For a theory to be a scientific theory it has to be
open for disproof. That is, how would you disprove
the theory? How would you test it? How would you
validate it? Etc. If you can't test it or disprove
it, then it isn't science. It's faith.
By this standard evolution is a strong scientific
theory. Yes, only a theory. But then, the "Atomic
Theory" and "The Theory of Gravitation" have the
same status. But no one doubts that gravity
exists or that atomic bombs can't be built - even
though they are based just on "theory".
Similarly, evolution is the guiding
principle for all modern medicine and biology, much
like quantun theory is the guiding principle for
physics. And yet, I have never heard a politician
or religious leader say "quantum physics is only
a theory, therefore we should not teach it."
(Probably because they are too stupid to know
what it is - it is FAR more subversive to people's
ideas about God than evolution!)
Pure creationists are not scientists. There is no
room for disproof in their theory - it is immutably
true by definition. Thus, it is not scientific.
"Guided Evolution" is, at least, more intellectually
respectable. The problem is, it is more complex. It
introduces this mysterious "third force" that intercedes
at certain intervals to get evolution cranking. How
would we test for this force? How would we prove it?
Scientifically, the simplest theories are always held
over the more complex ones. Thus, guided evolution has
no acceptance amongst biologists and medical researchers.
It's akin to the epicycles of pre-Copernican astronomy.
As a researcher, I get a bit put off by these creationists.
They are always American and always religiously motivated,
and I wish they'd stop trying to drag us back to the
"good-old-days" of the Middle Ages, where Christians alone
defined what was true based off of religious texts. If
we don't rise above primitive superstition, I'm afraid
we're all doomed. Fortunately, this appears to more
of a strictly American phenemona, as I said, although
you also see it amongst radical Islamic fundamentalists
in Iran and Afghanistan. The same intellectual
underpinnings there, I'm afraid. |
