We’ve written about evolution before, yet continually encounter misunderstanding and misrepresentations of the theory — frequently hearing comments such as “overwhelming evidence exists” or the “evidence is all around us” without any supporting proof given. Most likely, many people writing letters lack understanding of the scientific method, and if they do, never apply it to the “science” of evolution. Is evolution scientific? We’ve seen lots of letters to the editor similar to the following:
Phares Gilchrist’s May 19 letter claiming bias on the part of The
Register-Guard relative to information on evolution seems to fit the
current pattern: If information does not support your beliefs,
chastise the source rather than examine the information.
The fact is that intelligent design is not a valid scientific explanation
for the evolution of life forms any more than is biblical creation.
Intelligent design is simply impossible to prove or disprove. The
amazing complexity and intricacy of life and its processes are, by
themselves, not evidence of a creator or intelligent design.
The underlying principles of evolution not only have explanatory
value but also predictive value. Predictive value means that you can
develop hypotheses that can be tested with objective information by
you and others. (Intelligent design lacks merit letter to editor,
Register-Guard May 28, 2005)
Where is this objective information? What is the scientific method, and does evolution follow it? Basically, the scientific method involves making observations, then predictions, and then experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific
investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence.
Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose
explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions
from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to
be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make
predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is
commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific
method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable,
evidenced understanding of our natural world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
The letter writer states the hypothesis of evolution can be tested with objective information. Really? Evolution (like all science) is built from the base by various other ideas. If that base is wrong, the rest of the theory doesn’t matter. At the base of evolution are (at least) three foundational principles.
- Matter comes from nothing.
- Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
- Species can change from one to another.
- Explosions produce order.
These are valid scientific hypothesis — Darwin made a scientific hypothesis which should be proved or disproved by experimental evidence. According to the scientific method, we should have repeatable experiments to prove such things are true. Where is it?
