2 of 30

Write now Article Tools

Theory . . . or Hypothesis?

Yes, I believe in evolution . . . that things change over time. Who could refute that? What I do not believe is that new species come into being by the evolution of old species. Darwin believed this. He believed that one form of life changed enough throughout the history of the world to produce another form of life, a completely different species. He also believed that the fossil record would prove his theory. He even stated by what means his theory could be disproved.

In the 125 years since Darwin's death, thousands of new scientific discoveries have been made that give us a closer look at life - the cell, for instance. Darwin had no idea what the cell consisted of, but today we know that it is a mind-boggling universe in itself. And then in 1962 there was the discovery of the double helix - DNA. Darwin said that the sight of a peacock's feather made him sick. Imagine his awe at contemplating DNA! Such order would have driven him mad.

In those 125 years, we have also done a lot of digging . . . to discover fossil records. What we have found is the very thing that Darwin told us would disprove his theory. There is no evidence of what should have occurred if species evolved into new species: millions of dysfunctional organisms for every functional one. After all, Darwin's theory is one that claims randomness as the cause of evolution - random, chaotic events that cause highly complex, orderly beings. That can't happen without some trial and error... lots and lots of error. Darwin knew this. So he fully expected to see evidence in the fossil records that would support his theory. Not only have the fossil records failed to prove his belief, they have disproved it.

So why do so many scientists claim that Darwin's theory of evolution is more than a theory? Why do they state that it is an irrefutable fact? Admittedly, I am not a scientist, but this strikes me as very unscientific. I was taught that the scientific method consisted of formulating a hypothesis, finding evidence which bumped the hypothesis up to the rank of a theory, and then proving the theory. Only then could it be called scientific fact.

I think Neo-Darwinists have jumped over a few evolutionary steps, don't you? In fact, it seems that Darwin's theory of evolution is not even a theory, but a hypothesis.

Learn more about this author, Jackie Doss.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about The debate on Darwin's theory of evolution?
We want to hear your view. Write now!