Just a theory

Sunday, Sept. 25, 2005 @ 2:03 p.m.

A Pennslyvania federal court is now deciding whether or not "intelligent design" (*gag*) should be taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

I feel like punching whosoever that speaks the words, "evolution is just a theory" and claim that they're of a scientific mind. Even if you only took science courses in high school, you would know that the scientific definition of "theory" differs greatly from the lay definition of the same word that means something along the lines of "speculation". A scientific theory is NOT speculation. Rather, a successful scientific theory refers to an overarching explanation that accounts for all facts, hypotheses, and observations. A scientific theory remains essentially a fact until some exception that refutes it is found or observed. And "Because God did it" is NOT a valid refute to a scientific theory. That would be just as good as saying "The toothfairy took your tooth and placed that quarter under your pillow".

The fact that parallel lines never meet is also currently "just a theory". It has remained a theory for eons, just because nobody has managed to extend perfectly parallel lines to an infinite length to prove that they really will never meet. One could spend his entire lifetime drawing a pair of parallel lines that could spand around the Earth 10,000 times, but he will never, ever, reach "infinite length". For that fact alone, and in the interests of scientific prudence, parallel lines will forever remain "just a theory". You may roll your eyes and say "Duh, you don't need to prove that to convince me that they never meet", but that is exactly what the opponents to evolution are looking for. Sure, that parallel lines will never meet is "just a theory". But is anyone challenging it?

Of course not. There is no such religion as "Antiparallelism". If there were, you can be sure that fanatics will spend their lifetimes trying to disprove that theory, fail for many centuries, and finally "solve" it by saying simply, "Because God made it so". That's just like trying to win an argument by saying "Just because". That's NOT science. Also, if evolution is "just a theory", then why is "intelligent design" often offered (Read: "forced down our throats") as 'truth' rather than another counter-theory? Shouldn't this debate remain a philosophical one, rather than be forced as a scientific one? Isn't "an unknown superior force", insofar as scientific inquiry is concerned, just about as scientific as little green men, Santa Claus, and Jedi Knights?

And above all arguments, proponents of "intelligent design" deny that modern humans arose from centuries of accidental mutations (and from apes); that the human design is so complex and the most perfect of all living things that it could have only been the work of a supreme entity. I don't wish to go into a full-blown argument of why I think that's a shitload of hogwash. Instead, I'll just say this: If human beings - the "top dogs" of the animal kingdom - were the premier products of a superior entity, it certainly wasn't a very intelligent one. Cockroaches can live without food and water for almost a year, and can effortlessly survive radiation. Sharks never fall sick. Human beings... well, we could die as a result of the mere invasion of one itsy bitsy virus. We also never stop thinking of ways to kill off one another.

What's so "intelligent" about that?

Navigate

Contact

Credits

Just a theory