ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Defining A Theory

I found the recent letter to the editor by Greg Bogart (The Scientist, Nov. 25, 1991, page 14), regarding acceptance of the theories of evolution and creationism, to be unacceptable itself. He argues that evolution and creationism are both theories and that, even though we may agree with one but not the other, both theories deserve consideration. As a scientist, I find such an argument untenable. In order for a proposition to be considered a theory, it must be supported by a substantial body

Le Leguire
I found the recent letter to the editor by Greg Bogart (The Scientist, Nov. 25, 1991, page 14), regarding acceptance of the theories of evolution and creationism, to be unacceptable itself.

He argues that evolution and creationism are both theories and that, even though we may agree with one but not the other, both theories deserve consideration. As a scientist, I find such an argument untenable.

In order for a proposition to be considered a theory, it must be supported by a substantial body of scientific evidence, and it must offer testable hypotheses.

There is no scientific evidence in support of creationism, and it does not lend itself to testable hypotheses.

As such, creationism is not a theory and, in fact, it is not even a hypothesis. Creationism is a belief.

L.E. LEGUIRE
Children's Hospital
Columbus, Ohio


Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT