Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable. Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive. Instead, they answer things after a new piece of evidence is discovered. Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions.
A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene.
Although the article tries to represent an unbiased tone, putting "scientist" in quotes shows the bias.
These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.
These folks didn't show up until well afer the theory became commonly accepted, had proven unassailable. It happens in all theories. We have lots of scientists working within the current models of quantum theory, general relativity, and a whole host of other theories, in addition to those scientists who work within the current model of natural selection.
The auhor forgets that natural selection is 150 years old, and that Darwin based his work on others who far preceded his own. The inspiration I find most interesting is that natural selection is basically the 18th Century work of Adam Smith applied to animal populations.
Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable
In two different ways. In science NO THEORY is provable. A scientific theory is only model that attempts to explain the phenomena we see. A successful theory that has beaten out the others means it is the one model that SO FAR best explains the phenomena. Examples of that are the atomic theory (yes, atoms are "just a theory"), the germ theory of disease (yes, germs are "just a theory" and initial postulates of the theory were indeed wrong), and natural selection. Meanwhile, creationism claims absolute truth and cannot be disproven within its model.
Those three scientific theories were initially controversial as they stepped on some religious toes. For some strange reason, creationists only still have a problem with natural selection these days. I guess they look just way too dumb saying germs don't cause disease.
bump
Government education does only **one** thing really well! It makes citizens furious with each other as they fight for control, funding, and ( ultimately) preservation in the culture of their anointed worldviews.
Of course if government had NO role whatsoever in education and in science funding all the controversy over evolution would evaporate as quickly a dew on a hot summer day.
There are several reasons why evolution causes such contention in our society:
1) it is impossible to have a religiously neutral education. ALL education is filtered through either a godless or God-centered worldview. Neither worldveiw, godless or God-centered, is religiously neutral in content or consequences.
2)The origins of the universe and man's appearance in it is taught to children and young adults has **enormous** religious consequences for the child and for all of society. Citizens rightfully resent having government establishing one religious worldview over another. It is a freedom of conscience issue.
3)) Government schools are funded through compulsory taxes, and for all those who can not access private of homeschooling attendance is **COMPULSORY**! Citizens and parents are justified in having their children indoctrinated in a worldview that is abhorrent to them.
Solution: Complete separation of school and state. Our K-12 schools and state colleges and universities should be privatized. And.. The government should stay completely out of science funding, except for the clear purpose of military defense.
Evolutionists are the biggest bullies when it comes to shoving godless, socialist-funded, **compulsory** government run and owned schooling down the taxpayers’s throat.
The creationists are far more tolerant and far more likely to support separation of school and state,( as well as complete separation of science and state) and willing to let evolutionist believe what they want.