One thing that is becoming clear to me, reading all these e-mails, is that
lots of people don’t understand what science is. Many people, for example,
tell me that: “Evolution can’t explain the origin of life.” Well, I think
that is true, but so what? Evolution can’t explain the spectrum of a
quasar, either, or superconductivity, or Alzheimer’s disease, or continental
drift. A scientific theory is not required to explain everything, only some
finite set of observed facts. Evolution is a hypothesis to explain the
variety of living things. So far as I can see, it does that very well. It
is perfectly consistent with the hypothesis that life got started by a
miracle, or with several other different hypotheses. Other people want to
tell me that believing in evolution is just as much a matter of faith as
believing in Creationism. Well, to the degree that all non-mathematical
knowledge is merely probable, not certain, that is true too–”trivially
true,” as mathematicians say. I believe I am actually sitting at my desk
typing a post to The Corner. It is possible I am dreaming this, or
hallucinating it, and to that degree my belief involves an act of faith. It
does NOT follow that every theory is as good as every other. Some fit the
evidence better than others, or offer more reliable predictions. THERE ARE
DEGREES OF PROBABILITY. It’s not so much that Creationist arguments are
wrong, as that they miss the whole point of scientific inquiry. “Evolution
can’t explain everything.”–No, it can’t; scientific theories don’t have to.
“Evolution isn’t certain.”–No, it’s not; scientific knowledge never is.
“Evolution requires an act of faith.”–Yes, it does; so does walking across
the room. “You can’t conduct laboratory experiments to verify
evolution.”–No, you can’t; nor to verify theories about the formation of
stars, or the state of affairs at the center of the earth, or the
composition of Jupiter’s atmosphere. All sorts of science goes on outside
laboratories. Etc. etc. Sometimes, though, the Creationists are just
wrong. “Evolution has no predictive value,” several readers say. Not so.
If, in rocks 80 million years old, I discover a fossil of creature A, and in
rocks 40 million years old I discover a fossil of creature B, and if B looks
to be a developed or advanced form of A, then I may reasonably predict that
in rocks 60 million years old I shall find a creature intermediate in form
between A and B. And in fact this happens all the time. It’s a good
theory. Of course, new observations might come up that require us to modify
the theory, or even scrap it completely–that is the nature of science.
Scientists–good scientists–are not dogmatic. They respect physical
evidence, and are always ready to change their minds accordingly. A hundred
years ago, no geologist believed in continental drift; now they all believe
in it. The evidence was overwhelming. Biologists don’t reject Creationism
because they are blinkered dogmatists. They reject it because it explains
nothing they can’t already explain with simpler hypotheses.