Not Published |
Editorial Page
|
May 1, 1998 |
Columnist Tom Teepen makes a valid point that creationism contributes to
declining science skills, but the issue is even broader. Creationism runs
counter to the methods and conclusions of the whole spectrum of scientific
and scholarly disciplines, including biology, geology, astronomy, physics,
and historical research into biblical texts (Higher Criticism).
Since it is easier to misrepresent than to provide accurate information, I’ll limit my observations to a few errors from Rob Lewis’s letter ["Evolution lacks one clear theory" April 23]. He makes the claim that Isaac Newton was a creationist, which is true. But he doesn’t seem to know that Newton preceded Darwin, or that Newton was to physics what Darwin was to biology. Both provided an organizing concept to an entire field. He complains that evolution lacks one clear theory (comparing evolutionary gradualism with punctuated equilibrium), when a commitment to multiple working hypotheses is central to scientific investigation. The wave/particle duality of light is another example. He claims that evolution is only a "theory", but substitutes the ordinary/prescientific meaning of the term (speculative and not well established) with the scientific meaning (the ability to explain and make predictions from data). |
Scientific "theories" can and do become established
beyond a reasonable doubt; not only evolution, but special relativity,
and transmission genetics are examples. A similar misuse of scientific
terms underlies the creationist’s rejection of discovered transitional
forms.
He claims that evolution is invalidated because it can not be observed or reproduced in the present. This completely ignores the regularity of relationships between the unobservable and the observable. For instance, the transition of an unobservable electron between two orbits is related to the frequency of the observable light emitted in the process. Uniformitarianism describes the regularity between past and present, and is based on presently observable quantities like rates of sedimentation deposit, radioactive decay, salination, tree ring growth, etc. The highly successful field of modern physics could not be considered scientific by his definition, since only the consequences of interactions, rather than elementary particles themselves, can be directly observed. Clearly the quality of scientific understanding diminishes when it is filtered through theological concepts like biblical literalism. I can suggest several excellent books that help put the religious, political, and scientific elements in context. On the evolution/creationist "debate", Scientists confront Creationism (Laurie Godfrey). On the relationship between religion and science, Religion and Science (Ian Barbour). And since creationism is only peripherally related to science, The History of God (Karen Armstrong). Todd Brennan
|
 |
 |
