Letter: Evidence behind theory

0
Have your say

“Re Geoffrey Lover, promoting creationism in schools. (16/7/14)

Schools do actually teach about creationism, in the same way that they teach about Islam and Hinduism - in Religious Education classes, which is where they belong.

Just as teaching reincarnation instead of the life cycle in biology would be extreme and misguided, so is rejecting well-accepted science (contrary to your statement, it is estimated that over 99% of scientists believe evolution to be true, not ‘as many as believe in the Creation’).

The problem with presenting religious ideas as scientific theories, is that to be a valid scientific theory, you need some tangible evidence.

Interestingly, you state ‘you cannot prove something by assuming something else’, which is followed immediately by ‘well, I don’t like the idea that we’re here by accident, so we can’t be’. As a religious idea, that’s fine, but you cannot justify teaching Christian science because it ‘feels’ right, or because it’s scary to think that we’re alone in the universe.

As for the statement ‘fact and proof do not feature in this theory’, I find myself wondering whether you have looked into it at all - it’s hardly appropriate to suggest an education debate while having complete ignorance of the topic.

There are a number of websites providing explanations of evolution and the huge volume of evidence behind the theory if you wanted to take a look.

However, you are absolutely right that evolution is a scientific ‘theory’, which, if you go back to the dictionary, you’ll find is defined as a ‘well-substantiated explanation which is repeatedly confirmed through experimentation’. But don’t let actual evidence separate you from your beliefs - to paraphrase Tim Minchin, one can hope you might feel the same way about the ‘theory’ of gravity, and you might just float away.

Kerensa Gaunt

Louth