Sep
02
This blog's position statement on evolution
Labels:
creation,
evolution,
meta,
position statements,
science
Posts on Leave the lights on take for granted certain things, such as the truth of the Catholic faith and the value of science for investigating nature. As I read other blogs on science, on faith, and on both, I see clearly that my positions are not universal. Indeed, if they were, there would be little use in many of the posts of this blog.
This is the first of a series of position statements for Leave the lights on. This statement is on the theory of evolution.
Evolution
This blog takes the position, controversial among people of faith, that evolution is both a historical fact and the best theoretical model to explain the observations of biology.
When I earned my B.S. in Zoology, I unofficially specialized in paleontology and evolution. Ironically, this interest was born of my faith and a desire to know how to refute evolution. Instead, I learned not only of the overwhelming evidence behind the theory, including predictions that have been shown to be true, but the subtle intricacies that derive from a few simple statements. As a theory, it is truly a thing of beauty.
In particular, I was enthralled with the discovery that evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith. While this is a theme I would like to explore further some day, for now let it suffice to say that I believe that God imbued two individuals, who we call Adam and Eve, with immortal souls, and that they were the ancestors of all human beings. I believe in the Fall, in original sin, and in the special place of humans among (and above) the animals.
Also, I try to eschew the term "Darwinism." "Evolution" or "theory of evolution" suffice just fine. Calling it "Darwinism" suggests there may be an alternate theory of evolution, which I reject. Besides, the modern theory of evolution may have begun with Darwin, but it has been developed quite heavily since then.
Intelligent Design
My position is that Intelligent Design is not science because it does not explain the natural world — rather, it posits that the natural world cannot be fully explained; and because it makes no specific predictions, though compatible "theories" such as genomic front-loading may do so. I think ID gives people of faith a bad name in the science community.
Young-Earth Creationism
In consideration of what has been observed in geology, biology, and other disciplines, young-earth creationism is a noxious theory that makes God out to be a liar, since it requires God to have placed abundant evidence for evolution and an old earth in creation.
Logging you in...Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to...
Posts
Comments
Michael · 864 weeks ago
I do make a distinction between evolution and Darwinism. I usually use "evolution" to refer to common descent, without necessarily specifying the mechanism for that descent. I use "Darwinism" for the idea that evolution can be explained entirely in terms of random mutation and natural selection (RM+NS), although that should technically be Neo-Darwinism. I think that universal or near-universal common descent is well-established, and I think that RM+NS accounts for a great deal, if not most, of the mechanism for that descent. However, there are significant challenges to postulating RM+NS as the sole mechanism of genetic change. It's not yet been demonstrated that genes are capable of handling very much change if RM is our only method of changing them. Therefore I'm especially interested in other methods for inducing changes in the genome which selection can then act on. Modern genomic research is showing us just how much we don't know about genes and how they can change. I'm especially intrigued by experiments that indicate a possibility that some organisms can preferentially control the rates of mutation in their genes. If true, what a loop that discovery would throw us for!
I'm also not opposed to making an inference to design. Here's why -- a few years ago Craig Venter (of the Human Genome Project fame) engineered a bacterium that contained genes that translated to the amino acid sequences CRAIGVENTER and VENTERINSTITVTE. If some unknowing biologist sequences that genome, must he conclude that those sequences got there by chance? My fear is that to exclude design as a possibility could lead us to reject the true explanation for a natural phenomenon in favor of a false explanation that fits more comfortably in "science." That said, I do think we have to be on guard to not invoke it too soon. See also my review of Ken Miller's "Only a Theory" at InsideCatholic:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option...
As for YEC, I agree completely.
Eric Brown · 864 weeks ago
But you probably knew that all ready, my friend =o)