THE EVOLUTION-CREATION THING
Evolutionary ideas make some people nervous, for their
supposed religious or ethical or moral implications. This is a scientific
geology site, but below is a little scientific and sociopolitical commentary that
tries to explain why evolutionary ideas shouldn’t make one uneasy or
nervous when talking about fossils, the fossil record, and biologic change
through time.
What is evolution? It means change.
That’s it. A more complicated definition is change through time.
Geologists can talk about the evolution of nonliving systems, such as the
oceans, the atmosphere, the continents, mountain ranges, etc.
Earth’s atmosphere has evolved through time. Earth’s oceans
have evolved through time. One can also talk about the evolution of
life. Life has changed through time. A genetic definition of
evolution would be change in allele frequency. A mathematical definition
would be (dDNA/dt) (change in DNA through time).
Evolution is a fact. Change has
happened. That’s a fact. Change is happening now - change is
observable, recordable, demonstrable. That’s a fact.
Evolution is a fact. Life has changed in the past and is changing now.
Evolution is also a theory (a theory in science is a
rigorously tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses; a theory in science is one
small step below absolute certainty; a theory in science is well beyond a
reasonable doubt). The theory of evolution is a set of ideas that explains
how and why evolution has occurred and is occurring, at the genetic level, the
organism level, and the ecological community level. That doesn't change
the fact of evolution, however (change has happened & is happening
now).
Well, doesn’t the fact of evolution have
inherent religious, moral, and ethical implications? Not
necessarily. Don’t be nervous. Don’t be uneasy.
Evolutionary ideas, and science in general, say nothing about the existence or
nonexistence of God. Evolutionary ideas, and science in general, are not
inherently anti-religion or anti-Christianity.
Well, aren’t there two sides to the issue of
evolution? The evolutionism side
and the creationism side?
[creationism = anti-evolutionism]
Nope.
First of all, evolution is not an
“issue”. Many consider there to be two sides to every issue.
Journalists are forced to think this. Well, not everything has two sides
to it. Some issues have more than two sides. Even if evolution was
an “issue” (it isn’t, however), there are more than
two sides to it. How many viewpoints are there when it comes to
evolution?
Off the top of my head, we’ve got the following:
- Flat-Earth creationism
- Geocentric creationism
- Young-Earth creationism (YEC)
- Old-Earth creationism (OEC) (there are several
varieties of this)
- Intelligent Design creationism (IDC) (a false
category)
- Evolutionary creationism
- Theistic evolutionism
- Agnostic evolutionism (there are two varieties of
this)
- Atheistic evolutionism
This is definitely not a “two sides
issue”.
Flat-Earth creationism holds that God created the
Earth several thousands of years ago, and that the Earth is flat, not
~spherical. Clearly nonsense. Commentary isn’t needed.
Geocentric creationism holds that God created the
Earth several thousands of years ago, and that the Sun goes around the Earth,
not vice-versa. Clearly nonsense. Demonstrated to be wrong 500
years ago. Longer ago than that by some ancient civilizations.
Young-Earth creationism holds that God created an
Earth that is round and goes around the Sun, but it’s only several
thousand years old, not 4.55 billion years old as scientists have determined.
Old-Earth creationism holds that God created Earth
long, long ago. Different OEC views claim different ages for Earth, but
some include the 4.55 billion year age. Some OEC views hold that Earth is
infinitely old.
There’s quite a bit of discussion out there
about intelligent design creationism. First of all, IDC advocates refer
to their ideas as “theory”. Wrong wrong wrong. IDC is
anything but a theory. The misuse of the word “theory” is
widespread in society, unfortunately. Journalists, politicians, and
Hollywood chronically misuse the word. I’ve noticed many scientists
misusing it as well. What it actually means is discussed above (see 4th
paragraph). Evolution is a theory (it’s also a fact). IDC is not
a theory. It’s an hypothesis that includes testable and nontestable
aspects. The testable aspects have been shown to be wrong. The
nontestable aspects are not part of science, by definition. IDC is not a
theory. That’s not my opinion.
That’s the way it is.
(IDC advocates and some politicians and some legal people want to change
the definition of science to get around all of this - they’re not allowed
to do that.)
Secondly, I look at IDC a bit differently than most
folks. I would suggest that IDC is a false category on the spectrum of
views listed above. For one thing, not all IDC advocates say the same
thing - there is no single, consistent message coming out of the IDC
camp. If one just picks one IDC advocate, one usually finds different
things being said to different audiences (it turns out that they engage in this
dishonesty on purpose, for sociopolitical reasons - I’ve personally
observed this with Jonathan
Wells, for example). Some IDCs talk as if they are YECs. Some
sound like OECs. Some sound like they’re evolutionary creationists
or theistic evolutionists. The easiest way to deal with this confusion is
to declare IDC a false category. That's what I do and that's what I would
encourage others to do.
Apparently, evolutionary creationists believe that God
created the Earth 4.55 billion years ago, accept that Earth is round, that
Earth goes around the Sun, and that life has evolved on Earth just as the
fossil record indicates. But, through geologic time, God has
“tinkered” (in terms of miraculous or supernatural intervention)
with the evolution of life on Earth along the way so that humans would appear
as they are here & now.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God created the
Earth 4.55 billion years ago, accept that Earth is round, that Earth goes
around the Sun, and that life has evolved on Earth just as the fossil record
indicates. But, through geologic time, God has not
“tinkered” with evolution of life as it goes along. Rather,
God set up physicochemical and biochemical laws at the creation of the Universe
so that life would evolve on Earth the way it did, without having to
“interfere” or “tinker” along the way (in terms of
miraculous or supernatural intervention).
Agnostic evolutionists either know that there is no
way to determine the existence or nonexistence of God, or aren’t sure if
there’s a way to determine the existence or nonexistence of God. As
such, there’s no way to know (it’s a “known unknown”),
or it’s not known if there’s a way to know (it’s an
“unknown unknown”), if God played a role with the evolution of life
on Earth or not.
Atheistic evolutionists point out that there is no
physical evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Many people
incorrectly perceive that atheism is required in order to comfortably accept
evolution. NOPE. As an example, the Catholic Church publicly
acknowledges the excellent scientific evidence for evolution and has declared
that the reality of evolution does not interfere with belief in God. You
don’t have to be an atheist to accept evolution.
Evolutionism ≠ Atheism
and
Christianity ≠ Creationism
The point here is - there’s no such thing as two
sides to the “issue” of evolution. Evolution isn’t an
issue anyway. There’s abundant evidence for evolution (e.g.,
molecular chemistry, genetics, soft part morphology, hard part morphology,
embryology, homologous parts, atavisms, vestigial organs, breeding/artificial
selection, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, body-plan convergence, genome
comparisons, and the fossil record). There’s NO evidence
inconsistent with evolutionary theory. None whatsoever. But this
doesn’t have inherent implications regarding belief in God - many
theists accept the reality of evolution.
Some creationists or theists claim that various
scientific findings (e.g., the “fine-tuning” of the universal
constants [sic]) have demonstrated the existence of God. Nope.
What does science say about religious beliefs? “No
comment”. Science is based on facts & observations from
nature. It's not based on beliefs. Never has been. Never will
be. Whether you like it or not.
Some consider “belief” in evolution to be
equivalent to a religious belief. It is not. The question “Do
you believe in evolution?” is based on a false premise. Evolution
is not something one “believes” in or not. This question has
the same level of nonsense as the question “Do you believe that the sky
is blue?” Well, the sky is blue whether you believe it or
not. Evolution is real and is factual, whether you like it or not.
No one “believes” or “doesn’t believe” in
evolution - those aren’t options. One either accepts the
reality of evolution or doesn't.
Some consider evolution to be a “belief”
because it is not falsifiable (one of the criteria for ideas to be part of
science). Well, that’s not so. If one found australopithecine
fossils in the same sedimentary rock beds as Isotelus maximus trilobite fossils, then evolution is
falsified. If one found Tyrannosaurus
rex theropod dinosaur fossils in the same sedimentary rock beds as Dickinsonia costata Ediacaran fossils,
then evolution is falsified. If one found one fossil bunny rabbit in the
Precambrian, then evolution is falsified. There’s a nearly infinite
number of ways to potentially falsify evolution. However, no one has yet
found a single piece of evidence that falsifies evolution.
Evolution is not a belief. Evolution is falsifiable.
Some don’t accept or like evolution because the
concept is perceived to have inspired atheistic evil doers in history, for
example Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Well, Hitler was Catholic and
German soldiers were required to have references to God on their uniform.
Several celebrities in history have “used” evolutionary ideas to
promote everything from capitalism to pacifism to anarchy to socialism - that’s
a wide-ranging spectrum. There is obviously NO trend there.
Saying evolutionism inspires evil is as ridiculous as saying vegetarianism
inspires evil.
Evolutionary concepts don’t have to make one
nervous or uneasy. Just relax. Calm down. Appreciate
evolutionary ideas for what they are - explanations for some of the most
wondrously complex systems in the Universe.
Notes
from a 2001 talk by Robert Pennock on creationism
Notes
from a 2000 talk by Massimo Pigliucci on creationism
Some suggested readings:
Benjamini, C. 1999. Religious faith and
the geological sciences. in Evolution, investigating the
evidence. Paleontological Society Special Publication 9: 381-391.
Dodson, P. 1999. Faith of a
paleontologist. in The evolution-creation controversy II:
perspectives on science, religion, and geological education. Paleontological
Society Papers 5: 183-195.
Hyers, C. 1999. Common mistakes in
comparing Biblical and scientific maps of origins. in The
evolution-creation controversy II: perspectives on science, religion, and
geological education. Paleontological Society Papers 5: 197-206.
Scott, E.C. 1999. Problem concepts in
evolution: cause, purpose, design, and chance. in The
evolution-creation controversy II: perspectives on science, religion, and
geological education. Paleontological Society Papers 5: 169-181.
Scott, E.C. 1999. Science, religion, and
evolution. in Evolution, investigating the evidence. Paleontological
Society Special Publication 9: 361-380.
