• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Evolution: Is It Theory and Fact?

Posted on: Thursday, 12 August 2004, 06:00 CDT

Pastor Jack Hilton, "Plain old 'horse sense'" (Sunday News, Aug. 1), should become more aware of the great strides the scientific community has made since the Spanish Inquisition. I'll leave the explanation of "theory vs. fact" to the giants of biology.

First, Stephen J. Gould: "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact' - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: Evolution is 'only' a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.

"If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). ''

Also, R. C. Lewontin: "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

I know that these gentlemen's statements will probably not change the mind of those ardent creationists, but I would hope that Pastor Jack and others would keep an an open mind lest they be confused with the other end of the horse.

Jim Meenan, Manheim

No creation evidence

It is the contention of Pastor Hilton (Sunday News, Aug. 1) that it is just "common horse sense" that a belief in a biblical creation somehow takes less of a leap of faith than a belief in the theory of evolution. He asks us to consider which philosophy is more believable ,contending that no proof or physical evidence exists to authenticate evolution.

It is my claim that no evidence exists to prove biblical creation.

Consider what a simple reading of Genesis would have one believe:

*That light was created (first day) before the moon, stars and sun (fourth day) - quite a trick!

*That the Earth appeared before any celestial bodies;

*That grasses, herbs and fruit trees appeared (third day) before the sun (fourth day), made all the more unbelievable when biblicists contend each of these "days" involved thousands or millions of years;

*That this complex plant life appeared on land before any life in the seas;

*That birds appeared (fifth day) while "creeping animals" like reptiles and insects appeared on day six;

*That mammals were created simultaneously with those same creepers;

*That accordingly, "every beast ... every fowl ... and every thing that creepeth" were given "green herb" for food. Just when and why did the lion, eagle and spider change from herbivore to carnivore?

*That Adam named every living creature. Besides the unlikelihood of bringing tens of thousands of worldwide species together at some Middle East location and have them survive, where did the microscope come from to identify the viruses and bacteria?

*That Adam was created as a full grown adult with no parents;

*That Eve was created from Adam's rib (and therefore is genetically his sister!);

*That Adam lived to be 930 years old.

The biblical story of creation belongs to the unbelievable realm of myth and folklore since the alleged author, Moses, was not present either and it is all hearsay.

Evolution is rooted in the logical, rational and believable world of discoverable science.

I suggest Pastor Hilton return to using "good" common sense and lose the "horse" sense!

Marc J. Benedict, Terre Hill

(Copyright 2004 Lancaster Newspapers)

More News in this Category