While being interviewed lately on a large radio program in Pennsylvania by a great guy struggling with my unwillingness to admit that God has guided evolution; a number of things occurred to me. A compromise making peace between the two ideas; creationism and evolution, is merely choosing a middle ground between opinions. Politics and diplomacy work that way but not science.

In my book, "Nature Never Stops Talking-The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature", the whole point of presenting nature’s evidence is to present scientific points. True objectivity in science must avoid ALL non-scientific arguments.  Stop religious arguments. Stop philosophical arguments. Stop legal arguments. Let’s have a scientific argument and play by the rules.

Let me make this point with football. If we are having a Christian or Parochial High School play football against a public high school, religion and beliefs are totally unimportant. The rules do count scoring touchdowns though. In order to win the football game, only points made within the bounds of the rules count. It is not an insult to the Bible nor atheists. It is not forcing religion onto the football field if we simply allow Bible believers to play by the agreed rules of football. Certainly, the rules apply to both teams equally. And that is the simple pleasure of football. We all know the rules.

This is identical in science. The rules of science must apply to both sides, not just one side. The main way to “score points” in science is with provable evidence. This format is called the scientific method. When people make claims without evidence and go around the scientific method, that is “out of bounds”. The referee should be blowing the whistle when someone tries scoring points “illegally”.

THEORIES ARE LIKE FOOTBALL PLAYS - They Don't All Work

Evidence is the bottom line of science, not theory. Theories are great roads to discovery but evidence is way to score “points”. Let’s say one team makes some great plays but don’t score a touchdown. Great plays are like theories; it is the way to score points but there are no points for effort, only success.

Great theories may or may not lead to evidence. Evidence alone is how to score points in science.

Here are the rules of the game of science: “Show me proof”.

When one team says “We all think our theory is right” it is like bragging to the public they know they will win. But bragging or confidence is not evidence. No points.

“Don’t listen to them, they have a religious agenda.” The secular team wants the referee to penalize the guest team for motives.

Dear reader, motives or accusations of motives have no place in scientific debates.

In the science game, if the guest team says “The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth” I am afraid this too is not scoring points in the science game.

The whistle should be blown because religion or any other accusations have no bearing on the science game points. Just present the evidence. Stop this silly chatter.

As a matter of fact, I think we should recognize that every time either team tries a non-scientific tactic they may fear they don’t have the goods to score points in the science game. They want to win some other way, outside the rules of the game. Penalty.

EVIDENCE IS HOW TO SCORE POINTS IN THE SCIENCE GAME

Present evidence. Show proof. No character assassinations. In the science game, no one loses for being religious or atheist or rich or new or controversial. You lose in the science game by not proving your case. By not scoring points according to the rules. That is if the game is played by the rules.

If nature is at the center of the controversy, I am more interested in the evidence from nature than I am in the evolution of theories coming out of academia. And like a good judge or jury, I am maintaining a purist view of science and carefully pushing all the noise, that is not provable fact, to one side so I can clearly see just what evidence is really in front of me.

I am too lazy to defend any theory or religion and try manipulating facts to support my argument. Instead, I prefer reviewing facts not giving a hoot about where those facts lead. I have nothing to protect. I have nothing to defend. I am not rooting for a team or philosophy or conclusion. I am especially rooting for the science game to remain honest and fair. I will only be content when comfortable that neither I nor the public is being deceived intentionally or by accident.

Now I absolutely have opinions but I remain open to having my mind changed by information. It has to be provable though. I have to be satisfied. When a scientist tells me about some far event that cannot be shown to me, I consider it hearsay. If a scientist tells me to believe something that is contrary to everything else I see and can understand for myself, I consider it salesmanship. If you can show me a pattern of animals giving birth to babies that are completely new species that somehow invented themselves enough times, I will believe it is possible. However, if everything I see and know contradicts that idea and all you can give me is stories and theories about why I should reject all I see and know – well, it ain’t gonna happen. I need proof.

PLAY BY THE RULES OR CONCEDE VICTORY TO THE COMPETITION

If you are going to accuse me of being religious for not accepting evolution without proof; well that’s not strengthening your case much either.

If you are going to boycott the discussion and say there is enough proof between scientists and you aren’t going to prove anything to me because you don’t have to – in football, the game is over. You are too afraid to step onto the field of competition. You lose. You can say you are the better team but you sure haven’t proven it.

It isn’t about the creation team or the evolution team or the intelligent design team. It is about the rules of science. Not censorship, not name-calling, not anything but the rules. As long as everyone plays by the rules we can all progress and enjoy the game.

Here's more articles on the subject and my book  www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com