Evolution: Can we approach this calmly, please?The evolution vs. creation debate seems to be the least sanely discussed topic available in any public forum. Religionists who claim to follow a self-proclaimed "meek" man turn into hard-headed, dogmatic, "if you don't see it my way you're obviously wrong" activists carrying out a mission with "divinely"-inspired zeal.Meanwhile scientists and their supporters, who claim to be proponents of open-mindedness seem to come to these discussions with the openness of a mental Fort Knox. Indeed, they seem to have adopted an "evolution as proven fact" mindset that smells amazingly similar to the dogmatism of their opponents. In such a climate rational and respectful debate can hardly be anticipated. I fear my own approach will evoke similar responses, possibly from both sides of the debate, because while I accept the Bible account of creation, and believe I have a higher origin and destiny than that of a highly-evolved life form, I also believe that any creationist approach must account for ALL science and not just explain it away. As before, I will take neither a theological (I'm not really qualified) or a scientific (I'm definitely NOT qualified) approach. Instead I will seek to define the points of disagreement in a way that could allow the parties on both sides to agree to a set of facts and understand why each interprets the facts differently. And I will approach some philosophical foundations for my beliefs, including my beliefs about why these two sides seem to have faced off so sharply. When a scientist hears the proposal of a creationist to "tone down" or remove evolutionary references in public school science classes their response is that evolution is a "proven fact" and that it forms the very foundation of the biological sciences. This seems to me to be an overgeneralization. There is an unwillingness to break the theory of evolution down and to rate the parts of the theory for the solidity of the evidence behind them. Adaptation is a very firmly established portion of the theory. It can be observed over a fairly short period of time in rapidly reproducing life forms such as bacteria. (Witness the antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis that have developed.) So also is the scarcity of resources and the survival of the fittest. We see these concepts acted out in the natural world consistently. We OBSERVE them, and this makes them part of accepted scientific "fact." No rational creationist I know of denies these principles. These are the main facets of evolution on which biological science is based. But moving on from there we get into grey territory where creationists sometimes vary in their acceptance. And then we reach the extrapolation of these operational parameters into the distant past, into territory where direct observation is impossible. Where direct observation is not possible, the scientist should admit that the theories developed are not as firm as those based on direct observation. But all too often "evolution" gets bundled into a single "you've got to take it all" package and sold with the fervor due only to its most directly observed elements. Some creationists are likely to take similarly unbending positions on the other side. They may insist that observed processes have never led to the development of a new species. Did Noah take all [I don't know how many] million species of land creatures into the ark with him? I don't think it was big enough! The real issue in the main public debate, what should be taught in public schools, is complicated by the fact that it's essentially impossible to separate creation theories from the religion on which they're based. Since content directly related to a specific religion is inappropriate in public schools, creation content is inappropriate. What most religionists say they want is an allowance for their views in the science content presented in public schools. But they sometimes insist that the two views be presented as alternative explanations for the evidence, and this would be inappropriate, as noted. Because of this inappropriateness, and possibly because of some insecurity over the inappropriately bundled nature of the theories, the proponents of the evolutionary view are generally unwilling to consider any modification of the existing curriculum. This may well explain the recent surge in popularity of private, church-sponsored schools. (I taught in one for seven years.) It's my personal opinion that parents who want creation content taught to their children should take this approach. And I don't believe taxpayers should be asked to foot the bill -- but that's another topic for a different forum. All that aside however, I write this to explain why I find the theory of evolution lacking in explaining the existence of life. I will not attack the theory's implausibility, or the mind bogglingly large mathematical odds against it. Instead I look to philosophical grounds and find the theory unsatisfying. To begin, however, I'll explain what I believe are the philosophical grounds most scientists have for rejecting creationism. If a supreme being made us, they reason, then that being has ultimate control. By rights it can demand impossible things of us, and wipe us out if we fail (or, worse yet, condemn us to eternal and unbearable torment without the release of death). It can do all these things because it made us as its playthings. Even I find that thought distasteful. Cogito, ergo sum. I have the ability to think my own thoughts, so I must be meant to think them, to think outside any limits imposed by anyone. The type of supreme being just described is unthinkable, and does not deserve any allegiance whatsoever from beings created with the ability of self-awareness. Even if it should result in suffering eternal and unspeakable torment, I will reject this being and any claim it might have on my life so long as it gives me the ability to do so. The torment, should it result, is not my responsibility, but the responsibility of the capricious and ultimately evil supreme being who treated me like this. And now you're asking me to admit, against the evidence I see around me, that this being made me? Just where on this insignificant speck of a planet do you think you got that kind of power over me? Looking at it that way, no wonder the secular person finds it hard to discuss the evolution - creation controversy sanely! (I'm getting a little riled up myself!) But let's ignore the picture of a supreme being served up by religious organizations that long ago discovered they propsered more when they served the needs of society for better control of the population. (Another topic I might someday discuss on this forum.) Instead of looking at what these two theories say about a supreme being (or lack of same) let's look at what they say about humanity. I point out here that the scientist does not believe in evolution the way I believe in creation. The scientist (unless she's a "mad" scientist) would get rather upset if I were to suggest that since evolution got us this far, it would be best to allow it to continue to improve the world. Many evolutionists are also active in movements to save various species around the world. Isn't the extinction of one species to make room for one better adapted the way evolution works? And if that doesn't bother you, try this. Maybe it's time we reactivated the evolutionary development of the human race. About a hundred years ago we invented a new and more convenient mode of transportation. It's power made it attractive to the ever insecure male, and also made it dangerous. So, the human better adapted to life in this new environment is one that does not mask its insecurities with displays of power and "prowess" in operating these new contraptions. Evolution has, however, handed us the ideal tool for weeding out the unsuited. While humans are still at adolescent stages we make these vehicles and certain intoxicating substances freely available to them. Those adolescents foolish enough to mix them will probably kill themselves before they have an opportunity to reproduce. The more reserved, self-assured male who does not need a display of power or the escape of intoxication will live to pass his genes on to the next generation. Not a good idea, you say? I don't make the above proposal seriously. I mention it to make a point. Most evolutionists reject evolution as a means for continued improvement of our species. And there are those, as already noted, who reject it as a means for continuing improvement of life on the planet. I suppose they believe evolution's job was to bring life to the point of intelligence and self-awareness. After that evolution takes a back seat and allows intelligence (if there really is any out there) to see to life's further destiny. Another curiosity of life is the tendencies of those who claim to believe in creation to promote social policies more in line with evolutionary thinking, while those who believe in evolution generally promote social policies more closely allied with creationsim. Let me explain. Evolution is, ultimately, an expression of competition. There's not enough to go around, so those better able to get what they need get it (and maybe more than they need) while those less able go without. Are not political conservatives often allied with religion, wanting to give religious schools the benefit of tax money through tuition vouchers? And are not conservatives the first to cry out against the suggestion that government limit the power of individiuals and corporations to make huge profits (such as energy companies over the California energy crisis)? I believe in a personal supreme being (God) who made me to have freedom of choice and thought. This God knew such freedom could have very negative consequences for the cooperative, scarcity-free nature of the universe he was making. (I use the male pronoun for sake of a more personal tone and out of respect for tradition. I do not believe the one who made humans male and female more closely resembled one gender than another.) So when he created, he also developed a plan for dealing with incompatible thought and action. (I have much more on this concept in other papers on this site.) Someone, somewhere, balked at the selfless cooperation that made the universe free of scarcity and full of harmony. Perhaps inflated with a sense of his own power and importance, this being wanted to look out for itself and let everyone else do the same. Perhaps an innocuous enough thought to start with. But to keep on with it when God had made clear the results of such a course was to step outside of God's protection, forcing him to bring his plan into action. "Lucky" us -- we got stuck living out this renegade's plan. Once he got into a competitive frame of mind he got to thinking that competition could explain the very origin of life. He put it to work here. Hence all the evidence for adaptive development. It's been happening here for a very long time. But God made us for his cooperative, selfless plan, and those more oriented toward free thinking are occasionally able to react to these built-in tendencies and favor social policies that counter the competitive, evolutionary, and ultimately violent tendencies of society. Many religionists, caught up in a philosophy that rejects free thought in favor of social control, lean toward competitve social structures. These structures usually aid the control of individuals, an all-important goal for those with a social control orientation. So the creationists cling to evolutionary social policies, while the evolutionists hanker for more open, creationistic social policies. There are many exceptions to this generalization (possibly even an overgeneralization) of course. I like to think I'm one. First off, I reject a God who denies his creation the freedom of choice he made possible for them. I reject a God who would torment his creatures for eternity as punishment for a few decades of rebellion. But I do not accept religion's view of God and therefore don't feel the need to reject any supreme being. So I can believe in a God who created me without feeling limited by his control of me. I can then hold to the destiny of eternal life filled with increasing challenges for my developing intellect, not the bland "life is a bed of clouds" heaven of popular myth, or the handful of decades to make your mark on the universe granted by the belief of the evolutionist. I am not merely the best evolution could develop over a long period of time. I am the result of intelligent design. And if intelligent design was the origin of life, intelligent design is the only hope for its continuing prosperity. The Christian is supposed to believe that the God of creation is the God of re-creation. I accept that concept fully. The God who made this earth is, ultimately, the only one who can save it! Now back to the issue of what to teach in school. I've already agreed that the inherently religious content of creationism does not belong in public school. But I contend that when the theory of evolution is streched to answer the ultimately unanswerable question of the origin of life it has crossed the boundary from science into religion. Just because a belief system's only supreme being is humankind does not take it out of the realm of religion. So it, too, is inappropriate in a public school. Here's my proposal. Remove from the public school curriculum only those elements of the theory of evolution that seek to explain the origin of life and the universe. Be explicit and honest about the level of certainty of each element of the theory. This will allow creationist and evolutionist parents to give their explanations for the unknowable. If certain creationists find this approach unacceptable, let them find the money to send their children to a private school. Just don't ask for public money! BACK HOME |