In his latest attempt to portray evolution as fact, Elliott Doane (Your Views, Dec. 1) says all competent scientists accept evolution; the meaning of critical thinking is unclear; high school students are incapable of sensibly making up their own minds; religious beliefs are undermining sound science. I'm way past high school age. I have a bachelor's degree in a recognized field of science. So if it's all right with Doane, I'm going to sensibly claim I'm capable of thinking critically and that I know the difference between sound science and religion masquerading as science.
My question is: Why is every branch of science required to adhere to the scientific method, but macro (molecules-to-man) evolution is given a pass? There's no known, observable process by which genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism, but that absolutely had to have happened for macro evolution to be true.
Doane admits no scientist has ever disproved evolution. What he conveniently avoids admitting is that no scientist has ever proven evolution to be true using the scientific method. Since there are no peer-reviewed, repeatable scientific experiments proving any organism can and has evolved into a completely different kind of organism, evolutionists must believe it happened. That's their religion, not sound science!
Craig Hampton, Oklahoma City