Wednesday, January 14, 2009

New Post on evolution

The controversy over the teaching of creationism vs. the scientific theory of evolution shows the lack of understanding by many people about evolution. Evolution isn't an "atheist religion." A majority of Americans believe evolution is true, but only about 10 percent of society considers themselves atheist or agnostic. Evolution doesn't assume God doesn't exist; it is a set of statements based on evidence in the fossil record, on the geological strata, on morphology, rates of genetic mutations over time that are fairly constant along with other evidence.
A common refrain I hear about evolution is that it is "just a theory." The problem is that people confuse a layman's definition of theory with what a scientific theory means. A scientific theory is not a guess or even a hypothesis. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is a scientific theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories.
Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.
The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.

No comments: