Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Intelligent Design

Dear Letters Editor:

Any conclusion about the Evolution v. Intelligent Design Debate requires an understanding of the differences between science and history.

Science uses a methodological approach to study the phenomena of the physical and natural world in order to generate a body of knowledge. This knowledge is then used to predict future states as well as to test new hypotheses through empirical studies, observations and data gathering. Science constantly tests its own assumptions as new hypotheses and technologies challenge past ideas. Science is in a constant state of flux and can never explain all phenomena. Scientific paradigms, or belief systems, change as unexplainable anomalies call the prevailing set of ideas and assumption into question.

Big "E" evolution is not a science; it is simply one version of history. Why is Evolution not a science? Simple, it provides no predictive knowledge about nature. Evolution cannot be tested through empirical studies and is not a verifiable explanation of the current state of the physical and natural world. Nor is it a means to predict any future state of the physical and natural world.

Evolution is one version of history. As a Christian, I have my own version of history. Fear not, my version of history will allow me to operate an Automated External Defibrillator device hanging on an airport wall should someone have a heart attack. In addition, I will not release a weight over your toe expecting the weight to simply float away. My history does not handicap my ability to study the phenomena of the physical and natural world. We can disagree on history but agree on the present. So, why the effort to push big "E" history as a science? And, why the effort to use coercion and compulsion to indoctrinate the next generation? Science is not at stake here, so what is?

Jim Fedako

No comments: