Can the Theory of Evolution be proved - scientifically?
(no-one has succeeded yet - the money has been unclaimed since 1990)
Only one thing:
The hypothesis called 'The Theory of Evolution' is not a fact - it's merely a theory or a belief. It cannot be proven - therefore it's not fact in the true scientific sense.
Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. The process of accepting theories is part of the scientific method.
In school students doing a hypothesis for an experiment may be advised to follow the formulae of: If...Then...
But when Stephen Jay Gould (a high-profile evolutionist) surveyed scientists working in this field, he discovered that about half of the scientists believed not in 'The Theory of Evolution', but in an alternative model: 'Intelligent Design' (embracing creationism and also other models).
The many dissenting scientists find themselves in a difficult position. Some of them consider the issue to be of such importance that they are willing to stand up and be counted. One such dissident group has a membership of more than 700 scientists, represented at www.dissentfromdarwin.org. These scientists state that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life", and believe that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". These scientists are not necessarily saying that any particular alternative theory is true - but the more aggressive high profile evolutionists have attempted to silence them through ridicule rather than through reasoned scientific debate.
The Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) website reports: "Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in many countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution. Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and teachers have either been censored or removed from their positions for allowing or facilitating open discussion of the empirical problems of macroevolution."
A survey conducted on behalf of the BBC (see figures at the end of article) demonstrated that the British public were divided in a similar pattern to the scientists surveyed by Stephen Jay Gould.
In Britain we. as a nation. appear content to allow the one-sided force-feeding of an uproven theory as fact, both in schools and in the media.
Stephen Jay Gould has even taken it upon himself to re-define the scientific use of the word 'fact' for us. Whereas the word was originally an 'absolute', in his re-definition of a scientific fact Mr. Gould has turned it into something much less. He explains:
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'."
In light of this statement, thinking people should be asking themselves some very serious questions about which goal posts might be on the move next - and what the long term implications might be.
Critical thinking rejects the view that something is true merely on the basis that the majority of people believe it, or because it is held to be universally true. Without proof this is just is a fallacy of human thought, known as the "fallacy of consensus gentium". Without scientific proof there is room to argue that the Theory of Evolution should be regarded as Naturalistic Philosophy rather than as science.
Whether in the USA or the UK, if school children are taught the 'Theory of Evolution' as scientific fact, rather than as a theory, such cavalier, not to say careless use of scientific terminology has serious consequences - including the undermining of scientific method. Our children need to be taught critical thinking - how to weigh the factual evidence, evaluate statements and recognize the originator's purpose and point of view - as when reading this feature they will understand that it is written by Christians trying to redress the balance of thinking. Our scientists need to practise critical thinking.
The closed-minded attitude displayed by the more aggressive evolutionists deals a body blow to the open minded inquisitiveness, thoroughness, effectiveness and integrity of our future scientists.
A BBC report about Intelligent Design stated: "its many critics, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, fear that it cloaks a religious motive — to replace science with god." This may be sloppy reporting - no evidence is offered for either of these scientist acknowledging 'fear' as one of their motivating factors - but it raises an interesting possibility of why Professor Richard Dawkins, in particular, sometimes resorts to ridicule rather than to reasoned argument.
Richard Dawkins, on the first page of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker"says: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose". But if the empirical evidence suggests something has been designed for a purpose, why does he favour the theory that it wasn't designed?
"How Horizon got 'Intelligent Design' wrong". He said: "Dawkins' critique fundamentally misunderstands the nature of scientific explanation (which is worrying considering that he is Oxford University's 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science')".
The Bible explains that there is a purpose and a plan - not just random chance and pointlessness. It tells us that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made"; that we are made in the image of God; that our lives are of immeasurable value to God; that God loves us to the utmost.
'The Theory of Evolution' denies all those points - and therefore cheapens life.
The killers in the Columbine school massacre wore shirts that blared out, "Natural Selection". When a murderer called Jeffrey Dahmer became a Christian he acknowledged that he once believed in the evolution theory which "cheapens life".
If the Bible is true, it does matter - a lot.
Despite the teaching of science in the National Curriculum and despite wide media coverage of the subject, lots of people who hold a strong opinion actually prove ignorant of both 'The Theory of Evolution' and alternative models, including 'Intelligent Design' or 'Creationism'. Many people are also very unclear about the difference between fact and theory - despite the extreme importance of the distinction.
Survey figures: (reported Thursday, 26 January 2006). Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life: 22% - creationism; 17% - intelligent design; 48% - evolution theory; 13% - did not know.
