First, evolutionary theory is not based upon experimentation, and the physical evidence is quite circumstantial. It strongly supports intra- species variation, but not so strongly inter- species development. What is clear is that the world is much older than the Biblical account, and that various species, including man, looked much different in the remote past. After that, it is pretty speculative. The real buttress of evolutionary theory is that it has to be true if one insists on a physical mechanism. In other words, although the pure Biblical account is almost certainly untrue, some version of special creation or "guided evolution" could be true, were it not that science rejects that sort of explanation. Further, the mechanism by which we would get from unicellular organisms to complex organisms is highly fudged. After all, if it is a matter of survival of the fittest, there is little reason to go beyond protozoa. Ordinary intra- species variation won't cut it, since it would not explain the first move towards specialization. Incremental mutation, which is all that is left, is hard to swallow, given the complex architecture of even fairly simple animals, such as insects. Thus, evolution is a bit of a priorism dressed up as solid inference.
Even were it on solider ground, you have still exemplified my point by being dismissive of the quandry. Yes, science teachers teach science. However, there would be nothing wrong with at least noting that science has its own ways of framing questions and pursuing answers, and that within those limits, this is the best theory it has come up with....... |
