Evolution cannot be tested, either
In David Brooks’ July 3 column (“Creationism in schools is a bad idea”), he wrote labeling evolution as a “theory” makes evolution “nothing more than a complex guess.”
But much of the “proof” of evolution is inferred based on comparative analysis. No one has ever observed evolution in action, no one can objectively test it, and no one can predict its outcome as required by the process referred to as “the scientific method,” which requires a hypothesis that can be tested, observed, measured, predicted and repeated.
Macro-evolution is a “theory” supported by arguments and conjecture rather than observable, testable facts.
Imagine that you are standing in a vast field and all about you is nothing but green grass, except for one tree standing by itself, and someone asks you: “Where did that tree come from?”
If you answer objectively, you would list all the possible explanations and then see which one best supports the observable evidence. You could argue that it evolved on its own, or that someone planted it there, or that its origin is unknown. Each possibility should be tested against the other.
That is how I believe evolution should be taught. But instead, the religion of evolution is taught to the exclusion of all other thought or argument.
We humans possess the unique ability to ponder reason and speculate about the nature of things. Where did this capacity of thought come from?
I just don’t have enough faith to believe that our universe evolved by mere chance.
Robert P. Fregault