The column "Clarification about creationism, evolution" (CT, Feb. 25) does clarify some issues, but it muddles others on account of its fallacious reasoning and misguided assertions.
Though the authors rightly dismiss young-earth creationism as irreconcilable with modern science, they offer more illogical creationist propaganda than should be acceptable at an institute of higher learning.
First, they make a distinction between micro- and macroevolution with the intention of claiming macroevolution to be flawed. Their arguments against macroevolution, however, consist of nothing but a logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance.
Many people may not be able to grasp the sheer magnitude of genetic change across many thousands of generations. However, in no way does this imply that macroevolutionary processes such as speciation do not occur because of natural selection.
As creationists often do, they quote Darwin's admission that a single example of irreducible complexity would undermine the theory of evolution, while ignoring the text that follows: "I can find out no such case.
"No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades ... (but) we should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind." Michael Behe, a fringe biologist, claims to have found multiple examples of irreducible complexity in nature, and as a result is often referenced by creationists.
However, Behe's claims are soundly rejected by the scientific community. It is less likely that irreducibly complex organs exist than it is that Behe and his followers lack either the desire or the imagination to hypothesize their transitional forms.
Next they quote Darwin again, this time regarding the absence of geological evidence for evolution. Creationists often claim the supposed lack of transitional fossils as evidence against evolution, but take the time to analyze any paleontology book and you'll find that in reality, an abundance of transitional fossils have been found since Darwin's time.
Additionally, Gould did not "resort" to proposing punctuated equilibrium in response to a perceived lack of fossil evidence. It is a simple fact that science is continually corrected, changed and refined to fit our observations of the world around us.
Such is the nature of scientific discovery, and the theory of evolution is no exception.
Note that I am arguing in favor of the acceptance of evolution, not against belief in creation. Thanks to the concept of theistic evolution, which exists to reconcile the two, the theory of evolution need not be interpreted to demean religious belief in any way. If you wish to believe in creationism, it is your prerogative to do so.
However, do not attempt to prove creationism by disproving evolution. That method is used all too often by many who do not realize that it is merely establishing a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy.
I could contrive any number of preposterous claims to explain the origin of life, but all of them would remain unproven were evolution shown to be incorrect. It is impossible to demonstrate the veracity of any one idea solely by proving a competing theory to be false.
You don't need to attack science in order to validate your faith. It's called faith for a reason, and unless you stubbornly insist on interpreting the creation story literally, it is justifiable to both keep your faith and accept the sound science behind evolutionary theory.
Jayton Gill
Senior, computer science
Leave a comment 15 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Its good to see some reason returned to the discussion. Evolutionary Biology is science. All forms of creationism are religion. That a rational person may believe in a creator as a matter of faith i.e. without pretense to science or fact, is fine. Scientific Creationism, as promulgated by such is the ICR is an oxymoron. It suffers from flaws in basic premises, faulty scientific approach, and a history of folly that would be funny if it weren't destructively deceptive and confusing to many.
Reply to this Top
Jayton, well done. The false dichotomy you mention is far too prevalent, not only with respect to this topic, but in debate in general. It makes me wonder why Logic 101 is not a required course at every institute of higher learning in the country.
Reply to this Top
Nice article, you made your points straight forward and clear and backed up with facts. However, I cringed when I read "Thanks to the concept of theistic evolution...". I don't know if this is the author saying he believes in theistic evolution or not, but I think that statement requires more discussion. I ask for one example of an evolutionary process that could not have happened by natural means and required divine intervention. If you don't think there are any examples, then what is so 'theistic' about evolution?
Reply to this Top
Eric, the notion of theistic evolution, as I understand it, has more to do with acknowledging the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but maintaining that some type of creator was responsible for the existence of the universe in the first place, and thus evolution is simply an explanation of something set in motion by this creator. By the way, here's an example of something that we have no natural explanation for: how did the matter that was present when the big bang occurred come to be? Not saying that you must adopt a theistic answer to this question, but I don't understand why you seem to stop at nothing short of demanding that everyone become an atheist. Oh, and before you say that theistic evolution is a scramble by religious leaders to attempt to keep pace with science, remember that scientific theories, too, must rewrite themselves time and again as new discoveries are made. As a disclaimer, I don't believe that the bible, or any other religious text, is the literal word of god, so I don't presume its infallibility.
Reply to this Top
The problem I have with your approach is that nobody is claiming that the theistic part of theistic evolution is factual. It is based on one's own faith, and until science can explain how and why the universe came to exist, some people will have faith-based conjectures about creators, because there is no alternative.
Reply to this Top
Biological evolution is a completely separate field form cosmology and the big bang theory. I just don't like it when people use the term 'theistic evolution', we can use Occam's razor and cut the theistic part out. Jason, I understand your explanation, but then why don't we ever hear the term 'theistic gravity'?
Reply to this Top
First of all, it should be clarified that there is a difference between Deism and Theism; Theism implies that the one god interacts with his creation where as Deism suggests that the one god does not interact. So if one truly was a Theist Evolutionist they may be a bit touchy about God and Evolution. To Eric, there can not be 'biological evolution' without considering physics/big bang. That is like you pushing your car off a cliff, neglecting the fact that you pushed it, and thus concluding that the only reason the car got from the top of the cliff to the bottom is because of gravity. Oh and by the way, gravity exists in the part of sciences that deals heavily with math and math has the benefit of being logical which is very easy to defend (F = Mass*Acceleration
Reply to this Top
The reason there is confusion among people concerning Genesis and the geologic & fossil records, is because institutions refuse to take the proper steps to clarify the issue. There are thousands of false teachers and those unacquainted with Genesis, that do not understand the text, sharing their ignorance with an audience. There are several so-called Christian denominations that compromise with evolution, not knowing what the truth of Genesis is. When the blind lead the blind, they both fall in the ditch. It’s been said in the past, and I’ll repeat it know. It is useless to discuss creation or Genesis when you don’t know what the text is saying. The one and only Genesis expert has an “Observations of Moses†presentation that would convey the literal truth of Genesis, and show that there is a more plausible explanation for the pre-historic history of Earth. Herman Cummings Ephraim7@aol.com
Reply to this Top
Jayton, thank you for your excellent letter! It is interesting that a scientist can be fired for fabricating data, a witness can be jailed for a false testimony, but a "scientific" creationist can openly distort facts and misrepresent and misquote the published scientific literature without any legal consequences. In misguided tolerance, we naively interpret those statements (and we do it way too often) as ignorant rather than dishonest. We sigh tolerantly when Cummings of this world (see a posting below) view the preferred scripture of their choice (the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, etc.) as the universal, literal truth. Likewise, we despair, usually silently, when Bradfords of this world (see below) voice "scientific" opinions while lacking understanding of the most basic principles, such as the relation between scientific theories and first causes. On a bright side, letters such as the one written by Jayton should give us hope that not all is lost: intelligent life will, hopefully, continue on this planet.
Reply to this Top
Eric, the term was coined out of necessity, to acknowledge that, initially, theism and evolution butted heads. I don't know of any religious scripture that is directly at odds with gravity, hence, there is no need to specify "theistic gravity."
Reply to this Top
To anonymous: There is no reason why someone can't adopt a scientific worldview supplemented by a belief in a creator. It is quite a leap to assume that all who do so are nefariously inserting their faith-based beliefs into their scientific research.
Reply to this Top
Jason T: I agree 100% here. This was not my point. There is nothing wrong with theistic evolution or even Intelligent Design as long as we recognize that these are acts of faith. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with believing in absence of the creator behind the evolutionary process (I guess we could call that "atheistic evolution") as long as we recognize that this is also an act of faith. However, neither of those is a scientific theory and neither belongs to the realm of science. My point was that there is everything wrong with trying to masquerade spiritual views (whatever they are) as scientific theories. And this is what ID crowd, Young Earth Creationists, and also some secular atheists are trying to do.
Reply to this Top
Anonymous(Mar 5) writes:"there is nothing wrong with believing in absence of the creator behind the evolutionary process (I guess we could call that "atheistic evolution") as long as we recognize that this is also an act of faith. However, neither of those is a scientific theory and neither belongs to the realm of science." The only thread connecting this statement to reason is the use of the word "believe". If you are saying that a belief, in the absence of a creator, held in the same sense as a belief the the presence of one, can be regarded as faith, then there is some logic. That is why I avoid the phrase "believe in evolution" commonly. But that's not what is usually meant. From a scientific standpoint one appreciates the fact based conceptualization of speciation as sufficiently compelling to be relied on, studied, refined and expanded. There is no need or relevance to any supernatural consideration. Bradfors S makes a point about placing evolution in the context of cosmology. While I have no objection to a view of the larger picture, there is nothing wrong with focusing one's attention on a part of it and not addressing others. Consideration, in your analogy, of your having pushed the car off the cliff would be relevant to a discussion, say, of why the car was totalled. If, on the other hand you were merely interested in the descent the way it started might not be relevant.
Reply to this Top
Heehee fallacious reasoning. sounds suspiciously close to fellatious reasoning.
Reply to this Top
Evolution Resumed President Obama issued a presidential memorandum and spoke of scientific integrity. "Promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said during the signing ceremony. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient - especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." In honor of of this return to sanity, I would like to add dos centavos. The absolute surest way for creationist to disprove"Darwin's Theory," is by homeschooling generations of their children. Blessings, Ned Cassles Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. ~Isaac Asimov~ "Evolution has seemingly passed over those that cannot understand it." ~Ned~ "May we please have a moment of science, for those poor souls that cannot understand evolution as God's scientific method." ~Ned~ "Science is no longer frozen; global warming has resumed." ~Ned~
Reply to this Top