The Law of excluded middle means that a statement or claim is either true or false. There is no maybe or middle ground.
Another way to word this law is: X is either A or not not-A (there is no middle)
Everything must either be or not be. There is no middle ground between true and false. Make sense? This law is called excluded middle, because it excludes a middle ground.
The Law of non-contradiction tells us that no statement can be both true and false at the same time in the same relationship. The Law of Excluded Middle tells us that a claim must be one or the other.
Regarding the law of excluded middle, I found this quote from Aristotle on Wikipedia:
But on the other hand there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate. This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false
— Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 7 (translated by W.D. Ross)
I love this law when I asked my son if he picked up the yard before I mowed it. His first answer always complied with the Law of Excluded Middle. Yes. But when we went out to inspect the yard, there seemed to be a middle ground called “kinda”.
While the Law of Excluded Middle cannot be violated in the field of science, it seems that those in politics have no concept of this law. For example, a famous politician ask, “What does the word ‘is’ mean?”
What does the word ‘evolution’ mean? You can examine the fullness of the theory of evolution (read a complete explanation of the theory of evolution here)?
- Did life DNA appear from muddy water?
- Did matter create itself?
- Did energy create itself?
- Did information create itself?
- Did dark matter create itself?
- Did gravity create itself?
- Did space-time create itself?
The answer to these questions should be yes or no. And a legitimate theory should have answers on how. If a theory does not have and explanation it should be called a “working hypothesis”. There is no middle ground. A legitimate theory can be called a fact if it cannot explain events. There is no middle ground for a “scientific theory”.
Grant it that there may be working models that scientist are examining and testing that does not have all of the answers. But evolutionist claim that evolution is not just a theory but a fact. For this situation, there is no middle ground.
Remember, we are talking about the Theory of Evolution being a scientific theory. No theory, including the theory of evolution can be a viable theory if it violates other scientific theories. That is a FACT.
Therefore, you must ask, does the theory of evolution and the law of excluded middle contradict. If the answer is yes, then the theory of evolution must be discarded as a failed theory.