Thinking about the Evolution/Creationism debate, I first think to myself that there is no reason for this uproar and no reason to be so angry at the opposing side. I say this because both Evolution and Intelligent Design are theories about the beginning of life on our planet without much scientific basis for either.
Darwinism began through the method of observation and hypothesis and then became something much more when others took his work and proclaimed it as fact. An important point to note is that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species does not use the word evolution to describe what he observed in the modification of species. Any uses of the word evolution and talk of monkeys come from his and other’s hypotheses. Man has so far only “observed” natural selection and the modification of species, not the change of one species to another. An observation of this kind could provide the needed scientific proof to this theory.
The science of Creationism began as a response to the spread of Evolution. The church found a new obstacle in sharing the gospel and story of creation: scientific “fact” held by the opposing theory of Earth’s beginning. Intelligent Design scientists take, for the most part, the beliefs of Evolutionary theory and redirect them and hypothesize about what else “could have” happened. Most theories rely heavily on Noah’s flood to explain such phenomena as the fossil record, but there is no absolute certainty that the flood ever happened.
In short, both theories are so heavily reliant on faith (of a sort) and have such little chance of being proven that one side will never be able to persuade the other and a pointless debate will continue. What I do think is important, however, is the rest of the debate: not what happened in the past, but what will happen now and in the future. The purpose of a theory of life is to tell us what we are to do with our lives and what comes after death or the end of the world. I would like to leave an open ended question: which theory of life gives you hope for your future?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
two quick notes:
Evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of biology. The definition of "theory" in science is different than the colloqial usage of the term "theory". In scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. "A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."
Thus, evolutionary theory should be considered in the same way we generally consider the theory of relavatity, etc.
Theory does not mean "law" -- laws of gravity for example -- thus there are some areas where the knowledge of the theory may be incomplete, but it does not mean that the overall premise is "debunked".
Is global warming happening? Most scientists say yes. A couple say no or say "not as bad" as others make it out to be. Does this mean that we reject the idea of global warming because there isn't complete agreement?
There are religious people who believe the idea that the earth does not rotate around the sun because it goes against scripture -- they also "use" "science" to "support" their claim that the earth does not move; they ultimately rely on faith for their reasoning -- should we conclude that we should debate this issue in science class? (http://www.fixedearth.com/) especially since some very respected people in public office hold this view http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012504.php
Lastly, creationism is not a science. Likewise ID is not a science because ultimately it cannot be put through the basic tenets of the scientiffic method
This is just for fun -- I remember it from the Kansas hearings and thought it might add to further debate/discussion
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Post a Comment