The following essay was published in Science and Creationism (1984).
by Isaac Asimov
» The argument of belittlement.
Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is "only a theory," giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.
A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally.
For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.
All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as "only a myth."
The above is a lot of who-shot-John (to quote Judge Judy)
It is as dishonest an answer as Asimov accuses Creationists of using.
"
For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory");"
IA is deliberately mixing up respectable "theory" with speculative "theory" to hope we will forget that NOT ALL THEORY IS THE SAME.
We see cells under the mic. Thus cells are FACT. The finer details of how they function is still "theory"
..."
of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation");
I have never heard gravitation called a "theory" except at university comparing it with say Einsteins work. It is usually called "Newtons LAW of universal gravitation" since we can SEE a ball fall down, no matter how often we repeat the experiment.
..."
of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory");"
This is usually called "quantum physics" which has its own theoretical speculations.
This "theory" is harder to prove and we would be right to entertain a few doubts as to the absolute credibility of quantum theory.
There are some areas very credible, others not, depending on the theory.
..."
of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on."
Much of this has been confirmed by Einstein making predictions, experiments performed, and much is accepted as true. We are doing experiments on"gravity waves" in space, as we speak, since these were postulated by Einstein, but so far not definitely proven. So here we entertain doubt till proven.
To put "The Theory of Evolution" on a par with proven respectable mainstream physics, is a laugh, and dishonest.
To see cichlids undergoing diversification, or finches on islands having specialised beaks does not PROVE evolution.
I cannot think of a way I could ever PROVE creation.
Likewise I cannot think of a way evolutionists could ever PROVE evolution.
Both could examine the same fossil record and come to their BELIEF as to what the rocks are saying. That would be the only truly honest position. It takes faith to be a believer, and it takes faith to be an evolutionist.
