- City suspends liquor license for downtown Cape bar; owners say they want to fix problems (3/26/17)7
- Mall aboard: Future requires evolution at West Park Mall (3/24/17)24
- Legal discrimination complaint, ethics complaint filed in Scott City government (3/22/17)13
- Former Southeast softball coach sues Board of Regents; seeks damages and her job back (3/23/17)15
- Former Scott City administrator: 'I was forced to resign' (3/21/17)6
- Triplett manslaughter case set for July 2018 (3/21/17)2
- Lawmakers put prevailing wage in crosshairs; laborers object (2/12/17)10
- Chaffee district seeks bond issue for classrooms, property (3/26/17)4
- 'Construction with finesse' (3/26/17)2
- Cramped quarters: April 4 proposition aims to ease crowding in Perry County District Schools (3/23/17)4
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