Philosophy, not science

In the debate over evolution vs. creation or intelligent design, much has
been written locally and nationally. To try to clarify the issue a look at
what science is and is not can be helpful. The scientific method relies on
repeatable observations, like apples always falling to earth; or reproducible
experiments such as burning hydrogen always produces water; or the science of
mathematics that indicates in a population the risk of getting lung cancer is
some percentage higher for individuals who smoke cigarettes.

The debate has shown that to date, there are no repeatable observations or
experiments to confirm macroevolution. But similarly it is true that by its
nature, creation cannot be reproduced. The best that is left is to evaluate
the possibilities of either occurring based on the knowledge of many
disciplines.

Because of its naturalistic explanations, evolution could be science, and
perhaps it should be, given our current depth of knowledge, but it is not.
And as we discover more of the intricacies of the universe the probabilities
are not going up. Creation can never conform to the proof required in the
scientific system.

Today, evolutionary ideas (like inferred progressions) are intertwined with
scientific facts (even though there are no transitional forms). Years ago,
creation was taught along with science. The evidence shows that neither can
meet the level of proof required by science. Therefore, to teach evolution as
science is intellectually dishonest. It is only logical to teach
scientifically proven information as fact in science class.

When origins are discussed, evolution should be taught accurately (as a
philosophy) giving the evidence for and against it, allowing all to weigh the
evidences and to decide on their own world view.

-- JOHN WOJAKOWSKI, Topeka.

POWRÓT