Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Darwin, Alone, Is Not Enough Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/darwin_alone_is_not_enough#25491 Post contents: The conflict between religion and Darwin's theory is the result of a misunderstanding of the word "theory" as it applies to science. Calling something a "scientific theory" is not the same as saying it's the truth, nor does it give basis for challenging it's veracity. A scientific theory is a mechanistic or empirical model of a phenomenon that is supported by results. Theories are valid even if they are fundamentally clueless about what they are describing. Take Newtonian physics, it's a model that is satisfactory to explain probably 99% of phenomena that engineers have to deal with, and yet it makes absolutely no assertion about what the underlying mechanism is. Are angels moving planets around in orbits predictable by Newtonian formulae and are legions of imps stealthily managing the chaos of automobile collisions? Who cares, we know that stuff behaves in ways predictable by a set of formulae, which are approximations by the way, which we use quite effectively for everything from gravity assist maneuvers for spacecraft to specifying door latch springs. So why is it different for Darwin's theory of evolution? It serves as a functional model to explain biological outcomes. One's religious sensibilities need not be offended. After all, no one proclaims cars to be evil because the engineers did not mention God once in the thousands of pages of documents that specify a car and it's constituent parts. At the same time, using evolution to justify atheism is like using a hammer to turn a screw. Certainly evolution can be used to paint a picture without God, (although it's unclear as to how it all got started, why it works at all at a fundamental level, etc...). However, that's not why we have God. When someone thinks what course of action they should take as a Christian, do they think 'I will do this because man was created by God whole' or do they think "what would Jesus do?". Do any of Jesus's proverbs depend on creation for their point? Do the Ten Commandments apply any less to us if we evolved from apes or are the (necessarily inbred) descendants of Adam and Eve, and Noah? The creationism vs. evolution argument is infantile because it misses the significance of the two views from both the religious and scientific angles. To science, evolution theory is a tool with application in biology (although genetic algorithms have also become an interesting tool for engineers). To use it as the underpinning of an atheist philosophy is to apply it to the spiritual sphere where it does not belong. To attack the theory of evolution because it offends one's religious sensibility is likewise misguided. It's a scientific formula, not absolute truth. Who's to say God isn't managing the process invisibly? It wouldn't undermine it's usefulness to biologists, there's no way to prove or disprove it, it's a moot issue. So in conclusion, both sides are essentially exploiting the issue for publicity rather than doing anything useful, because it is an irresolvable argument about a moot and artificial point. Sent at: 2008 07 06