Aforementioned paper: Evolution and Creationism.

The grading is long past, so posting it here is no longer questionable.
Thanks to all who gave me suggestions and whatnot in reply to my
questions.

I removed the footnotes in this version for ease in reading; I'm
willing to dig through the original and provide one if someone wants
it. Enjoy!

Introduction

The conflict between science and creationism in this country is not
dead. Far from it. A 2005 poll by the Pew Research Center found that
(with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points) 64% of American
adults were open to the idea of creationism and evolution being taught
side by side in public schools.

Scientists have rarely been the vocal half of this controversy. As a
group, we have often assumed that because evolution is so universally
accepted in the scientific community, so utterly a part of the fabric
of science, and so thoroughly supported by the evidence, attacks on it
from outside the scientific community are insignificant and can be
ignored, comparable to attacks on heliocentrism. There is even a
certain mentality that rising to debate with Creationists is harmful to
science, for it lends validity to their claims.

This 'the truth will speak for itself' attitude is entirely
understandable, but no longer tenable. Challenges to evolution are
popping up in school boards across the nation, and a public which has
heard far more from the creationists than from the scientists is
willing to accept them. It is important for the future of our
educational system that scientists, even reluctantly, begin to be more
vocal about their knowledge.

I felt personally motivated to write this paper for a variety of
reasons. I am currently employed as a high school biology teacher, and
I am also a scion of the public school system. For these reasons, I
care passionately about the quality of the curriculum presented in our
nation's schools. As a budding evolutionary biologist, I feel that it
is my particular responsibility- even my duty- to understand this
controversy as best I can, and, in particular, to understand which
aspects of evolution are most commonly misunderstood by the public in
order that I may better serve as an educator.

I am also driven by my love of science. When I decided to focus my
studies here at Marlboro on evolution, it was largely because of the
pure delight I take in the overarching theory of biological evolution.
Simply put, it is the most beautifully elegant and fascinating theory I
have ever met, and I am forever eager to unravel more of it. I am
equally eager to take any chance to incite this intellectual passion in
others.

Finally, I believe that I have a rather peculiar perspective to lend to
this discussion. All too often, the dialogue between biologists and
creationists becomes couched in terms of Us and Them- Those Atheistic
Evolutionists vs. Those Crazy Bible Thumpers. This is not a helpful
paradigm, and I am firmly in neither camp. Like all but a minute
fraction of biologists (less than 1%, according to a Gallup poll), I am
in entire agreement with the theory of evolution, in exactly the same
way as I am in agreement with chromosome theory, with genetic theory,
with cell theory, with molecular theory, with atomic theory, with most
if not all of the theories which make up the backbone of my discipline.
At the same time, I am also deeply theistic. I believe that the fact of
my faith's existence allows me to understand the Other Side of this
debate more fully and with more sensitivity than many others who write
on this topic.

While examining the dimensions of this controversy, I found that
conflicts between biologists and creationists generally fell into two
categories. First are the problems of basic worldview. The average
scientist and the average creationist have dramatically different ways
of understanding at the world. Many conversations between the two
groups, despite what they may appear to be about on the surface, are
actually an argument over these different ways of knowing. Without
understanding these conflicts, we have no hope of a rational dialogue.

Secondarily, there are the conflicts caused by many creationists'
basic misunderstandings of what evolution actually is. Superficially,
these problems are much easier to address, but giving such an education
is often dramatically compounded by the more intrinsic problems of
differing worldview. I hope that this paper can at least brush the
surface of both of these sets of problems.



Definitions

A discussion like this one necessarily uses a vocabulary rather beyond
the normal conversational range. At points it is necessary to use
scientific jargon, and at other points it is necessary to use words
which are heavily laden with connotation. Throughout this paper I have
both italicized the first use of and then defined all scientific terms
or jargon that might not be immediately familiar to someone outside the
discipline. When I've been forced to use words with murky
definitions, or definitions laden by connotation, I have either
explicitly defined them, replaced them with another word, or both.

The word 'creationist' can be used to describe a wide range of
world views. For the same of clarity and understanding, I will describe
a number of key points along the spectrum, then specify what I
personally mean when I use the word 'creationist'. Unless
explicitly noted, the terminology I use here will be the terminology
commonly used in philosophical, theological, and scientific circles to
discuss this range of belief. In several cases, I invent terms to
describe subsets of belief. In those instances, I will clearly state
that I have created the term.

"Special Creationism" refers to the smaller subset of belief within
creationism that the world and all life was created in seven days per a
very literal reading of Genesis. Within this subset, there is also a
range of belief along a spectrum of more or less radical readings of
the Bible.

Most radical of all the Special Creationists are the Flat Earth
Creationists and the Geocentrists. In addition to their more peculiar
beliefs, they believe the Earth was created in six days per a strictly
literal reading of Genesis. Both of these beliefs are a dying breed,
and constitute a very small subset of general Creationist belief.

Young Earth Creationists are much more in the mainstream of
Creationism. Young Earth Creationists accept both the spherical shape
of the earth and heliocentrism, but cleave to a literal reading of
Genesis and therefore believe that the earth is not more than ten
thousand years old and was created in more or less its present form
during a six-day creation. Since the evidence for the ancient age of
the earth comes from the roots of multiple major branches of science,
Young Earth Creationism necessarily rejects more or less all of modern
physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, and anthropology.

There is a relatively sharp boundary between the three groups of
creationists that comprise the belief of Special Creation and the next
belief on the spectrum, Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth creationists
accept the idea of an ancient earth but still believe that God created
the earth per a more or less literal reading of Genesis. There are
various theological arguments to reconcile a literal reading with the
age of the earth.

Gap creationists posit a (very) large temporal gap between various
verses of Genesis. Usually the gap is placed between verses 1 and 2 of
Genesis. Day-age creationism argues that the "days" specified in
Genesis need not be literal, 24-hour days, but rather time periods of
indeterminate length.

Progressive creationism is a rather vague term used to describe a
belief that God created organisms progressively, moving from simple to
more complex. There is a fair range of belief within Progressive
Creationism.

A belief common to all three types of Old Earth creationists is that
God created organisms in immutable "kinds" that are genetically
limited and thus cannot change from one into another, although
adaptation within "kinds" is usually accepted. "Kind" is rarely
defined, however, in common use it generally refers to a taxonomic
level higher than species but lower than kingdom.

Intelligent Design (ID) creationism is a new and interesting form of
creationism which has adherents from both sides of the Old Earth/Young
Earth divide. It does not specify a way in which the earth was created,
but rather is a specific argument against evolution. ID creationism
argues that there are some structures in nature too complex to have
possibly evolved on their own. It is an intellectual descendant of
William Paley's "argument from design" during the 19th century.
Paley argued that if one is walking over the moor and finds a watch
lying there, the complexity of the watch immediately implies a
watchmaker. ID creationism uses biochemical examples rather than
Paley's classic example of the eye, but the argument is intrinsically
similar.

There is also a relatively sharp divide between the Old Earth
Creationists and a third subset, which I will refer to as the
Synthesists. I am not aware of anyone else who uses this nomenclature;
it is my invention. In contrast to Old Earth Creationists, Synthesists,
both Evolutionary Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists, accept most
of modern biology.

Evolutionary Creationism refers to a belief in which God the Creator
uses evolutionary mechanisms to bring about God's plan. Evolutionary
Creationists generally see God as having an active hand in all parts of
the evolutionary process.

Theistic Evolutionists also see God working through evolution, but are
more likely to see God as creating via the laws of nature, not
necessarily taking an active part in each moment of the process.

Evolutionary Creationism and Theistic Evolution are very close together
on the spectrum of belief. Some version of Synthesis is the mainline
theological view taught at most Protestant seminaries, and is also the
official view of the Catholic Church.

Finally, we reach two purely naturalistic views of creation. Agnostic
evolution believes that evolution proceeded more or less as modern
science describes, and suspends judgment on the presence or absence of
God in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolution has the same
belief about the evolutionary process, but actively denies the
possibility of the existence of God in evolution.

It is often assumed by creationists of a more conservative stripe that
Atheistic Evolution is the only alternative to a literal reading of
Genesis. As evident from the spectrum of beliefs I have just described,
this is clearly not the case.

Note that it is quite possible for a person's views to not fall into
any of the 'camps' that I have just described. I have merely
outlined some major patterns of thought on the issue.

Thus far I have been using the words 'creationism' and
'creationist' without strictly defining them. However, those words
have been used so many times in so many different (and conflicting)
ways that a definition is necessary. In scientific circles, the word
'creationist' is usually used (often in an exasperated tone of
voice which I am fully guilty of using) to describe only those people
whose beliefs come into direct contradiction with scientific thought.

In religious circles, however, the word 'creationist' is often used
much more broadly, to describe anyone who believes a deity had (or has)
some role in the creation (and ongoing evolution) of life in the world.
By this definition, many evolutionary biologists who use the
exasperated-voice definition of 'creationist' would themselves be
defined as creationists. Kenneth Miller is a prominent example of this
amusing paradox. He is both one of evolution's most outspoken and
articulate defenders (a star witness in the recent Kansas school board
trial and the author of several books on the topic), and a devout Roman
Catholic. Another good example is Theodosius Dobzhansky, an eminent
evolutionary biologist and an Orthodox Christian.

This paper is concerned only with a particular subset of belief that
meets the following criteria:

1.) A supernatural entity is necessary for their view of the creation
of the earth and the development of life on earth to make sense.

and

2.) Their beliefs are in direct contradiction to standard scientific
thought regarding evolution.

This subset of thought is what I personally think of when I refer
casually to 'Creationism,' but in order to make myself entirely
clear, for the duration of this paper I will refer to this subset as
Obligate Creationism. Although the analogy is not perfect, in biology
an obligate aerobe is an organism that can only survive in the presence
of oxygen. Similarly, an Obligate Creationist's beliefs about the
creation and/or evolution of life can only survive in the presence of
God (this does not work perfectly because while the word 'aerobe'
denotes the use of oxygen, the word 'creationist' only connotes the
use of God). Obligate Creationists are the group this paper is
concerned with, because among all creationists, of any definition, they
are the group which consistently wishes to have their views taught in
public schools alongside or instead of evolution.

Along with 'Synthesism,' Obligate Creationism is a term of my own
invention. I hope that by using a new and relatively connotation-free
word, I can avoid giving offense to any group, and also avoid any undue
confusion.

Evolution is another word which has multiple usages that can be
confusing. Often the most critical problem is the distinction between
'the fact of evolution' and 'the theory of evolution.' There is
no controversy in the scientific community as to whether evolution
occurred. As I will elaborate on later, nothing in science is
considered immutable, but scientists' knowledge that evolution has
occurred is about as likely to be overturned as our knowledge that the
earth goes around the sun. Thus scientists will often use the word
'evolution' in referring to this fact. The theory of evolution is
held distinct from this fact. The theory of evolution is the mass of
hypotheses, laws, and smaller theories that make up the body of our
knowledge of how evolution works. I will try to make it clear from
context in which sense I am referring to evolution.

This paper is divided into two sections. In the first, I try to address
some of the philosophical conflicts between biologists and Obligate
Creationists. This section will be mainly focused on the philosophy of
science. In the second, I address what seem to be the most commonly
held misunderstandings- both among Obligate Creationists and among the
public at large- about the nature of evolutionary theory itself.



Part One: Defining Science

There are a number of rock-bottom basics of science which make it
science and cannot be done away with. First and foremost, I must make
it clear that saying that something is true and saying that it is
science are two entirely different things. Saying that a bit of
knowledge is or is not scientific is not necessarily a statement on the
truth of that bit of knowledge- it is a statement on how that bit of
knowledge came to be known.

There are many ways of knowing. One can know something intuitively,
emotionally, intellectually, or scientifically. One can know something
through faith, through logic, or through reason. One can know something
in multiple different ways simultaneously. For instance, if I pick up
my laptop and then drop it, I know that it will fall. I know this
logically, from experience; every time in my entire life that I have
dropped something (or watched something be dropped) it has fallen. I
also understand this intellectually; I can give an elementary
description of the theory of gravity, and use it to explain why my
laptop will fall. One can know things to be true for less rational
reasons, as well. I know that my little sisters love me, even if we
squabbled yesterday. I don't know this through logic; I know this
intuitively and emotionally. One way of knowing is not necessarily
better than another. Which is more true- the fact of gravity or the
fact that my sisters love me?

Nevertheless, some ways of knowing are more (or less) useful in given
contexts. It's not terribly useful to attempt to apply logical ways
of knowing when you are trying create a work of art. It is equally as
useless to use emotional or intuitive ways of knowing when trying to
discern why objects fall to the ground. Science is concerned entirely
with one particular way of knowing things (it is, in fact, a way of
knowing in and of itself), for one particular purpose. Science uses a
particular combination of observation, experimentation, and logic in
order to create useful theories about the way the world operates.

In the vernacular, "theory" generally refers to a guess, or a vague
idea about something. "Theory" in science has a distinctly
different definition.

Many people view science as an attempt to collect concrete facts about
the natural world, rather like staring at the sky and trying to count
the stars. This is not so, although part of science certainly does
collect facts. However, the truly exciting part of science is finding
different and better ways to look at the sky. A theory (like a
telescope) is a tool that helps us do this better. Copernicus, Newton,
and Darwin are all examples of people who have managed to design
particularly useful telescopes.

No theory (or new design of telescope) will become part of science's
core knowledge unless it meets a number of basic requirements. First of
all, it must be well-thought out, rational, and have a substantial
amount of empirical observation behind it. When Darwin created his
theory of evolution and natural selection, he was not pulling it out of
the air. Darwin (originally an Old Earth creationist) had spent years
traveling the world on a ship (The Beagle) and collecting vast numbers
of specimens from the world over (he was an avid amateur natural
historian). He noticed striking patterns in the distribution and
morphology of the animals and plants he collected, and when he returned
to England he spent many more years piecing together what he thought
this evidence was telling him. Once he arrived at a tentative
conclusion, he spent many more years collecting all the supporting
evidence he could. Only then did he publish his book, The Origin of
Species.

The second basic requirement of any decent theory is that it be
exhaustively verified. As soon as Origin was published, scientists the
world over leapt upon it and began exploring its implications to see if
it was backed up by the evidence. Again and again, it was. There are
multiple ways to test a claim in science. There is the direct
experiment: in order to test the affect of one element on a system
(say, the action of an antibiotic against strep throat), all other
elements are held constant while the element in question is varied. In
our antibiotic example, perhaps identical petri dishes with identical
bacterial cultures would be placed under identical conditions, with the
sole exception that one would be treated with the antibiotic and the
other would not. This is perhaps the most familiar version of
scientific experimentation, but it is certainly not the only one.

Indirect experimentation is another highly useful method of testing a
theory. Any coherent theory makes predictions about the way the world
works. If it is a good theory, when those predictions are tested, they
are found to be true. If it is a weak theory, the predictions will be
tested and found false. Evolution makes clear predictions about diverse
aspects of life, from how a fetus will develop to where in the fossil
record a particular organism will be found to the exact sequence of DNA
in a given organism to how rapidly an insect will develop resistance to
a given insecticide. We then observe how an embryo of a given species
develops or examine the fossil record or measure the speed of the
evolution of insecticide resistance. If the findings coincide with the
predictions made by evolution, then this is compelling evidence in the
theory's favor. This is the essence of indirect experimentation.

It is important to realize that the construction of a solid theory
involves both the examination of evidence already present and the
prediction of new evidence not yet found. Therefore a solid theory is
based upon prior knowledge, but is not a trivial description of that
knowledge. It can be tested and falsified based upon the predictions
that it makes. The importance of the predictive power of a theory in
determining its strength can hardly be overstated. The reason we create
theories is to use their predictive power in this way. Without this
basic ability, a theory becomes worthless.

Falsifiability is another basic characteristic of a scientific theory.
If a theory can never be proven wrong, this is not evidence of its
scientific strength- this is evidence that it is not science. For
example, say I believe that God created the earth and all life five
minutes ago, but created it in such a way that the earth appears to be
unbelievably ancient and that life appears to have evolved and human
civilization appears to have existed for thousands of years. There is
no possible way to disprove this belief. Any evidence offered to the
contrary- my memory of six minutes ago, for instance- can merely be
explained by "God did it." There is no conceivable test that would
ever disprove this belief. Science's lack of ability to disprove this
belief does not mean that such a belief is true- it merely means that
such a belief is not science.

Hand in hand with the necessity of a theory being capable of being
disproven is the willingness of the believers in a theory to have it be
disproven. Theories in science are constantly being amended, tidied,
clarified, amended, altered, and sometimes entirely overturned. Science
does not collect dogma; science is a constant search for a better
explanation. Scientists individually and the scientific community as a
whole desire to overturn currently accepted theories. It is generally
understood in the sciences that the understanding we currently have is
not the perfect explanation. Science does not deal in ontological,
everlasting truths. When something is stated as true in science, it
means "This is the best possible explanation we have right now. A
better one may come along; in fact, it likely will. But we're going
to go with this as far as it will take us."

Stating something as 'true' in science does not mean that
scientists- or other people- do or should believe that the explanation
given is absolute, ontological truth.

In order to overturn an accepted theory, a new theory must more
successfully explain more evidence than did the old theory, but this is
a disruption that science by nature embraces rather than rejects.
Overturning an accepted paradigm is one of the fastest ways to
skyrocket a scientific career into history. In fact, this is how
evolution came to be accepted in the first place.

Science's need to be able to prove or disprove a given proposition
gives it certain limitations or constraints. The most essential of
these constraints is the necessity of a methodological materialism. A
methodological materialism limits science to the study of natural
phenomena, and limits science's explanations for natural phenomena to
the purely natural. It is essential to recognize that a methodological
materialism is entirely distinct from an ontological materialism.
Ontological materialism makes the philosophical statement that the
natural, material world is all that exists. Regardless of how science
functions as a way of knowing, science does not make this statement
about the world. Such philosophical statements are beyond the bounds of
science. However, within science, a methodological materialism is
necessary.

Why is this necessary? To reiterate, a theory in science must be
disprovable. Yet by its very nature, the supernatural cannot be
contained, quantified, or studied. Like the example of God creating the
world five minutes ago, there is no possible way to disprove the belief
that, for example, ghosts exist, or that evil spirits create illness.
Using such supernatural entities as a way to explain natural phenomena
is entirely outside the scope of science. As soon as a supernatural
being is brought into the picture, scientific discourse stops.
Supernatural explanations strip science of its ability to explain.
Phillip Johnson offers a thoughtful although flawed criticism of
science for its limitation to a methodological materialism (my response
to his argument is in an Appendix, not included here. Comment if you
want to see it).

Part of disprovability is the willingness of the adherents of any
belief to have it be disproved. If, time and again, evidence is found
against a theory and predictions made by a theory are proven false- but
the adherents to a theory still cling to it, at that point the
adherents' belief in that theory passes out of the realm of science
and into the realm of faith.

With the definition of science laid out, it becomes clear why Obligate
Creationism can in no way be considered science.

1.) A scientific theory must have a large body of evidence behind it.
In order to overturn evolution as the currently accepted scientific
theory, any sort of creationism, Obligate or otherwise, must explain
more evidence more successfully than does evolution. No current
creationist beliefs come close to this.

2.) Obligate Creationism, by its very definition, cannot embrace the
methodological materialism which is essential to the scientific method.
In Obligate Creationism, God is integral to the entire system of
belief; in science, God cannot be considered as a cause.

3.) Obligate Creationism is not disprovable. There is no conceivable
argument or piece of evidence that could refute such a belief. Any
conceivable argument or bit of evidence is explained by the simple
phrase 'God made it that way.' This is entirely internally
logically consistent, but it is not acceptable in science.

4.) For the most part, adherents to Obligate Creationism are not
willing to have their beliefs disproven. Most Obligate Creationists are
very honest about the fact that no evidence of science could possibly
change their beliefs, as they are (usually) rooted in religious faith
in Genesis as the literal word of God. Because science is, by
definition, a way of knowing rooted in empirical evidence, it is
impossible for any belief to be science if it is not rooted in
empirical evidence.

Again, I would like to emphasize that a belief not being scientific
does not make it untrue- and no matter how true a belief is, if it is
not arrived at via a methodological materialism, if it is not
disprovable, it is not science.

For example, I believe that rape is inherently wrong. I imagine that
this is a belief held to be true by the vast majority of the
population. However, this is not a scientific belief. Science cannot
prove or disprove the morality of rape. Even if science did,
hypothetically, attempt this, my views on the subject would not be
changed one way or the other. This does not make my belief untrue or
invalid. It simply means that my belief is philosophical, not
scientific. The same thing is true for my belief in God. No matter how
true it may (or may not) ontologically be that God exists, belief in
God is not and cannot be science.



Part Two: Discussing Evolution

Here I would like to address some of the most common misconceptions
that people- Obligate Creationists, other creationists, and the public
at large- seem to have about evolution, as I believe that much
confusion springs from these. It is not my purpose here to gather the
evidence for evolution, nor to defend evolution from OC criticisms (as
interesting as these sometimes are). Both of these challenges are far,
far beyond the scope of this paper, and have been addressed competently
elsewhere.

1.) Evolution is just random chance. I don't understand how all the
amazing diversity of life could arise from random chance.

Evolution not a random process. There is certainly a random element to
evolution, but at its heart, evolution is driven by entirely non-random
forces. First I need to define a few terms.

A gene is a section of DNA which encodes for a given trait. For any one
of these traits, there are several different versions of the gene for
it. These variations are called alleles. The genotype of an organism is
its genetic sequence- the list of which alleles the organism carries
for each trait. For every trait, we carry two alleles- one inherited
from our mother, and the other from our father. The phenotype of an
organism is how that genotype, together with environmental influences,
is expressed.

One of the most important aspects of randomness in evolution is
mutation in the genotype. Our body's replication of DNA is imperfect;
inevitably, constantly, and randomly, mistakes arise. These mutations
are the raw material of the wide variety of phenotypes we can observe
in all organisms.

Not all phenotypes are created equal. Each phenotype interacts with the
environment in a slightly different way. Under environmental pressure,
some phenotypes will inevitably produce more offspring than others.
There are a variety of reasons for this; some individuals may die
earlier than others, some may not be as attractive to members of the
opposite sex, some may be less fertile, and the list goes on. Generally
the individuals who live and produce many offspring are the individuals
which are most suited to their environment. Over time their alleles
become dominant in the population; evolution has occurred.

A simple example of this is the evolution of insects to resist
insecticides. The initial insect population is easily killed by the
chemical. However, a few lucky individuals are able to resist the
toxicant, and survive. Because these individuals leave more offspring,
over a few generations the resistance alleles will become much more
prevalent in the population. This is evolution by natural selection,
and it is far from random.

2.) Adaptation makes sense, but I don't see how species can turn into
other species.

There are a number of basic confusions underlying this statement, the
most intrinsic of which are the very different ways that biologists and
the public consider the word 'species.'

In biology, a species is a group of organisms that does or could
interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If a previously
undifferentiated group of organisms splits in two and achieves
reproductive isolation- the loss of the ability to mate and produce
viable offspring- speciation (according to the standard biological
definition) has occurred.

Therefore, although Dachshunds and Great Danes are vastly different in
appearance (and any number of other traits), they could theoretically
interbreed, and thus are the same species. At the same time, while two
different types of fruit fly may look identical to all but the most
practiced eye, if their mating rituals are sufficiently different that
they will not ordinarily mate, they are considered separate species.

It does not take a huge amount of genetic change to induce speciation.
There must simply be enough change to prevent two populations of
organisms from interbreeding; most genetic divergence actually takes
place after speciation occurs, since before speciation organisms will
be interbreeding and constantly mixing up their genetic information. A
number of speciation events have been recorded in the wild.

While most Obligate Creationists agree that populations of organisms
can adapt to better suit their surroundings, contention arises when
biologists say that this process of adaptation and change can result in
new species. The fact remains that, according to the biological
definition of species, new species do arise, all the time. In response
to this, creationists generally argue that perhaps such variation does
occur, but only within created 'kinds.' The problem then arises:
what is a kind? In the context of creationist literature, it generally
seems to mean 'a discrete taxonomic unit, the boundaries of which
cannot be changed.'

Central to the idea of a kind is the idea that there is a limit to
variation within it. For example, birds and fish are likely considered
separate 'kinds' by most OCs, and because they are considered as
separate 'kinds,' a reasonable OC argument might be that birds
can't evolve into fish, nor fish into birds.

This is true. However, the fact that statements similar to this are
often heard in Obligate Creationist arguments makes it clear that a
basic misunderstanding of evolution is taking place. It shouldn't be
necessary for anyone to argue that birds can't change into fish,
because no biologists are saying that they do. The argument made by
biologists is a much different one- that all forms of organisms that we
see today- birds, fish, and humans- are not immutable and fixed, but
rather constantly changing, fluid constructions. Biologists don't
think that birds evolve into fish (or that monkeys evolve into men)
because such a statement implies that species (or kinds) are box-like,
permanent categories that populations of organisms could hop back and
forth between. This is not the case. A species is not a specific
destination or even a point on a line. It is much more amorphous than
that. A bird can't transform itself into a fish, but over time a
population of birds (like penguins) might evolve into a population of
very fish-like creatures (just as some populations of mammals have
evolved into dolphins).

The general definition of an OC 'kind' also implies that there must
be a limit to the amount of variation possible within such a kind. But
there is absolutely no known mechanism that would possibly prevent
genetic variation after a certain point. Mutations are constantly
occurring, and if a mutation is beneficial to the reproductive success
of the organism, it is retained. It makes no difference how much this
mutation will change the organism from its ancestors.

3.) If evolution is true, then why aren't all organisms perfectly
suited for their environments?

Evolution is not a March of Progress. It does not bring organisms to
some pinnacle of perfection. First of all, the mechanism of natural
selection cannot see very far ahead. One of the easiest ways to
visualize this is in terms of a three-dimensional landscape, with
genotype as the length and width of the surface, and fitness (the
ability of the organism to survive) as the height (or depth) of the
hills. Natural selection is always pushing populations of organisms
uphill. A population can't travel downhill for a while in order to
reach an adaptive peak farther away. It simply is not possible; the
population would perish. The end result of this is that species can
become 'stranded,' if you will, on relatively low adaptive peaks,
even if a much higher one exists somewhere else.

The panda's thumb is the classic example of this. In order to pull
leaves off of its shoots of bamboo, the panda uses a thumb-like
appendage to clasp around the stalk. However, this thumb is not an
opposable digit like our thumb. Instead, it is a crudely modified
wrist-bone that is capable of a relatively inefficient pincer movement.
The panda would be much better served with an opposable thumb like the
primates possess. But when the panda's ancestors felt the need for a
thumb, opposable digits were not the most direct way. Therefore the
panda is stuck without a thumb.

There are any number of examples like this sprinkled throughout the
biological world. To take a few from humans, our pelvises are tilted
forward. Why? Our ancestors were not bipedal; they crouched. In this
position, the pelvis and spine are aligned. When bipedal movement
became more adaptive, we began to stand upright. However, entirely
re-aligning the pelvis would be a large genetic leap. Instead, the base
of our spines developed a sharp curve. This in turn (among other
factors) has resulted in the epidemic back pain felt by members of our
species. It is far from an optimal design. It is the result of natural
selection doing its best with limited material.

I would like to mention here that I do not believe that the
imperfection of our design is evidence against creationism. In the
light of creationism, any design elements that seem imperfect or
downright awful can be explained as the mysterious will of God, or the
result of our limited human understanding not being fully capable of
comprehending perfection. This is theologically consistent. However, as
pointed out earlier, explaining such problems away in terms of divine
will is not and cannot be science.

At the same time, evolution offers a far more nuanced view of such
'flaws.' In fact, they are predicted by overall evolutionary
theory. Knowing the ancestry of any organism, it is possible to
extrapolate to a knowledge of its anatomy. Conversely, anatomy can (and
is) used to predict ancestry.

The other half of the idea that evolution is not a Grand March of
Progress is the realization that organisms cannot really be called
'advanced' or 'primitive.' Biologists themselves confuse this
by referring to organs or traits as 'primitive' or 'advanced.'
However, in such a context the words refer to how close those traits
are to those of the putative common ancestor. They have nothing to do
with how complex or adaptive a trait is.



Conclusions

One of the most upsetting results of the enormous debate between
Obligate Creationism and science is the way that faith and science (in
this country, almost exclusively Christianity and science) often end up
pitted against each other, as if they were mutually exclusive enemies.
This is largely due to the emergence of infallibility and literalism as
the sole Biblical hermeneutic accepted as valid in many communities of
faith.

A literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with Evolution;
there's not much room for discussion there. Literalism and inerrancy,
however, are two entirely different things. Biblical infallibility is
entirely compatible with acceptance of Evolution.

I find what a document says about its own accuracy to be the worst
possible standard by which to judge that accuracy. Nevertheless, it's
worth pointing out that while there are passages in the Bible which
could imply inerrancy, there are no passages which imply that it should
be taken literally.

Accordingly, throughout history there have been a wide spectrum of
beliefs about how to approach the Bible. Somehow, in the theology of
conservative Christianity today, the rigid literal nature of the Bible
has come to be held up as the only proper hermeneutic for viewing the
Bible. Not only is this view in the minority among theologians, it is a
view that has emerged only recently and which is rooted in Baconian
philosophy and the 'Fundamentalist' movement of the early 1900's.
Views prior to this date tended to be much more nuanced.

Saint Augustine of Hippo was one of the most influential Christian
theologians of all time. Although he believed the Bible to be the
inerrant Word of God, he was far from a Biblical literalist. Writing in
the fourth and fifth centuries AD, he wrote a beautiful treatise
entitled The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In it, he expounds at some
length on many possible literal (and less literal) interpretations of
just the few opening verses of Genesis. He then offered the following
thoughts:

Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, 'Let
there be light,' and light was made," one man thinks that it was
material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to
the actual existence of "spiritual light" in a spiritual creature,
our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light,
celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light
which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such
a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie
to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy
Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the
other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably
true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the
sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant
something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage
shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other,
which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true
and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of
Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the
mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not
have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have
meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two
meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to
have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear
indications in the context.

I have worked out and present-ed the statements of the Book of Genesis
in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting
words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating
our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a
rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought
that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should
choose the interpretation that he can grasp.

Shortly after the publication of Origin, several renowned theologians
stated that there was no conflict between seeing the Bible is the
inerrant, infallible Word of God and believing in evolution. Charles
Hodge was a conservative Presbyterian theologian who taught at
Princeton, and while he felt that Darwinism was atheistic and therefore
unacceptable, he saw no conflict with the Bible and evolution:

In saying that this system is atheistic, it is not said that Mr. Darwin
is an atheist . . . Nor is it meant that everyone who adopts the theory
does it in an atheistic sense. It has already been remarked that there
is a theistic and an atheistic form of the nebular hypothesis as to the
origin of the universe; so there may be a theistic interpretation of
the Darwinian theory.

Hodge was not the only conservative theologian who held this belief.
Even more notably, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, one of the champions
of Biblical inerrancy at the time, came to accept evolution (he was a
theistic evolutionist), and found no conflict between that acceptance
and his belief in Biblical inerrancy.

A story can be true on many levels. Jesus taught in parables- true
parables, even. Yet after reading his injunction to not put our light
under a bushel, no one suggests that it is immoral to use lampshades.
Evolution is truth, but it is not religious truth; the Bible is truth,
but it is not scientific truth. Conflating the two truths does a
dreadful disservice to both science and faith.

First of all, as extensively described above, claiming that the Bible
is science is simply not true, regardless of whether the claims in the
Bible are factual. The scientific method is like hiking to the top of
the mountain. It's only science if you walk all the way up, on your
own two feet. Maybe it's possible to get to the top of the mountain
by other methods. Even if those methods are just as effective in
reaching the top, they're not science, because the definition of
science is in the method, not the destination.

Claiming that faith and science are the same thing also bothers me
because it brings faith down to a level where it can be proven or
disproven. Just as science should be disprovable, faith shouldn't be
provable- that's what makes it faith. If, as an article of faith, one
must believe that God created the world in six days six thousand years
ago, by all means believe it- on faith. And if it's a matter of
faith, why try to 'prove' it by saying that the evidence supports
such a belief? That's not faith- that's relying on materialism just
as much scientists do.

But I don't think that's the correct approach to take towards the
creation of the world. Humans are creatures of reason. If one believes
that we are created by God, then God also created our capacity to
reason, and the world. The world screams evolution, if our reason
simply looks- what sort of God wishes us to deny the insights of the
very gifts God gave us? Using our reason to its fullest extent is
praise to God, the highest praise we can give.

I honestly am not sure what I believe about the specific role of God in
evolution. I believe that evolution can and should be explained in
purely materialistic terms. At the same time- I can't separate God
from creation from the act of creation. The scientific part of me is
constantly driven to find answers. I will never be content to stop
looking for answers in the material world. But faith isn't about
answers for me; I am content to leave the questions open. That's
where faith gets into trouble- insisting it has the answers when no one
really knows.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I recommend this analysis of Dembskis "No Free Lunch"
    ... So the rest of the ID community is, in fact, still religious? ... science has had a preconceived belief structure centered ... for Evolution to even have a shot at working. ... various forms of creationism have done is prohibit the teaching of ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: RustySites offers an interesting post which demonstrates critical
    ... the "evidence" is only of value if the theory is objectively ... All false theories in the history of science have garnered some ... Again ignorance of the creationism is Rusty Sites undoing. ... Except that evolutionary biology is interwoven into all aspect of biology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..."
    ... American Science Education ... believer in evolution - how could he not rule in favor of the ACLU? ... Again, since all Atheists ... rabidly support Evolution this is invulnerable evidence supporting the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... Your claim that Romans talks about modern evolution is one. ... The writers of the Bible had no idea about that evidence, and I don't expect them to have anticipated it. ... Ray, I've explained many times why natural evolution means nothing of the sort. ... The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, the scientific method, or how life works. ...
    (talk.origins)