- Golden Corral coming to Cape; may hire 100 workers (7/21/16)10
- Arrest warrants filed for six drug suspects in Cape (7/19/16)6
- Area groups working together to reintroduce elk in Missouri (7/18/16)1
- Suspect in downtown Cape shooting ID'd in court (7/20/16)2
- Prosecutor says shooting by state trooper was justified (7/24/16)15
- Hastings in Cape closing (7/22/16)5
- Governor signs Rep. Swan bill that equalizes child-custody criteria (7/6/16)5
- City may spend extra park tax money on Cape Splash, skate park, other projects (7/25/16)10
- Jackson's former police dog euthanized Monday (7/21/16)2
- 'I want to see how far I can go' (7/21/16)2
Consider alternative worldviews
To the editor:
I appreciate some of Allen Gathman's recent comments about intelligent design and science. Science is based on repeatable observation, so it cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. However, I think it is incorrect to allow evolution to be called science. I think that neither evolution, intelligent design nor creationism are scientific theories. They are worldviews on which to frame scientific theories.
Different theories (Lamarckian, Darwinian, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) have tried to explain natural phenomena and the phenomenon of evolution, assuming it does in fact exist. Evolution, which is not equivalent to natural selection, is the process by which all living things including humans supposedly descended from a common ancestor. No one was there to observe this, and physical evidence of the past is subject to the interpretation of the observer's worldview. Evolution is used to try to explain why things are the way they are. However, it never makes predictions that could be used to prove it false. Thus, it is not falsifiable, violating a necessary requirement for valid scientific theories. An evolutionary theory may be discarded, but evolution never is.
There are alternative worldviews to evolution and even ID. For example, biblical creation assumes that the details of the Bible are true. Although not a falsifiable assertion, various theories are based upon it. I encourage anyone with an open mind to consider the creationist organization Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) and its theories as stated by scientists of various fields.
ERIC LYNCH, Cape Girardeau