- Two subjects of interest in 1992 homicide to take polygraph tests (1/15/17)8
- Business notebook: Jackson salon owner also opens a clothing store (1/16/17)
- Young Elvis impersonator from Bernie performs on 'Ellen DeGeneres Show' (1/12/17)
- Cape SportsPlex contractor offers a look at the project (1/15/17)14
- Meat-processing plant faces $70K penalty for Clean Water Act violations (1/17/17)4
- Two men shot after argument; houses also struck by bullets (1/12/17)21
- Area hospitals hope a box helps prevent infant deaths (1/19/17)6
- Two Cape men recovering after shooting (1/13/17)
- Obama shortens sentence of inmate from Cape (1/19/17)9
- Subjects of interest in 1992 killing take polygraph tests; results not revealed (1/18/17)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