Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Douglas. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
The Journal-Register recently reported the rallies (which are praiseworthy) to promote the understanding of science. The rallies beg the question, “What is not science?”
Interesting question. Sit back far enough to avoid the drool splatter, dear reader, as Douglas answers his question:
I argue, for example, the Theory of Evolution isn’t science.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Douglas isn’t alone in that opinion. Ol’ Hambo agrees — see Hambo Says Evolution Is a Religion. But unlike Hambo, Douglas has a specific reason for his opinion. He says:
Step 3 of the scientific method says to form a hypothesis. In Step 4 one conducts an experiment, that must be reproducible, to prove the hypothesis. The hypothesis for the Theory of Evolution states that mankind evolved from lower life forms over millions of years. There’s no way to reproduce millions of years to test this hypothesis, so it cannot be scientifically proven.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Douglas seems never to have learned the Scientific method. A scientific hypothesis must result in testable predictions, which can be tested either by repeatable experiments or by observations. Eclipses are a classic example of predicted observations. So is the observation of the cosmic microwave background. We assume Douglas doesn’t regard astronomy and cosmology to be part of science, because we can’t reproduce the universe.
Then he tells us:
The hypothesis [Hee hee!] for the opposing creation view is found in Genesis 1:1-2:4 of the Bible (and in other scriptures) where it’s stated that God created the universe and all life on Earth in six days. There is likewise no way to reproduce creation by God, so it cannot be scientifically proven.
Well, at least Douglas doesn’t regard creationism as science. He continues:
The creation view is rightly described as a faith because it cannot be proven. Evolution is just as much a faith, because it cannot be proven.
Douglas also imagines that scientific hypotheses are “proven.” In this — as in everything else — he’s wrong. Hypotheses can be verified or supported if their predictions are confirmed. In due course, a well-tested hypothesis will be regarded as a theory, but theories are never proven. They can, however, be dis-proven — see Wikipedia’s list of Superseded scientific theories — but that’s another topic. Let’s read on:
The dogmatic teaching of evolution as science to the exclusion of the creation view in schools is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state: To pass an exam Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and other students are required to deny their faiths and bow to the faith of evolution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Douglas concludes his letter with some advice to education professionals:
The proper educational approach is to teach both, and to phrase exam questions as “according to evolution, this, and according to creation, that.”
Dougie blew it again. If evolution and creationism are both religious concepts, then neither could be presented in public schools. Unfortunately, many — perhaps most — state legislators are every bit as ignorant as Douglas, and to them his advice seems perfectly reasonable. That means The Controversy will continue.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.