Scientific theory

Examples of misunderstanding "scientific theory"
Just another theory
Wichita Falls - Times Record News - August 14, 2003 Misunderstanding science

The article that appears in the Aug. 9 edition of the Times Record News, "Critics: Biology textbook changed," is just another attempt by atheists to control the minds of kids despite the need for intellectual honesty in their textbooks. The reason for such passion by the pro-creation side is simple: You cannot believe in evolution and be a Christian. To deny creation is to deny the very existence of God.

Evolution is just another theory, and a not very good one at that.

Not only has the intelligent design theory shot holes in evolution, the irreducibly complex theory of life has made Charles Darwin's theory of evolution intellectually untenable. The electron microscope proves there is no such thing as a simple life form. Even simple, one-celled amoebas are incredibly complex. DNA, nucleotides, genomes, ribosomes and other things that make life possible, were unknown to Darwin. Darwin's theory cannot explain how something so complex randomly mutated into existence.

It's time for textbooks to move into the 21st century. Simply include the intelligent design theory and the irreducibly complex theory along with the theory of evolution.

We owe it to the kids.

- Bruce Ferguson
'Faith vs. fact' editorial was faulty

Arizona Republic, May 18, 2004 12:00 AM, Original Misunderstanding science

The editorial Thursday, "Faith vs. fact," starts off with a false assumption and then proceeds to further display the Editorial Board's prejudice.

The theory of evolution is just that - an unproven theory. And believe me, if the secular left could prove evolution it would have the Supreme Court strike the word theory from every textbook in America.

Face the facts: Evolution will never be more than a theory because every cockeyed explanation they come up with can be shot full of holes. None of their fuzzy premises can stand on their own, and they know it.

Let's take your other brilliant statement, "Religion is not science." Duh.

The No. 1 definition of science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. So how is evolution any more "science" than intelligent design?

Just admit the real truth: Science is your religion, and there is no room for God in your "logical" world.

- Brad W. Taylor, Phoenix Misunderstanding science
Science cannot prove evolution

York (PA) Daily Record
- Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - original

Those ignorant of a topic would do well to keep quiet until such time as they become sufficiently knowledgeable of it.

Chris Carney's arrogant, hostile and downright misleading letter to the editor (June 15) showcased the fact that he is not only uninformed historically, but is entirely hypocritical regarding creation science vs. evolution and the local hot-button issue of which should be taught in the public schools.

To begin, Carney misrepresents the entire debate and unfairly skews the reader's intake by characterizing it as a religion/creation vs. evolution/science thing.

The fact is that the debate is essentially between two worldviews.

Creationists appeal to the realm of science to support their view just as much as evolutionists do, and evolutionists rely upon philosophical assumptions outside of science just as much as their creationist counterparts. They are mutually incompatible, unprovable theories.

Creation scientists do not deny their view hinges upon faith in an omniscient creator.

They look to science to validate what they believe, but science cannot prove nor disprove the biblical account.

The evolutionists' view is founded upon the assumption that no divine intervention ever occurred and things literally made themselves.

But no matter how much evolutionists like to patronize and mislead the general public, science cannot and does not prove evolution.

It, too, "is nothing more than faith."

Evolution is just a theory accepted quasi-universally not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible and jam-packed with tangent truths that make most folks uncomfortable.

I challenge you to a public debate for the benefit of our local community.

- May Eck, Red Lion
Teach both sides of science story

York (PA) Daily Record - Tuesday, September 20, 2004 - original

Good for the York Sunday News for "An evolving controversy" (Sept. 5), which presented both sides of the evolution/creation issue. But if the York Sunday News feels that it should address this issue, should not schools also address this issue?

Take a different issue in science. For example, the use of nuclear reactors. Do teachers teach one-sidedly that nuclear reactors are extremely dangerous creators of toxic waste? Or is nuclear fission exalted as the perfect source of energy? No, both sides of the issue are taught, with arguments for and against nuclear energy. Or consider a history lesson on Napoleon. What teacher would tell the students of Napoleon's beneficial reforms of French government and neglect to say that Napoleon seized control of France and tried to take over Europe? To teach any subject, the teacher and class must consider more than one side of the subject.

Also, creationism cannot be dismissed as nonscience. If God created the universe, scientific evidence must exist supporting the idea that God created the universe. In the same way, evolution could not have occurred without leaving scientific evidence that evolution occurred. Since creationism is science, creation must be taught alongside evolution. Studies of actual findings by scientists should accompany a class on the subject.

If scientists have truly proved that evolution is true, then the scientists should reveal their surely perfect argument for evolution. Because scientists lack such an argument, creation remains a scientific possibility worthy of research and of study in the classroom.