Evolution contributes little to real science

by: Mark Stewart, Greenfield, OH

Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos

Letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch (not published)
Submitted February 16, 2002

To the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch:

Perhaps Oldenquist ("Intelligent design theory fails science" 2/15/02) should stick to philosophy and leave the question of the State Board of Education science curriculum to those who understand the true nature of science.

When one considers the separate scientific disciplines to which evolution appeals for its support, one finds, without exception, that they owe little to the ideas and dogmas of evolution. Still less do they depend on the theory for their scientific integrity. Evolution may find frequent mention in certain textbooks, but removal of all such references would not detract significantly from the topic under discussion.

The fact is that "evolution" as such is not itself a recognized science. There are a variety of scientific disciplines in which evolutionary ideas are sometimes employed. The vast majority of scientists working in these areas never use the theory of evolution in their work or deal directly with its implications.

Evolutionary theory is a philosophy and not a scientific discipline at all. Once we recognize this we can appreciate both its impact on our minds and attitudes and its decidedly unscientific character. And once we aware of its serious deficiencies, we may, in turn, prepare our minds to consider the alternatives to evolution.

Mark Stewart
Greenfield, OH