I read with interest Mr. Pierce’s rebuttal (
”
Evolution is a ‘Theory,’ but Being a Christian Nation Isn’t,
”
Letters, Oct. 22) to a previous article.
Editor,
I read with interest Mr. Pierce’s rebuttal (“Evolution is a ‘Theory,’ but Being a Christian Nation Isn’t,” Letters, Oct. 22) to a previous article.
He mentions the definition of the word “theory.” He claims it includes the words “It is to assume or take for granted or without proof,” and then asks that we kindly open a dictionary.
What dictionary on earth is he using? To say that the definition includes the words, “without proof” is simply false at best, and at worst a deliberate lie. The fact that it is a “well substantiated explanation,” wording you will find almost universally, is what separates a theory from a hypothesis. Theories can incorporate “facts, laws, and tested hypotheses.” Notice that conjecture, guesses, and untested hypotheses are specifically excluded.
The usage Mr. Pierce asserts as true is labeled time and again as a “generalization and (deliberate) abuse of the technical meaning.”
Next he goes on to claim that because the source of the big bang is as yet not proven that the rest of the theory is shambles. This is again a blatant but oft repeated distortion. The actual theory of the big bang says nothing about the source of the initial expansion, which is purely a mathematical curiosity explained by a number of conflicting “hypotheses.”
The evidence for an expansion from a smaller early universe however is clear and undeniable. It has been proven by experiment over and over again. The course plotted for the expansion of the universe is as plain as the course plotted for the flights taken by satellites that visit the other planets of the solar system. The landings on mars and flybys of other planets serve as proof that we seem to have a pretty good idea of where those things are going to end up.
William Hurt, San Salvador, El Salvador
