In the midst of promoting his prophecy-fulfilling “Restoring Courage” rally in Jerusalem during his radio show today, Glenn Beck took some time out to show that Darwinian evolution is not all it's cracked up to be. Beck stressed that it is called the “theory of evolution,” and his side-kick Pat Gray stated: “It's not called Darwin's proof of evolution.”

BECK: Darwin's what is it called again -

GRAY: The theory -

BECK: Oh, the theory of evolution.

GRAY: It's not called Darwin's proof of evolution.

BECK: It's Darwin's theory of evolution. That's weird Ron [Reagan] that there might be some dissent on a theory. You see the difference here Ron is as a theory we didn't theoretically go to the moon, we went to the moon. Darwin only in theory can show you that monkeys come out of you or vice versa. But in your case, it may be reverse engineering but that's a theory of mine that you could disagree with.

However, as used by scientists, the word theory is not the same thing as “guess” or “hypothesis.” Indeed, for an idea to qualify as a theory, it must be an explanation of facts that have been proven to occur through experimentation. As the Encyclopedia Britannica explains:

Scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain things and events, the scientists employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behavior of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to prove an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

Moreover, The New York Times has noted that Darwin's theory of evolution was the result of meticulous work and it took scientists years to “understand the essential correctness of his views.”

But it's easier for Beck to play silly semantic games then to actually take on the science of evolution. Perhaps Beck knows that he has no actual basis for challenging the science behind evolution.