YOU ARE HERE: Central Kentucky Home→Collections→Evolution

Put all the cards on the table

February 03, 2006

Dear Editor:

If one looks up the word "theory" in Webster's dictionary it will read thus: "supposition put forth to explain something; speculation; exposition of general principles as distinct from practice and execution; (Colloq.) general idea; notion.

Now, supposition, speculation and notion certainly explains that "theory" is in essence hypothesis based upon what information is available. For example, the "Theory of Evolution" is based upon scientific findings and is an idea or notion as to how it works, but cannot be proven. Any other concept of the word "theory" itself as being "fact" one would have to re-write the english language in order to accommodate. Theories can be based on fact, but are not facts themselves until they are proven and then graduate into scientific law (like Newton's Law of Gravity).

Gravity is proven to exist and admitted in the scientific community, granted how gravity works is a theory because it is not known nor proven, hence the "understanding" of gravity being "theory." This is an excellent example of how evolution is a concept, and not the unrefutable explanation of mankind's origin. You certainly don't discredit gravity in such a statement, but the theory of gravity (and its theory-classified cousin, evolution) is indeed not fully understood nor proven.

Evolution has had many skewed instances in the years since its conception, such as the "Nebraska Man" which was later found to be based on the tooth of a pig. Being a theory allows it the luxury to change whenever appropriate in the search for a reasonable solution (through research), but a theory itself cannot be taken as absolute fact. Whatever scientific evidence there may be, it is not substantial enough to prove that the theory of evolution is unquestionably true. Some scientists argue that evolution cannot be proven because millions of years cannot be observed in a laboratory, while at the same time they refuse to believe in creationism because a man cannot be created out of soil in the same laboratory. There is nothing wrong with studying theories of evolution, creationism, or whatever theory you fancy, my statement concerns biased censorship.

I agree that Christian theology is not the proper thing to discuss in a biology class, but I do believe that the idea (or theory) of an intelligent creator could be studied without subjugating a classroom with religious doctrine. Such interesting facts, like how the elements found in the human body are also shared in common soil (supporting Intelligent Design), and other fascinating scientific finds (along with archaeology) would be excellent educational material. There are scientific findings that support creation, but are silenced through bias and prejudice against the concept (thus censoring much of that information from the public). I'm not asking we replace one theory with another, nor throwing philosophical/scientific stones, but simply saying that putting all the theoretical cards on the educational table seems the fair thing to do.

Kenneth England

Stanford

|

|

|