In response to “Evolution: theory, not fact,” in Feb. 7 edition of Technician.  

I am embarrassed by the recent column by Madison Murphy, “Evolution: theory, not fact.” I am embarrassed that ignorance like this exists, especially at our fine university, and I am embarrassed and outraged the column was allowed to be published. While Ms. Murphy explains the difference between creationism and intelligent design well, the main premise of her column, that evolution is a theory and not a fact, because a theory is an “unproven assumption,” is ignorant, misleading and false. Especially at a school specializing in science and engineering, this statement should have raised red flags. By Ms. Murphy’s logic, other “unproven assumptions” includes gravitational theory, cell theory and germ theory.

A few seconds of research by any involved party would have yielded the actual definition of a scientific theory, and what is implied when an idea is accepted as a “theory.” According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory is “a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.” Furthermore, ‘”scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.”

In other words, theories have held up against vigorous testing designed to disprove them, and are thus accepted as true.

In the future, please hold Technician to a higher standard. Fact-check your columns, and do not let personal viewpoints get in the way of the facts.

Charles Yu

N.C. State alumnus