I'm considering responding to a letter to the editor in our local rag. I've worked up a draft, but if anyone sees any errors, misguided thoughts, or even style problems, I'd sure appreciate your comments. It's a bit long for a letter to the editor, so I'll have to hack it up a bit.
Here goes.
Those who accept the theory of evolution say it is a fact. They say if we accept that genes change over time, we’ve already accepted the theory of evolution. The problem is that they do not clearly define their terms and they do not understand where observable science ends and their own faith (in evolution) begins. They use bullying arguments, implying that not accepting convention means you’re a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat.
First, the whole notion of using science to explore origins (of the universe, life and the many forms of life) is more akin to forensic theory than scientific theory, and does not lend itself well to the scientific method. After all, we cannot fashion an experiment to re-create the universe, or life from nonlife. Our origin is a matter of the distant past, and the scientific method is geared to exploring the world as it presently operates. Some call this the distinction between origin science and operational science.
Anyway, genes change over time. Okay. No problem. But does that necessarily mean that all living things have a common ancestor that came to life when lightning struck billions of years ago? That’s where observable science ends and faith begins. Observable science demonstrates that species vary within limits via natural selection or manipulation. Over countless generations, we can observe fruit flies turning into some variation of . . . . . . a fruit fly. Finches, finches. Dogs, dogs. We will never manipulate tomatoes to be the size of a house or fruit flies to be resistant to sledge hammers. In the end, we only observe variation within very finite limits. To take observable evolution (microevolution), which is undisputed, and then argue that this is evidence of common ancestry (macroevolution) takes a leap of faith -- a leap from the observable to the unobservable. I say it takes more faith to believe in common ancestry and abiogenesis (life randomly forming from nonlife) than it does to believe in a Creator.
Darwinian evolution found legs because Darwin never fathomed that a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle or that 150 years of archeology would yield less transitional fossils rather than more. Darwin even acknowledged that the incremental, gradual changes of natural selection would not likely cause something as complex as the eye to form, as hundreds of simultaneous mutations would be necessary. He either believed in the face of the apparently impossible or he hoped that someone might pick up that ball and run with it -- either way, he was wrong. It turns out that, just as a Kindergartner can look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was formed by design and not chance, honest scientists can look at the eye and make the same conclusion. Evolution cannot begin to explain the origin of the eye.
So why has Darwinian evolution been the convention for the last 150 years? I believe there is an element that we as a society find attractive an idea that rules out our Creator. But even more so, ivory tower scientists will not accept a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe or the life in it. They miss the point that the philosophy of naturalism is a reasonable limitation upon operational science -- not so much in origin science.
No one disputes evolutionary theory as it relates to observable variations. The theory has proven useful with medicine and genetics. We do dispute extrapolating the observable scientific facts (variation within limits) to the conclusion of common ancestry and abiogenesis without acknowledging that you’ve left the realm of science and entered the realm of storytelling. I guess it's fine to tell the story of the monkey’s transition to man -- just don’t call it science, don’t make the story immune from criticism, and don’t teach it to my children with my tax dollars. Or, at least, have the honesty to teach it along with the other, and even more popular, creation account.
Here goes.
Those who accept the theory of evolution say it is a fact. They say if we accept that genes change over time, we’ve already accepted the theory of evolution. The problem is that they do not clearly define their terms and they do not understand where observable science ends and their own faith (in evolution) begins. They use bullying arguments, implying that not accepting convention means you’re a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat.
First, the whole notion of using science to explore origins (of the universe, life and the many forms of life) is more akin to forensic theory than scientific theory, and does not lend itself well to the scientific method. After all, we cannot fashion an experiment to re-create the universe, or life from nonlife. Our origin is a matter of the distant past, and the scientific method is geared to exploring the world as it presently operates. Some call this the distinction between origin science and operational science.
Anyway, genes change over time. Okay. No problem. But does that necessarily mean that all living things have a common ancestor that came to life when lightning struck billions of years ago? That’s where observable science ends and faith begins. Observable science demonstrates that species vary within limits via natural selection or manipulation. Over countless generations, we can observe fruit flies turning into some variation of . . . . . . a fruit fly. Finches, finches. Dogs, dogs. We will never manipulate tomatoes to be the size of a house or fruit flies to be resistant to sledge hammers. In the end, we only observe variation within very finite limits. To take observable evolution (microevolution), which is undisputed, and then argue that this is evidence of common ancestry (macroevolution) takes a leap of faith -- a leap from the observable to the unobservable. I say it takes more faith to believe in common ancestry and abiogenesis (life randomly forming from nonlife) than it does to believe in a Creator.
Darwinian evolution found legs because Darwin never fathomed that a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle or that 150 years of archeology would yield less transitional fossils rather than more. Darwin even acknowledged that the incremental, gradual changes of natural selection would not likely cause something as complex as the eye to form, as hundreds of simultaneous mutations would be necessary. He either believed in the face of the apparently impossible or he hoped that someone might pick up that ball and run with it -- either way, he was wrong. It turns out that, just as a Kindergartner can look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was formed by design and not chance, honest scientists can look at the eye and make the same conclusion. Evolution cannot begin to explain the origin of the eye.
So why has Darwinian evolution been the convention for the last 150 years? I believe there is an element that we as a society find attractive an idea that rules out our Creator. But even more so, ivory tower scientists will not accept a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe or the life in it. They miss the point that the philosophy of naturalism is a reasonable limitation upon operational science -- not so much in origin science.
No one disputes evolutionary theory as it relates to observable variations. The theory has proven useful with medicine and genetics. We do dispute extrapolating the observable scientific facts (variation within limits) to the conclusion of common ancestry and abiogenesis without acknowledging that you’ve left the realm of science and entered the realm of storytelling. I guess it's fine to tell the story of the monkey’s transition to man -- just don’t call it science, don’t make the story immune from criticism, and don’t teach it to my children with my tax dollars. Or, at least, have the honesty to teach it along with the other, and even more popular, creation account.
