It bugs me when people ask me if I “believe in evolution.” Scientific theories aren’t something you “believe” in. They’re ideas that you think until better ideas come along. They shape your understanding of the world and help guide you through life. But you don’t “believe” in them.

Some scientific ideas are so new that we should be careful applying them. There are so many unintended consequences and the hubris of the homo sapien knows no bounds. But others are so dependable that you can confidently build on them. For instance, there are theories that show us how to control electricity. Yes, they’re just theories, but they’re pretty damn reliable. Anyway, I don’t have to “believe” those theories to experience the joy of the heat in the winter or light in the night.

Human experience has created an incomplete tapestry of knowledge. Some areas of the tapestry are tenuous. And in some places there are holes. Gaps. I take great pleasure when some brilliant person uses science to fill in a gap. It’s a cool moment. It’s like the scientist is saying “Hey, I think this piece fits in here. What do you think?”

But there are some gaps science will never fill, and that’s OK, too. Some people might mind the gaps, and feel a need to fill in all the unknown mysteries with faith. I just let the gaps be mysterious. I’m OK with that. I figure, we’re human. We don’t have to know everything. Plus, it’s kinda cool to think that the world is filled with mysteries.

But at the heart of science — what science demands — is the courage to redefine how you see the world. And that’s the rub. We’re creatures of comfort and we don’t like change (especially as we get older), but change is the byproduct of good science. If you want the status quo, listen to priests, conservative politicians or AM talk shows. If you want a better model of reality, listen to scientists but be prepared to change. Carl Sagan said:

“Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.”

I think this is true, but it has to be said that science is a way of thinking that also requires moral fortitude, because change is a bitch. If scientific knowledge is a tapestry, sometimes new discoveries don’t daintily add a piece. Sometimes new ideas rip a piece of it off and replace it.

Learning to deal with this change is a skill that’s hard to learn and it only gets slightly easier with practice. But learning to embrace new, better ideas is an essential trait of modern humanity. It’s something we need to do if our species is to survive our newfound power.

When people talk about the scientific method, they talk a lot about hypotheses and experiments, but not a lot about the emotional impact that discovery has. The method doesn’t give us guidance for that moment when everything is turned upside down — when your understanding of the world is shaken — when you are forced to reconsider or abandon a comfortable thought.

But this is ultimately the difference between a scientific understanding and faith-based understanding of the world. Science requires proof and demands that you change your mind. In the world of faith, proof is OK if you can get it, but it’s ultimately unnecessary. And changing your mind is anathema.

This is why there’s no point in using logic in an argument when one person has faith. Ultimately the faithful are unprepared to change their minds because they “believe.” It’s in their heart. Even if the proof seems overwhelming. That’s why it’s called faith.

So, please, don’t ask if I “believe” in evolution, or a 4 billion year old earth, or global warming, because I don’t. I just think those things, because I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary. And, if you have a theory that explains the origins of life, the age of the earth or why the ice is melting in Greenland, then cool. Just don’t expect to win my mind until you have better evidence than Darwin, physicists, or 97% of the climatologists.

But if you do, I’m all ears. I’m happy to change my mind.