Basic HTML Version
to their children as dogma rather
than theory.
But will requiring that creation
be taught
as a theory
on a par with
evolution
as a theory
be any bet–
ter ? And what about the fact that
creationists themselves are divided
into severa! schools of thought as
are evolutionists? How many theo–
ries are going to be taught?
And by whom?
What ls Scientific Theory?
Just what is scientific theory any–
way?
Al!
scientific theories are inven–
tions of the creative imagination or
insight of scientists. This does not
mean that theories are evil. A theo–
ry is an essential and valid tool of
the scientist. It provides a method
for organizing otherwise unrelated
information about our physical
world and provides a convenient
basis for making predictions.
no matter how impressive they may
be, can prove absolutely that one
particular scientific theory is
true-other scientific explanations
are
always
possible!
"Scientific theories, like social
reforms, have to meet philosophic
preconceptions in the minds of
scientists and others"
(Physical
Science, lts Structure and Develop–
ment,
Edwin C. Kemble, page 101 ).
The philosophic preconceptions ac–
cepted today by the majority of
scientists is that no explanation for
origins be allowed to include God or
the supernatural. "A scientific theo–
ry must therefore not contain any
elements of metaphysics or mytholo–
gy"
(Worlds-Antiworlds,
Hannes
Alfven, page
3).
The concept that scientists are
completely unbiased and objective
in their thinking is false. Most
scientists
try
to be objective and
unbiased but they- and theolo-
The concept that scientists are completely
unbiased and objective in their thinking is
false. Most scientists try to be
. ..
but
they-and theologians, too-are as human
and subject to bias as anybody.
One important requirement for a
good scientific theory, in the eyes
of scientists, is that it should be
vulnerable, i.e., it should have spe–
cifically stated consequences that
can be tested with the possibility of
being proved wrong. "Falsifiabili–
ty" is the term used for this
requirement by both evolutionists
and creationists. In this sense nei–
ther evolution nor creation fall in
the proper realm of science because
origins cannot be scientifically
tested.
M
ore than one theory can be
derived from the same set of data.
"Philosophers of science have
repeatedly demonstrated that more
than one theoretical construction
can always be placed upon a given
collection of data"
(The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions,
Thomas
S. Kuhn, page 76). No set of facts,
8
gians, too--are as human and sub–
ject to bias as anybody.
As an example:
"Less faith
is
required to believe in this explana–
tion [evolution] for the origin of
life than in the more
subjective
explanations"
(Earth, Moon and
Planets,
Fred
L.
Whipple, page
240.
Italics ours.). What did author
Whipple mean? Less faith is
required for him to believe in spon–
taneous generation of life than for
what to him is a more subjective
explanation- God as life-giver.
Finally, scientific theories, which
are temporary and limited in scope,
cannot be regarded as
correct
descriptions of ultimate reality or
final truth. Scientists do not claim
to be in search of absolute final
truth. As a matter of fact , they do
not believe ibsolute final truth can
be found.
Science teachers should be
teaching their students these well–
established essentials of scientific
theory. But do they?
Al! too often the old, discarded
scientific theories of the past are
treated as if they were myths and
that now scientists have become
more objective and employ the so–
called scientific method in a sure
marcb toward truth. James Conant
makes this pointed statement con–
cerning the alleged scientific meth–
od: "There is no such thing as
the
scientific method. If there were,
surely
an
examination of the his–
tory of physics, chemistry and biol–
ogy would reveal it"
(Science and
Common Sense,
James Conant,
page
45).
The Ptolemaic Theory of astron–
omy served the ancient world quite
well as a guide to navigation, plant–
ing seasons, etc., for more than
1,000 years and only became out–
moded when more detailed and
accurate measurements became
available. Even then, it took a long
time for the theories of Copernicus
and Kepler to displace it because of
the philosophic preconceptions held
by scientists, civic and religious
leaders at that time.
All theories past and present,
either have been altered, are being
altered or have been displaced by
newer (and usually) more accu–
rate theories. Every student of
science should be taught this most
important and fundamental princi–
pie about scientific tbeory. "Look–
ing back from the mid-twentieth
century over the wreckage of
once-valuable scientific theories
that are no longer adequate
expressions of our advancing
knowledge, the scientist can hard–
ly avoid questioning the perma–
nence of
any
scientific theory.
Clearly, a theory whose value is
temporary, or one of limited
scope, cannot be regarded as a
correct description of reality, or
final truth"
(Physical Science, lts
Structure and Development,
Ed–
win C. Kemble, page 98).
Since scientific theories are con–
tinually changing and cannot pro–
vide absolute final truth, should
creation be considered and treated
as just another scientific THEORY?
The
PLAIN TRUTH