Flyer: Evolution and Creationism: Mutually Exclusive?

[trevor]

"Are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive?"


Interesting/Useful links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
• http://aspringwind.blogspot.com/2005/10/evolution-vs-creationism-what-farce.html

I think it can be argued successfully that evolution and creationism are presented in mainstream media as mutually exclusive explanations for the diversity of life.  Why has this issue become so polarizing?  If the designer is truly intelligent, wouldn't they be required to build in a way to improve the survivability of species living in changing environments?

Another issue that may be more important in the long run: has this mutual exclusivity contributed to a diminished knowledge of science in the general public?  How can we educate theists believing in creationism about evolution without encroaching on their belief system?

[trevor]

If anyone has any thoughts on this topic, I would really appreciate some comments.  I've been asked to write an article for the Manitoban on this subject, so any opinions or insights you have would better inform the article.

To give a bit of a teaser to catalyze the thread, here's a quote by Richard Dawkins from his book The Blind Watchmaker: "An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Science has put forth many theories that have explained previously mystifying natural phenomena: Newton's and Einstein's theories pertaining to gravity, Copernicus's theory of heliocentrism, and Einstein's theory of relativity to name a few.  The theory of evolution is something more personal to humankind though; we're not just explaining the world around us, we're explaining our own origins--and in a very non-mystical way.  Yet, evolution has gone through the same scientific rigor that the previously mentioned theories have, and is universally accepted in the scientific community.

It is easy to argue that evolution contradicts the bible and other religious texts, but so does a heliocentric world view.  The catholic church opposed the theory when it was presented, but has since come to accept it, and the consensus seems to be that some sections of the bible are not to be taken literally.  Why does the church take specific offense at this theory?

I wish I had an answer.  It is a shame that the church insists on fighting evolution tooth and nail, instead of recognizing what an achievement it is for a species to put forth a testable theory to explain its own origins.  Why is it so hard to believe that a creator would build in a mechanism for its creations to become better over time?  If you reject that idea, then why do genetic mutations occur at all?  It almost seems like the creationism crowd believes that science is nearing the point where there is an answer to all of life's questions, and soon there will be no place for religion.  As much as I would love to have that amount of faith, it is ludicrously naive to believe that we know even a small portion of what there is to know about the universe around us.  The abyss between what we know from observing empirical data and all there is to know is where religious and secular groups should participate in open debate; for religious groups to continue arguing a scientific theory only tarnishes their image further in the eyes of an educated public.  This can only lead to more concrete divisions between theists and non-theists, and we don't need more division in our society.  There are so many more interested unanswered questions that religious groups should concentrate on answering.

[january]

It seems to me that many people who cite religion in debating these matters cling to dogma for dogma's sake alone. I know in my Catholic high school that there is supposedly some effort to allow for contextual interpretations of the bible. The early parts especially. But then I always wondered how they could tell which parts we were supposed to take literally. So to answer the topic question, it was always my understanding that contemporary Catholicism allows for evolution, with God as the finger that pushed the first domino forward. In many metaphysics classes it does come to that "but what started it all?" question. I started wondering if infinity and god were the same thing at that point. I should mention that there are plenty of very clever and convincing theists out there who do make interesting arguments for this kind of god, though I realize these are not the people who would feel threatened by Darwin. I doubt they would consider themselves 'creationists'.

As to why some creationists are so offended by any encroachment of science upon questions of origin, I think many people may be uncomfortable with mystery and isolation. A claim to knowledge about the whole picture, even if rationally ridiculous given our position in the universe, is such a comfort. I don't mean to sound condescending or anything. And I know that in philosophical debate, giving psychological explanations hardly makes for a good argument. So I guess I don't have much of a point, just some things that seem consistent based on my own measly experience. Traditionalism, control, and power are also some vague reasons I can come up with for a stubborn rejection of science.

[Steven]

Apparently the Catholic Church actually does officially "accept" evolution, whatever that means. I think the bigger issue is that even when they claim to accept a scientific fact, religious people always try to find a way to sneak their god into it. So they'll say "Of course we accept evolution. It was just God's plan all along". And while evolution does not specifically preclude a creator, it does make one totally superfluous. If God is truly God, why bother with the whole evolution thing? Why not just create us just as we are now? Especially when you consider that supposedly everything God does is perfect, evolution is entirely trial and error and a pretty imperfect way of creating something.

It may not be very diplomatic to say that science and religion (in this case evolution and creationism) are mutually exclusive, but honestly I see no way around it. They are two diametrically opposed views. So to have a scientific theory (more of a fact) like evolution which is supported by mountains of mutually-supportive evidence, and then just say "Yeah but God started it" is such a cop-out and contrary to the spirit of science. It explains nothing and raises even more questions such as "Who created the creator?". And also contrary to the investigatory spirit of science is that creation is unfalsifiable. Or religious people will invoke the idea "God exists outside space and time and is therefore beyond science to explain" whenever it suits them, and that is supposed to end all further debate.

So I just don't see that any middle-ground is possible without seriously undermining the whole idea of scientific thought. Science makes claims based on evidence whereas religion makes claims based on nothing but scripture and "revelation".

Anyways, those are just some thoughts (though not very coherently presented  ). I'm not trying to be a "militant atheist" and throw a wrench into the process of creating goodwill between religious groups and ours but this is just how I feel about this issue.

[trevor]

First of all, I have to disagree with you: I think your thoughts were quite well presented.

On your arguments, I have to agree.  I could swallow the idea of theistic evolution if science didn't also have well supported theories for the origin of the universe.  The only place that religion should occupy in this debate (in my opinion) is 'why.'  Of course, scientific rationalism tells us that there is no answer that that question; our universe happened to form a planet capable of sustaining life, and humans eventually evolved through natural selection.  There's no greater meaning to it, we just lucked out.  I can understand not being satisfied with that kind of answer, sure.  But there I think philosophy is a more interesting examination of 'why' than religion.

As a sidenote, what does everyone think about the religious bias in the English language?  Steve capitalizes god in his comment, and indeed, this is a rule in written English.  Personally I like to keep them lowercase in silent protest, but it is technically incorrect.  Should it be?

[january]

I agree that philosophy provides more interesting debate for 'why' questions, since religion doesn't seem to encourage questioning at all.

As for the language bias, well I guess so. Up until very recently there was also a masculine bias, for obvious reasons. I don't know how well the grammar politics have caught up either, since it feels very frustrating sometimes to keep it all 'his/ her'. I just use feminine pronouns for any hypothetical professionals I write about, and I guess it is some kind of silent protest. I've never gotten in trouble for writing 'god' in philosophy papers though...maybe in English papers, but I can't remember. What I've learned from having so many different professors in Eng. Lit. is that grammar is so debatable sometimes. I think it takes a bit of time for language to catch up. Also, Christmas is a national holiday...I don't think I'm quite sure what point I'm trying to make, except that I'm not sure that the majority population will ever trade god for philosophical debate.

Also...I recently read an editorial by this fundamentalist shit disturber my city's paper just loves to publish. He started citing a philosopher named Feyerabend to counter the "science bias" he feels is plaguing contemporary society. I've read Feyerabend before, and I really find him interesting, if a little crazy. I just thought I'd post a link to a tiny bit more information about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feyerabend

He basically argues against an unfettered dominance of scientific rationalism. I thought some of you might find him interesting.

[Steven]

The language issue is a difficult one. I actually debated with myself as to whether I should say "god" or "God" but decided on the latter to indicate that I was specifically referring to the Judeo-Christian creator god. In a wider context, it will definitely be hard to get rid of all religious references in our language. There are so many allusions to scripture that it would be hard to know where to begin. I don't necessarily think we need to get rid of them either. They arguably add a lot to the English language. If our society ever becomes less steeped in religion, these words and expressions will in time become divorced from their original religious meanings (which has already happened to some extent) and become inert pieces of the language. But who knows? I'm certainly no linguist and perhaps I'm completely off-base.

Maybe the capitalization of "God" is simply an expression of the unusual amount of respect accorded to religion. This seems more likely and if this is the case then I am all for a silent protest toward this tacit respect.

P.S. Trevor, have you written the Manitoban article yet? When you finish it maybe you could post it on the forum. I think we would all be interested to see it and maybe give constructive criticism. You could "crowd-source" it!

P.P.S. that's the first and last time I use a stupid web 2.0 buzzword like "crowd-source"!

P.P.P.S. damn it! "web 2.0" is also a stupid buzzword!

[trevor]

That's a good point, "God" makes it pretty clear what you're referencing.  It doesn't bug me all that much, the one that does bug me is capitalizing pronouns when they refer to god; i.e., "Isn't He great?"  Just like any pronoun, you shouldn't use it if the noun it's referencing is ambiguous, so I don't think you can argue "He" adds more clarity (not to mention it is sexist).

I have written the article; it's already been submitted actually, so unfortunately any criticism you give won't be incorportated.  But that doesn't mean criticism isn't welcome!  I think I'll post a separate topic on it, actually.  It's possible people will come here to argue something in the article, might as well have a topic for that already.

[Katie]

I will say that it makes it easier to indirectly understand where a person stands by how they capitalize the pronouns. "He" indicates that the person is quite religious, while if a person where to type 'G-d', you can tell that they're Jewish, and if a person follows Muhammed with (PBUH), it's obvious that the person is a Muslim. It makes it easier to discuss religion online without the clunky question of what religion they are.

For the topic at hand, the position of theistic evolution raises some concerns.

1) Why would a god decide to go through a process that takes millions upon millions of years in order to get to his 'preferred species', when it could have just created it instantaneously? They may answer that 'God didn't want to do it the easy way, he wanted to watch how things would unfold'. But, that's ignoring the fact that any all-knowing god would know exactly what would happen in the 'unfolding' process anyways. For that matter, it would also know the outcome of everything else that would ever happen as well. But that's another nitpick...

2) One of the arguments that young-earth creationists put forward is that if evolution occured, then humans would be no more special than other animals. So, why would a god even value humans above other animals if all animals are a product of evolution? After all, to an all-powerful, all-knowing god, the difference between one type of animal, and another type of animal would be minute.
The entire premise behind most religions is that 'God/s created humans, and watches over them to reward the righteous, and damn the wicked.' If humans are more or less equal to other animals, then they wouldn't be the centre of the universe, as most religions claim humans are.

[Brennan]

I think that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive since the proposed facts of various religious ideologies completely contradict the science behind evolution. I also find it hard to argue that a creator could have guided the process when advancements in science also us to manipulate the process.

A deist belief would the only way the two views are mutually exclusive. Accepting evolution and maintaining faith require an individual to rationalize a personal version of their religion. Although such rationalizations may seem to reflect their original beliefs they in fact exist absent of their religious ideology; since religion states it is the final truth.

[Steven]

Brennan, I think you mean to say that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, that is one can only hold to one or the other and not both at the same time. That is the impression I get from your post, but perhaps I have misunderstood.

It seems to me that the only reason people propose theistic evolution is merely to appease creationists and not to actually advance scientific understanding. More intelligent religious people pay lip service to science but like you say their religion has the final say. I honestly don't know how very religious people can practice good science. How can they do science in one area but then say that this other area is god's domain? How do they not apply the same scientific mindset to their religion? Obviously most of these people were born into their religion and are desperately trying to rationalize it and I suppose they achieve this through a kind of compartmentalization in their mind. Very odd.

[brian]

It seems to me that the only reason people propose theistic evolution is merely to appease creationists and not to actually advance scientific understanding. More intelligent religious people pay lip service to science but like you say their religion has the final say. I honestly don't know how very religious people can practice good science. How can they do science in one area but then say that this other area is god's domain? How do they not apply the same scientific mindset to their religion? Obviously most of these people were born into their religion and are desperately trying to rationalize it and I suppose they achieve this through a kind of compartmentalization in their mind. Very odd.

I think theistic evolution is sort of the other way around.  It isn't meant to appease creationists, but is promoted by creationists to get their foot in the door of public schools and teach creationism to impressionable children.

[Steven]

It seems to me that the only reason people propose theistic evolution is merely to appease creationists and not to actually advance scientific understanding. More intelligent religious people pay lip service to science but like you say their religion has the final say. I honestly don't know how very religious people can practice good science. How can they do science in one area but then say that this other area is god's domain? How do they not apply the same scientific mindset to their religion? Obviously most of these people were born into their religion and are desperately trying to rationalize it and I suppose they achieve this through a kind of compartmentalization in their mind. Very odd.

I think theistic evolution is sort of the other way around.  It isn't meant to appease creationists, but is promoted by creationists to get their foot in the door of public schools and teach creationism to impressionable children.

I guess it depends which side you're coming from. From a creationist perspective, intelligent design is definitely a way to sneak creationism into the classroom. I guess I have a problem with serious scientists advocating something like "theistic evolution" or "intelligent design" in the name of diplomacy. It's great to want everyone to get along but at their core, evolution and creationism are deeply opposed. So we can say that it's fine that people believe whatever they want but in no way should we imply that intelligent design can even stand next to evolution on an equal footing. It's intellectually dishonest.

[Gerry]

Well, it depends on how you define "creationism".
If you take the story of Genesis literally, then obviously they are mutually exclusive.
If you accept the Deist idea that god just got things started, and evolution got us from there to here, then they aren't.

The people on this site probably already know this, but it bugs me when creationists get Evolution, Cosmology, Geology and the origin of life mixed up as though they are the same subject.

Evolution says nothing about how the first life form got started, it only says how we got from there to here.
It also says nothing about how the universe was created. Evolution does require the age of the earth to be the age that geologists say it is, but if a creationist wants to dispute the age of the earth, he/she should speak to a geologist, not an evolutionist.
If they want to dispute the age of the universe or how it came into existance, they should consult a cosmologist.

There are a lot of good ideas about the origin of life but that, also, isn't under the topic of Evolution.