Theoretical Science

Any honest scientist or physicist will tell you that the theory of evolution is not fact but theory. Why then is does it continue to be taught in our schools and universities? Why does the so-called “separation of church and state” clause only apply to theories that involve God-based religion and not atheistic religion? I finally found an answer that addressed the issue and admitted that evolution is just a theory.

As I was reading a physics textbook the other day, I came across the definition of a scientific theory. I had never seen it defined this way before and this time I began immediately to think of the origins of mankind (interestingly, MS Word says that mankind should be replaced by humankind – hmm) and the universe. The book said that Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory while any theory that involves a god was not scientific. This is probably common knowledge to most people in science but even though I take an interest in physics, I had never heard the definition stated this way nor had I heard evolution argued in this manner. It was a smart move by the writer -as he showed his intelligence in not trying to argue that evolution was a fact solely because so many scientists say that is what actually happened. This intrigued me to analyze his comments further.

Let us start with the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is one in which an empirical test for falseness exists. For example, the reason creation science is not usually called a scientific theory is because it involves God – and you cannot prove that God does not exist. No test exists that would show the non-existence of the supernatural because there is no way to guarantee that our senses are attuned to the supernatural. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that there is no evidence for the supernatural or that God does not exist for I believe strongly in both.

This may appear to be a black-and-white definition but in fact contains other criteria as well. The empirical test must be finite and reasonable. Suppose I told you that sometime in the future, a meteor will hit the earth. How do we test if this theory is false? We cannot because the time span given is infinite – it could always happen in the future. We cannot perform every possible test in our lifetimes so we rely on scientists to tell us which tests are reasonable – of course, this introduces subjectivity.

Does evolution have an empirical test to prove its falseness? Some aspects of evolution have empirical tests, but the main premise of evolution does not! Darwinian evolution is based on less complex species evolving into species that are more complex over time. My textbook stated that if a more complex organism was found to exist before a simpler organism, then the theory could be proven wrong. Nevertheless, we cannot possibly find all the fossils that exist. If no transition fossil is found we still cannot verify that one does not exist somewhere that we have not looked yet! Since sedimentary layer of dirt can form over a decade or less (this has been observed at Mount St. Helens – not to mention trees in the Grand canyon that span multiple layers of sediment), then finding a more complex organism in “lower” stratum does not disprove evolution of the species (although it makes you question their “evidence”). Saying that an empirical test is finding a fossil that could be anywhere on earth is no different than stating that if God shows up and we can “see” him, then we also have a valid scientific theory. Also, no human lifespan can exist for the duration that is supposedly required for even one “evolution” of a species and therefore evolution will never become a scientific law. You might think that it could happen in the future, but since it could always be in the future, we cannot even say it is a scientific theory.

I give the author of textbook credit for staying away from useless arguments that are thrown around by atheists. Some people look at evolution as their escape from the existence of God – in other words, the fact (so they say) of the non-existence of God proves the theory of evolution. This is neither scientific nor rational.

We cannot prove that God did not create the universe in some way and therefore this is not a scientific theory. The key to understanding how the universe began is that no one was there. What little pieces of evidence we gather and decide to claim as our own can usually be explained but the other side will not agree because they believe they can explain it with their theory. You see, a great deal of what we speculate about the past does not fall into the category of scientific theory and will always be the subject of much debate. This does not mean we cannot make informed decisions based on the evidence we see – just that they do not fall under the category of scientific.

The origin of the universe and the origin of life both require faith. Nevertheless, this is ok. However, when judge decides that we cannot call evolution a theory because doing so espouses religious ideas, they are using circular reasoning and ignoring that evolution and creation are equaly untestable - neither is a true scientific theory.