Creationists argue that evolution is “only a theory and cannot be proven.”
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to “peer review.” This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of “good science” (creationism) vs. “bad science” (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation “scientists” are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.
A question I have is ‘What is the higher authority, man’s science or the Word of God?’
Creationists start with the Bible as a reliable history of the world and interpret facts from that viewpoint. (After all, isn’t the Bible the infallible Word of God? Didn’t Jesus accept the Old Testament as true?) Secularists start with a naturalistic viewpoint and seek to interpret the facts from that worldview.
When dealing with operational science, there is effectively no difference between the creationist and the secularist – the creationist views the laws of nature as being part of God’s creation to be understood and explored. (You might be surprised to know that many of the founders of modern science were creationists). The secularist views the laws of nature as laws that are just there, and also seeks to understand and explore them.
However with historical science, there is a difference. All evidence exists in the present, it is not possible to perform experiments on events that happened in the past. All evidence is therefore interpreted in light of a worldview.
I don’t doubt that claims have been made about certain fossils as being transitional, but it is not possible to prove these using the scientific method. I would also make the point that many previous claims for transitional fossils have been later withdrawn when more evidence came to lighyt. One thing that science does tell us is that there are significant anatomical differences between mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds, and there has been no known mechanism observed that could give rise to the massive changes in genetic information required to bring about these changes. If evolution were true, it would be reasonable to expect many many fossils showing graduated changes from one kind to another. Instead all we have is a handful of debatable cases.
I believe that if you seek to reinterpret scripture in the light of what science says, you are effectively saying that science is a higher authority. Unfortunately that is what many Christians seem to have done, some to a greater degree than others.
If you take this line of thought further, you would have to deny the miracles of Christ, as science says that miracles don’t happen. You would also have to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection, as science also says that those things don’t happen.
As a closing comment, one thing I have noticed is that critics of creationists rarely seem to address the literature they have produced, and they tend to use labels like ‘fundamentalist’ as some kind of put down. Are pepole afraid of properly investigating the issues? Many creationist scientists have studied this topic in detail and have written about it extensively. My favorite web site is creation.com, there is a wealth of information there that addresses the whole creation/ evolution controversy, including issuesd like peer review and the true nature of science that were mentioned in this article.
Happy reading, if you are game 🙂