There are many meanings of the word “theory.” In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists call them “variables”) that can be tested by factual observations. We have a “theory of gravity” that [1] (1. examines 2. predicts 3. acknowledges) the speed at which an object falls, the path on which a satellite must travel if it is to maintain a constant distance from the earth, and the position that a moon will keep with respect to its associated planet.
This theory has been tested rigorously, [2] (1. as much as 2. so much as 3. so much so) that we can now launch a satellite and know exactly where it must be in space inorder to keep it rotating around the earth. It was not always this way. From classical times to the Middle Ages, many important thinkers thought that the speed with which objects fall toward the earth depended solely on their weight. We now know that this view is false. In a vacuum, objects fall at the same speed and, thanks to Newton, we know the formula with which to [3] (1.accelerate 2.calculate 3. control) that speed.
The other meaning of “theory” is the popular and not the scientific one. It is referred to as a guess, a faith, or an idea. It does not state L [4] (1. an adaptable 2. a testable. a usable) relationship between two or more things. It is a belief that may be true, but its truth cannot be tested by scientific inquiry. One such theory is that God exists and [5] (1.includes 2. infers 3. intervenes) in human life in ways that affect its outcome. God may well exist, and He may well help people overcome problems or even (if we believe certain athletes) determine the outcome of a game. But that theory cannot be verified. There is no way anyone has found that we can prove empirically that God exists or that His action has affected some human life. If such a test could be found, the scientist who performed it would overnight become a [6]( 1. Genius 2. hero 3. Successor).
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It has been tested repeatedly by examining the remains of now-extinct creatures to see how one [7] (1. sequence 2. Organization 3. Species) has emerged to replace another. Even today we can see some examples of evolution at work, such as when scholars watch how birds on the Galapagos Islands adapt their beak size from generation to generation to the food supplies they encounter.
The theory of evolution has not been proven as fully as the theory of gravity. There are many gaps in what we know about prehistoric creatures. But everything that we have learned is [8](1.consistent] with 2. Contrary to 3. irrelevant to) the view that the creatures we encounter today had ancestors from which they evolved. This view, which is the only scientifically defensible theory of the origin of species, does not by any [9] (1.means 2. trend 3.accident) rule out the idea that God exists.
What existed before the Big Bang created the universe? Is there an afterlife of heaven (or hell) that awaits us after we die? Can a faith in God change our lives? There are religious scientists who believe that God exists and affects our lives, and there are scientists who reject the idea of God and his actions. For example, Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man, and what we today call the Newtonian laws, he [10] (1. attached 2. attributed 3. contributed) to Gods handiwork. On the other hand, Charles Darwin, though he started his adult life as a sincere believer intending to become a priest, abandoned his insistence that God created animal species and replaced that view with his extraordinary, and now widely accepted, theory of evolution.
There is another theory called “intelligent design.” Its [11] (1. Consumers 2. Critics 3. Proponents) argue that there are some things in the natural world that are so complex that they could not have been created by accident. They often use the mousetrap as a metaphor. We can have all of the parts of a trap – a board, a spring, a clamp – but it will not be a mousetrap unless someone assembles it. The assembler is the “intelligent designer.”
Mousetraps, however, are not created by nature but are manufactured by people. Then, we must ask what part of natural life is so complex that it cannot be fully explained by Darwinian Theory. Some have suggested that the human eye is one such example. But the eye has been studied for decades with results that strongly [12] (1. deny 2. doubt 3. suggest) it has evolved. At first there were light sensitive plates in prehistoric creatures that enabled them to move toward and away from illumination. In a few animals, these light sensitive plates were more precise. This was the result of genetic differences. Just as only a few people today can see a baseball [13] (1. as long as 2. as poorly as 3. as well as) Ted Williams could, so then some creatures were able not only to detect light but to see shapes or colors in the light.
When those talented creatures lived in a world that rewarded such precision, they [14] (1. recovered 2. regained 3. reproduced) while untalented creatures died out. Maybe the talented ones were better able to find food or avoid being eaten and the untalented ones could not. These first genetic accidents were followed, over millions of years, by others that made it possible for some creatures to see very tiny objects or see at great distances. Such creatures had an evolutionary [15] (1. advantage 2. preference 3. priority) over other creatures that could not do those things.
But if an intelligent designer indeed created the human eye, that designer made some big mistakes. The eye has a blind spot in the middle that [16] (1. enhances 2. induces 3. reduces) its capacity to see. Other creatures, more dependent on sharp eyesight than we are, do not have this blind spot. Some people are colorblind and others must start wearing glasses when they are small children. All of these variations and shortcomings are consistent with evolution. None is consistent with the view that the eye was designed by an intelligent being.
What schools should do is to teach evolution emphasizing both its successes and it’s still unexplained limitations. Evolution, like almost every scientific theory, has some problems. But they are not the kinds of problems that can be solved by assuming that an intelligent designer created life. Not a single [17] (1. piece 2. proportion 3. property) of scientific evidence in support of this theory has been put forth since the critics of Darwin began writing in the 19th century.
Some people claim that if evolution is a useful (and, so far, correct) theory, we should still see it at work all around us in humans. We do not. But we can see it if we adopt a long enough time frame. Mankind is believed to have been on this earth for about 100,000 years. In that time there have been changes in people’s appearance, but those changes have occurred very slowly. After all, 1,000 centuries is just a [18] (1. blank 2. blink 3. block) in geological time. [19] (1. Besides 2.Therefore 3. However), the modern world has created an environment by means of public health measures, the reduction in crime rates, and improved levels of diet that have sharply reduced the environmental variation that is necessary to [20] (1. reconstruct 2. renew 3. reward) some genetic accidents and penalize others. But 100,000 years from now, will the environment change so much that people who now have unusual characteristics will become the dominant group in society? Maybe.
コメントを残す