Comments on a comment
Many thanks to 'kx' for his thoughtful comment on my article. He is one of my friends for whom I have a lot of respect. I should like to take time to comment upon his remarks. If anyone is mistaken, he is most definitely not of the creationist ken. He was just pointing out some shortcomings in my post."Human evolution has always been known to be a theory in crisis within the scientific community itself, largely due to lacking evidence." -kx
Unfortunately, whatever the anti-evolutionists would like you to believe, this is simply not true. There are 2 types of evidence for evolution--direct and indirect. The direct evidence is mostly for microevolution--changes in species over time. Experiments with fruit flies and other animals in the laboratory have proven microevolution. Even creationists themselves admit that microevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution (large scale changes above the taxonomic level of species), however, has evidence that is to be gathered mostly from inference from fossils and DNA. Because we cannot see it actually happening, it is termed indirect evidence. We examine the features of current species, their ancient ancestors, then theorize that if evolution were to hold true, we should find fossils with in-between features. So far the fossil record has been favourable to, if not damningly favourable to, evolution.
"You do say that whatever evidence we lack we will find- as much as a proponent for evolution, I am disturbed about that" -kx
It is faith I suppose, but again we have to be careful not to confuse the 2 different types of faith. This is much less the faith in the sense of "I believe I will go to heaven after I die", but more "I have seen the sun rise for the last 10,000 times, therefore I believe it will rise tomorrow". One thing that makes science different from religion is that it has to be consistent. Evolution has so much indirect and direct evidence that most of the scientific community accepts it as fact. When I said that we will find the evidence we lack today, tomorrow, it was much less a statement of blind faith than a belief that the Universe is consistent. Because evolution is a fact, whatever we dig up has to be consistent with that.
"I think the debate occurs because of a lack of agreement on the types of evidence that we would find or should find and there are worrying reports of selective acceptance of various findings and also the selective dismissal of those that do not fit the current theory" -kx
Precisely. But it is the creationists who keep shifting the goal posts. They ask for the missing link between birds and dinosaurs. We find the fossil of a reptile with feathers. They say, "Ah ha, but what about whales and land mammals?". We find an intermediate whale with clearly antropied limbs. They say, "Ah ha, you said mammals evolved from the sea, where's the evidence?". We find the aforementioned tetrapod. Every missing link that we find the creationists answer with a request for 2 more and so on ad nauseum.
I am hard pressed for any case of "selective dismissal" of evidence though, unless you are referring to the creationists.
"I too am confident that someday science will provide the answers, but perhaps not exactly the evidence we'd all expect or like to see." -kx
That is the beauty of it, no? We might not like nor expect what we find, but we have to deal with it. Richard Dawkins recounted an event during his undergraduate years when the pet theory of one of his professors was blown away by a visiting speaker. The professor got up, walked to the front of the room, shook the speaker's hand and said, "My dear sir, I congragulate you for having proven me wrong the last 15 years!"
"I'm always amazed at the ppl who ask for Intelligent Design to be taught in the classrooms. I wonder how religion can take ID being taught as an alternative theory to their children- that being the very nature of theories being that it is not necessarily true. I think ID should be left to the religious institutions, not schools." -kx
I agree. I have no problem with creation science (ugh!) being taught as theology. Trying to pass it of as a counterpart to evolution is plain silly, not to mention dangerous. Creationists claim they only want "equal time". BULLSHIT. They are not interested in equal time; they want all the time. They want to use intelligent design as a wedge to reintroduce God in the classroom. Ask them to let evolution be taught in churches in the interest of equal time, then watch their reaction.
posted by Au Yong, Haw Yee @ 12:58 PM
2 Comments:
After studying this issue thoroughly and being open to both parties, I have concluded that it is pointless to debate about evolutionism vs creationism. The main reason is that there is not enough evidence for us to prove or disprove both theories
with absolute certainty. Both camps, despite having some of the greatest minds, will inevitably come to two different conclusions from a single piece of evidence.
I do not believe that the evidence presented by evolutionists or creationists is incontrovertible. Indeed, if the evidence was indisputable, there would not be a debate at all. For instance, we know that water comprises two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen; a dusted fingerprint in your room suggests that someone has been in there; or Pi*2*r calculates a circle's circumference. We could repeat such experiments many times and the results would be the same.
Can a scientific or mathematical mind be persuaded, with absolute certainty, that either creationism or evolution is true? Probably not. To test evolution, We do not have the capacity to perform experiments that will take a few million lifetimes to complete. Similarly, to test creationism, unless God reveals Himself to you, you would not be able to reach a definite conclusion either. This is where I take issue with your point that indirect evidence can be "damningly favourable." Evolution and Creationism should not be passed off as facts -- these are only theories about our beginnings.
I believe the basic question for evolutionists is this: Can we absolutely rule out the possibility that a Creator designed the universe? Many famous scientists -- including Descartes, Newton, Kepler, and Planck -- believed in, at least, the possibility of a Creator. If we cannot rule this out, then perhaps it behooves us to open our hearts and minds. Conversely, a similar question can be applied to creationists. Thus We all have the freedom and right to choose what to believe in. This is faith.
By the way, there are several variations of Creationism -- Progressive creationists are somewhere in between; they believe
that God guided the evolutionary process. Thus not all creationists claim that they only want "equal time" or that transitional fossils cannot be found.
My short take on the tetrapod: the Earth teems with undiscovered life -- scientists do not know how many species there are, and new species are being discovered every day. With the natural extinction rate in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if some of
these transitional fossils were merely creatures that disappeared over the natural course of time. Who knows, in due time, we might even find a fossilized mermaid.
Ok. You win. I recant my previous blasphemy. I now believe the Universe and all its wonders were created by God.
Your brother in faith,
Post a Comment
<< Home