There have been numerous submittals in both ”In My View” and ”My Nickel’s Worth” devoted to the theory of evolution and intelligent design, even passing comments related to creationism. Missing in most, if not all, of these submittals is what appears to be a clear understanding of the terms hypothesis and scientific method. Generally speaking, the scientific method is the observation of what happens. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true, test the theory by further observations and by experimentation, determine if predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Hypotheses are unproven theories, propositions or suppositions tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or to provide a basis for further study. Each of the predominant theories of the origin of man falls within these definitions.

Darwin’s theory of evolution relies heavily on fossils, of which there are well over 100 million catalogued and identified in museums around the world. Paleontologists, with the aid of the fossil record, can provide a picture of the life of past ages but are not able to show a graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. Too, there is some evidence to suggest that discoveries have been dated to fit within established doctrinal guidelines and, in some instances, ”undiscovered.” Taken as a whole, the data from the fossil records seem to disprove, rather than prove, Darwin’s theory. Darwin himself acknowledged that if numerous species have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution. It is this which the fossil records seem to suggest. Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, said the fossil evidence would be consistent with the idea of a great designer. According to Wernher von Braun, ”The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a space ship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws have been set by somebody.”

After 150 years in the unsuccessful pursuit of the so-called missing links, it is not beyond logic that many in the scientific community are trying to get beyond the doctrinal strictures imposed by the evolutionists. Enter intelligent design, a theory holding that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the origin of man and his universe could be the work of some form of higher intelligence. To prove this theory necessarily requires the identification, in scientific terms, of this greater intelligence. The missing link of the design theory, so to speak.

Creationism, like evolution and intelligent design, is a hypothesis and should be subjected to the same scientific analysis. To be sure, there is a degree of faith involved in this theory, but do not the others also harbor an element of faith? Doesn’t it require a great deal of faith to continue to follow Darwin’s theory after 150 years of searching for the elusive missing link?

Theories should not be cast aside simply because they are disliked. It is past time to break out of doctrinal boxes and pursue theories based on scientific fact, not peer politeness, fear of committing professional suicide or academic dogmatism. Each of the three hypotheses concerning the origin of man have near the same plausibility, if approached with an open mind, and should receive equal scientific treatment. Too, they should be afforded an equality of treatment in academia. No one should be presented as conclusive. They are all in the hypothesis stage. Too often, we accept uncritically anything a scientist or pseudo-expert says and consequently never know the nature of the supporting evidence. It is time to move beyond doctrine and dogmatism and confront reality. The advice of William James seems apropos: ”Steer safely between the opposite dangers of believing too little and believing too much.”