pastor in Tennessee who banned Harry Potter due to the ‘real’ spells and curses it contains, the notion that the Earth is flat, or the assertion that emojis belong in work related emails. These are the kinds of things that people ascribe to for reasons other than logic. Often people choose to believe in things because they need to have faith in something to prevent insanity or despair. This, when kept to oneself, is perfectly acceptable, and in many ways a boon. 
     Yet I put it to thee, oh reader, that boon as these beliefs may be to their holder, they are rarely, if ever, a system so objectively supported by fact or empirical evidence that they should be given the same universal weight as concepts like gravity, evolution, or atomic theory, nor should they be presented to children as equally valid ideas.
     Settled as this subject should now and never will be, there remains another commonly utilized sentence in this argument, wherein these enemies of evidence claim that they’re not “trying to get religion in schools.” While this may or may not be the case, depending on which foolish mouth the words are spewing from at any given moment, it is nonetheless quite obviously clear that the intent is to make scientific theory seem as thoroughly flawed as any non-reason based belief, thereby preemptively strengthening their own position without having to actually defend it.
     Truth be told, (a fun phrase to employ in this particular discussion) I would think these creationists would do everything they could to prevent their beliefs being put under the scrutiny of scientific light of any kind, let alone to the degree that evolution has been since its conception. I would also like to ask if they would object to other belief systems being taught as equally valid as well, or if perhaps they would be averse  to their little sacred saved ones being taught the teachings of the Buddha or Allah? Or what might they do if the educational system went so far as to equalize all beliefs with theories, and one day their precious offspring came home espousing the beliefs of the Nihilists, or, heaven forbid, Socialists?
     One shivers to think.
-St. John the Amenable