Archive for Saturday, October 30, 2004

Science bias

October 30, 2004


To the editor:

I would like to thank Greg Simpson for confirming my point about science. Even indirect observations, or evidence, left in the wake of phenomena that are "both observable and repeatable," may lead to an "explanation of the underlying processes that gave rise to them." Precisely.

Too many brilliant scientists have had to scrap the evolutionary hypothesis because the evidence won't support it. They have had to posit different "explanations" for the data. But in the religious fervor to guard our secular humanism and the educational instruments of its propagation, we will not deal with their findings.

Mr. Simpson exhibits the same ill-informed bias that characterizes our ignorance or apathy concerning alternative explanations. He either ignores or is unaware of the fact that evolution and uniformitarian geology both "begin with the explanation itself, irrespective of the observable record." As he rightly notes, this approach is "distinctly nonscience and has no place in the science classroom."

The only universally acknowledged testimony to ANY theory of origins is the inference that what has physical existence had a beginning. Every other last shred of data is susceptible to other interpretations that deserve no less than evolution to be heard.

But barring the ability to recreate our own beginning, or the report of an observer present at our own beginning, such theories as creationism or Darwinism cannot claim to be part of science or even of history.

Todd Wilson,


Commenting has been disabled for this item.