|
/ Hathaway Weblog / On Evolution |
The word "evolution" is overloaded. In one sense, it's indisputable, but in another sense, it's a fantastic stretch of the imagination. The indisputable theory of evolution is that through microscopic mutations and external influences, species change. The fantastic, imaginative idea is that evolution alone explains our existence. By comparison, the idea that a smart being created us is far more credible.
You don't even have to believe the Bible to see this logic. You only need critical thinking. Let me present an entirely different hypothesis. I'm not saying I believe this, but it helps illustrate my point.
Let's say that we humans manage to survive the next ten thousand years. Technology continues to advance, we colonize other planets, and we master genetics. Some people get so rich and smart that they wander off to an uninhabited planet and create biological life from scratch. For whatever reason, the creators decide to hide from their creations. We could be the product of such a civilization--no divine influence is required.
Given the exponential pace of technology today, this doesn't seem far-fetched at all, and it's certainly more believable than accidental creation. See the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for a more elaborate version of this hypothesis. :-)
The true theory of evolution has been observed many times. It is simple and everyone ought to learn it. The imaginative theory that evolution alone explains our existence is not only impossible to prove but also seems unlikely, since there are surely smart beings somewhere in the universe who apply their knowledge of genetics. The imaginative theory smells a lot more like religion than science. The two ideas do not belong together in educational texts.
Comments
Why do the two concepts have to conflict?
I see the various creation-myths/cosmologies of different cultures as containing a blueprint that often does not conflict with established scientific thinking on the beginnings of the universe.
I read a paper recently that postulated circular time. If indeed, our end is also our beginning, maybe God is really in a sense, us, or, quite literally, our father and mother, the evolved total of all the life in the universe, in the very distant future.
It makes sense that this meta-being might decide to create 'an image of Himself' in the very distant past when a new universe came into being. Why? To seed the beginning of the process over again.
I agree, the concepts don't conflict, and those ideas are pretty interesting. I've pondered things like that myself.
I've read too many textbooks, though, that quickly dismiss God and expound upon accidental creation. The textbooks need to simply describe the theory evolution without implying that evolution is sufficient to explain our existence. If textbook authors would restrain themselves, there would be little reason for anyone to debate the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Oh my, I didn't delete any comments. I'm sorry, Ian, but your comment must have somehow disappeared. I would never remove a comment without explaining that action. It must be some kind of software bug, curses! Please repost what you can of your argument. I would very much like to hear what you wanted to say. I enjoy debate a lot.
How puzzling that this could have happened. Chris must have replied to your comment, so your comment must have been posted at least for a while. However, I get an email for every comment, and I never received an email containing your first comment. Is it possible that my mail server and Zope failed at the same time? Arrgghh...
Again, my apologies.
