|
Origin of Life The three main ideas explaining the origin of life are: A. The Theory of Evolution :New species came into being over millions of years. :Natural processes alone are sufficient to account for this. B. Guided Evolution :New species came into being over millions of years. :Natural processes alone cannot account for this. C. (Other forms of) Creationism :God created all forms of life around 6,000 years ago, pretty much as they are today. The accepted scientific view is the theory of evolution, i.e., the neo-Darwinian synthesis. (Only a tiny minority of scientists depart from the accepted view.) Religions which adhere to (sudden) creationism reject evolution entirely, although some denominations of Christianity recognize that some sort of evolution took place. See [Christian views on evolution]?. Recently, intelligent design has been formulated in an attempt to bridge the gap between faith and science. Major unclear terms Dialogue between evolutionists and creationists is hampered by unclear definitions of terms. This article is an attempt to clear up the confusion by defining each term clearly. The terms "evolution" and "creationism" are problematic, as the meaning of each term tends to shift, even within discussions on the origin of life. "Evolution" often means specifically [the theory of evolution]?, i.e, the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Yet it can also mean any theory of evolution, scientific or otherwise. "Creationism" usually amounts to (sudden) Creationism. This narrowing of the term usually excludes intelligent design. In scientific writing, "the theory of evolution" is the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which enjoys nearly unanimous acceptance among scientists, particularly biologists. Sometimes, "a theory of evolution" or "theories of evolution" are used to describe alternate ideas. Often the word "evolution" is used to indicate "the theory of evolution" in particular, probably because use of the longer form is cumbersome. (This works best when the context does not shift, as in a scientific article.) When comparing the findings of science against other ideas, however, confusion can arise. This is especially so because "creationism" itself has both general and specific meanings. Sometimes science writers mean "creationism" in general, as in the following. ::Because creationism resorts to supernatural causes, it is not scientific. The next sentence could be taken either way. If the writer is not aware of intelligent design, they could mean creationism in general. If they know about intelligent design, they presumably mean sudden creationism. (Some writers have told me they were unaware of different currents of thought within creationism.) ::Creationism does not accept the fossil record. Proponents of creationism make a similar mistake, lumping all theories of evolution together. This is especially prevalent among religious groups which place a low priority on semantic precision. ::Preacher Jones says, "Evolution should not be taught in schools." It's not clear whether the Jones wants to ban every view of evolution or just the neo-Darwinian synthesis. ::With a thunderous cry, he declared, "Only creationism should be taught to our nation's children!" Jones is still not being clear. We might guess he means (sudden) creationism in particular, in which case he apparently doesn't mind violating the establisment clause of the First Amendment. But he might mean creationism in general. Let's have Brother Smith, an attorney, ascend to the pulpit. ::Smith thanked Preacher Jones for his inspiring sermon and went on to explain, "If a child in a goverment-controlled school is graded down or excluded from classroom dicussion, solely because he voices disagreement with the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the school would be violating the First Amendment, specifically the clauses on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. ::"School children should not be indoctrinated with religious or anti-religious ideas. The former would be the establishment of religion, while the latter violates the freedom of religion. Parents and ministers, however, surely have the role of passing on their faith. Let us educate our children at home and in church to cherish God as the Creator of all living things. Amen." Here, the attorney's dry but detailed explanation can be seen to dovetail with the preacher's remarks above. Confusion can easily arise when context does not clearly indicate whether evolution or creationism are being used in their specific or general meanings. Evolution dominates American science and education, although the general public rejects the Darwinian theory of evolution nearly 10 to 1. Nine out of 20 Americans deny that any evolution has taken place at all. About half agree that evolution took place, with 80% of this group believing it was guided by God. Only 9% of Americans believe that evolution took place without God's guidance. Misunderstandings abound among adherents of the various schools of thought. This article will try to straighten out the confusion, without advocating any one point of view. One ambiguous term is "evolution". In discussion, it often refers specifially to the neo-Darwinian synthesis, as in the following sentences. ::(1) According to the theory of evolution, all forms of life have a common ancestor. ::(2) The theory of evolution maintains that supernatural intervention is unnecessary to explain speciation. It can often be hard to distinguish between "evolution" (in general) and "the theory of evolution" (in particular) as in the following sentences: ::(3) I believe in evolution, but I think eyes are too complex to have developed without God's intervention. Sentence 3 apparently means that the speaker believes in guided evolution. ::(4) I don't think evolution should be taught in the schools. Sentence 4 is unclear: it could refer to evolution in general (guided or not), or to the neo-Darwinian synthesis ("the theory of evolution") in particular. Since "evolution" does double duty as (a) the general term for any of the theories of evolution as well as (b) a quick way for many writers to denote the Theory of Evolution itself, confuse can easily arise. Writers who wish to be clear will take pains to prevent this sort of confusion. Similar confusion arises of the term "theory of evolution". I daresay most of time this term is used, it refers to the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Context is usually sufficient to distinguish between general and specific usage, but writers should still remain vigilant. Scientists tend to lump Intelligent Design (ID) together with the rest of Creationism, often being unaware that ID accepts the fossil record and natural selection. Some scientists emphasisize evolution's compatibility with religion, particularly the doctrine that God created the cosmos, the earth and the first forms of life. They cite offical church positions agreeing with some aspects of evolution, but it remains unclear whether these positions agree that God played no further part in the development of life once it first began (Deism). Other difficult terms A further source of difficulty for those who wish to examine the various positions objectively is the confusing arising from the terms "scientific creationism" and "creation science". The term "intelligent design" was introduced recently in part for the sake of having an unambiguous term with which to carry on discussion. ID is the wing of Creationism that: 1. Agrees with biologists that the fossil record is authentic. 2. Agrees with geologists as to the age of the earth. It will make debate much clearer if debaters use terms which all sides can understand clearly, although it's unlikely that clarity alone will prompt anyone to change sides. /Talk? |
|
|
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)