What Other Science is Suspect?
“But the theory of evolution is incomplete!” cry our supposedly skeptical Texans, pointing out that among evolution’s weaknesses is the inability to explain the mechanics of the Cambrian Explosion, a period in which the major groups of animals now on the planet suddenly appeared 520 million years ago (suddenly being a relative term in geologic time, covering 70 to 80 million years).
Guess what? Similarly incomplete is the theory that explains gravity. Nearly a century after Einstein published his theory we’re still trying to figure out how gravity works, what dark matter is, how to explain quantum physics, why black holes exist, how to describe the very fabric of the universe.
This incompleteness, however, has not prevented us from exploring the moon, learning ever more about the origin of the universe, landing spacecraft on Mars and properly observing the heavens.
Creationists try to sell the notion that because scientists cannot ever be absolutely certain about evolution, they shouldn’t claim to believe in it.
But science writer Mano Singham notes that — yet again — creationists are trying to exploit the way scientists use the term believe from the way everyday people might:
When scientists say they ‘believe’ in evolution (or the Big Bang), the word is being used in quite a different way from that used in religion. It is used as shorthand to say that they have confidence that the underlying mechanism of the theory has been well tested by seeing where its predictions lead. It is definitely not “merely a theory and a model” if by the word ‘merely’ the commenter implies a theory that is unsupported or untested.
Evolution has, in fact, been well tested. The theory is constantly used to successfully test hypotheses, for example, that underlie our growing knowledge about genetics that’s being successfully and increasingly applied to medicine.
WHAT OTHER ‘THEORIES’ ARE SUSPECT?
If we’re to apply creationists’ so-called logic, what other scientific “theories” should be put on the “strengths and weaknesses” chopping block Texas is considering? How about:
- Atomic Theory
- Conservation of Matter and Energy
- Cell Theory
- Germ Theory
- Plate Tectonics
- Big Bang Theory
- Chaos Theory
- Quantum Mechanics
- Newtonian theories of motion
- Electromagnetism
- Radioactivity
- Molecular bonds
- Thermodynamics
- Homeostasis within living organisms
Texas’ science curriculum is gonna get pretty crowded, isn’t it?
But dentist Don McLeroy, chairman of Texas’ state educational board, denies that the “strengths and weaknesses” requirement he supports is a tool for bringing creationism into the classroom. “Why in the world would anybody not want to include weaknesses?”
Next: Is science a popularity contest? »
