The scientific communities have constructed a variety of theories which seek to explain the developmental progression of humans. Most of these theories are just that--man's feeble attempt to explain the supernatural work of his Creator which is beyond all human understanding. Nevertheless, the scientific method helps us to develop a body of knowledge through a process of challenging observations or more abstract ideas. The resulting assumptions, hypotheses, and predictions are the bases of theories (Newman & Newman, 1991, p. 10).
Theories are frequently subject to testing by persons other than the original theorists as a means of validating or repudiating the assumptions, hypotheses, and predictions. According to Newman and Newman (1991) this helps to ensure that the original theorist's personal biases have not been the sole basis for confirming a theory (p. 10). Such subsequent testing may help to clarify our comprehension of the process being examined. When it can be shown that the results have not be influenced by or caused by chance, the theory is held to be valid or invalid according to those results. When random factors can be shown to be influential in the reported findings, the theory cannot be considered to be systematically testable, and the results cannot be used to confirm or deny it.
Unfortunately, too often theories which seem to explain reality are accepted as more than simply theories. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution does not, in itself, contradict the act of Creation--when it is understood to represent one man's attempt to explain how humans have been differentiated from other species. But when the concept of evolution is held to be the definitive answer instead of mere conjecture, it denies God's ability to act decisively, indeed, it may serve to deny God entirely.
As Vander Goot (1987) explains, the religious view of the person is not a theory, it is a revelation, a narrative. I...