Today I got yelled at by a stranger.
This was a student from college who I hadn’t met until today. She knew one of my friends and was a part of our conversation in the school cafeteria. The topic of biology came up and gradually turned to the process of evolution. I was quick to point out that evolution is of course true and an intelligent designer doesn’t exist.
The stranger didn’t hesitate to throw me an unpleasant look and suggest that I couldn’t prove the existence of evolution to 100%, it isn’t a fact.
I was ready to fire back, but then I thought about it. Do facts really exist?
What constitutes a fact? Because she’s right, we can’t prove to 100% that evolution exists. Just as we can’t prove to 100% pennies are made out of zinc. But what is it that really constitutes a fact? In a sense, everything we believe in existence is only a theory. However, certain theories are perceived as facts when they receive the highest amount of evidence that backs it up and supports it. No I can’t prove that evolution exists to a 100% degree, and neither can any number of well educated biologists, anthropologists, or paleontologists. Maybe we shouldn’t ask questions like, “can it be proved,” maybe that’s a silly question. Maybe we should ask questions like, “can it be disproved?”
People are too liberal with the degree of 100% as if it actually exists to our knowledge. It doesn’t. And I guess everyone is agnostic in that sense. Creationists are agnostic and even atheists are agnostic. This is because nobody can know for sure. Nobody alive today knows what happens when they die, for they’ve never been dead before. But we choose to live our lives identifying ourselves with one ‘ism’ as if it were true. However, that certainly doesn’t mean that creationism is just as credible as science. That certainly doesn’t mean that science isn’t true.
Everything is a theory and everyone is agnostic.
We know this now. We can’t keep playing this game forever. Science can prove something to the degree of 99%. But even though we lack that one degree, that is no excuse to conform to a belief system with no evidence to back up its claim. Isn’t it logical to accept the 99%? Isn’t it logical to accept the evidence that holds up rather than to accept the religious dogma that only paints a pretty picture?
Just food for thought.