Accepting Theories

After picking up a copy of The Scientist (May 13, 1991) and reading the responses of Forrest Mims III and Arthur Caplan to other readers' letters [page 14], I found it shocking that these two self-proclaimed scientists have lost the understanding of what theory is. While Mims appears to be qualified to write about hands-on technology, his failure to accept evolutionism as a theory (whether he agrees with it or not or whether it is worth anything once man knows the ultimate truth to everything)

Greg Bogart
Nov 24, 1991
After picking up a copy of The Scientist (May 13, 1991) and reading the responses of Forrest Mims III and Arthur Caplan to other readers' letters [page 14], I found it shocking that these two self-proclaimed scientists have lost the understanding of what theory is. While Mims appears to be qualified to write about hands-on technology, his failure to accept evolutionism as a theory (whether he agrees with it or not or whether it is worth anything once man knows the ultimate truth to everything) is disturbing. Caplan's outright rejection of creationism as a theory is equally disturbing.

Just because present data more strongly support evolutionism does not mean that other theories, including creationism, are not possible. In many theories (and especially those dealing with this subject), there are some parts that cannot be tested adequately using today's limited technology or because of time constraints. All scientists should keep in...