Debating evolution and ID requires level playing field
Recently, I posted some commentary about Richard Dawkins’ appearance on the O’Reilly Factor. That post generated some interesting discussion among a couple of our readers (Brad & Diego) and one of our writers (
Diego, it’s very easy to win the evolution vs. ID debate when you frame it as religion vs. science, or when you can’t have honest disagreement without being labeled a hater. It seems no one is allowed to use labels but you. That said, labels are constructive when they give us an accurate approximation of one another’s viewpoint. They are destructive when we use them to create a straw man, or to degenerate into an ad hominem attack.
I may, indeed, be a creationist, but just because I question the “science” doesn’t necessarily mean that I am one. Nor does it mean that my rejection of “uncreationism” is predicated on the fact that I’m a theist. It could be that I simply find the mechanisms Darwinists say are responsible for our origins are wholly inadequate to produce what we now observe in nature.
But as I said, all this does is keep us from talking about the real issue. We can debate all day about the philosophical underpinnings of each system of thought and that’s constructive when we use it to expose a bias. But we should be cautious: History is littered with personalities who were biased, but were nonetheless correct in their conclusions. Naturalistic evolutionists have an atheistic bias. Creationists have a theistic bias. That doesn’t mean that their conclusions are necessarily wrong. That is a determination which should be made based on the evidence. You want to talk about naturalistic evolution? Fine, let’s talk about it. You want to talk about religion? Okay, fine, then, let’s talk about that. But quit trying to define the argument so the other side has no way to respond. Both sides need to respect each other to the degree that we can actually talk about the subject at hand, as opposed to the usual: appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, question begging, selective use of evidence, overt fabrications, straw man arguments, lack of testability, vague terms & shifting definitions, etc.
Two questions which need to be asked and answered by both sides are: (1) What precisely do you mean by evolution? And (2) what is the evidence for and against your position?
Popularity: 1% [?]
In the case of evolution versus creation, I agree that often the sides do talk past each other. What I believe I pointed out in one of my comments to Brad’s comments about my comments-if you can follow that-is the crux of the problem. Evolution claims to be science, but in reality is a kind of philosophy masquerading as science.
Science is also a kind of philosophy-a way of knowing and understanding the world-but it must be based on empiricism, which requires experimentation and observation.
Evolution-a process said to take millions or billions of years-claims “Just look, you can see the plethora of evidence supporting evolution everywhere” but all you really see is the final “product.” It claims to be empirical without actually really being empirical.
The creationist, however, might be able to look at the same “product” and say that it is not really a product of evolution at all, but an example of the degeneration that is occurring as a result of the Fall of Creation. Degeneration in nature actually can be observed-because it happens so quickly-and the theory of evolution as constructed does not seem to concur with the hard science of physics. Unfortunately, we cannot observe creation in process either, we can only look at the results.
One must point out that both evolution and creation are systems of thought. They are both frameworks for understanding life as it is. My claim is that neither system is science-empirically speaking-at all. Neither can be observed. We can only look at the evidence in nature that is left over and say, “How does this system stack up against the evidence?” “What evidence conflicts with my system, and can that conflicting evidence be explained?”
Every such system begins with assumptions. The evolutionist assumes naturalism; the creationist assumes the work of God, the ID proponent assumes some sort of designer/designing force behind it all but doesn’t necessarily assume who or what that might be. All of these systems involve matters of faith.
In conventional “scientific” thought today, creationists are often dismissed outright BECAUSE modern science is a priori defined along naturalistic lines which do not allow the possibility of the supernatural. The history of science demonstrates it was not always that way. That is a modern development in science influenced even by the judicial system and the court of popular public opinion, and ironically wayward theologians. Certain courts have taken the naturalistic tack and weigh in heavily against creationists and ID proponents having any influence in public school curriculums. However, I must contend that in science empirical lines should take priority. Empiricism and naturalism must not be confused, for if we observe something in an empirical manner, it is what it is. Our opinions as to natural/supernatural involvement belong in a different sphere.
Science should really be about discovery; we should not dismiss evidence just because it does not fit with our preconceived notions. Supposed “impossibilities” should be set aside. Often things have been discovered which “defied” explanation at the time. There are “anomalies” when it comes to any system of thinking.
Both evolutionists and creationists will try to explain the evidence in light of their understandings, but all in all, whatever that evidence may be, it should not be dismissed.
We must also be reminded that good science has been done by believers in God, in spite of the fact that they did not hold to naturalistic assumptions. Many of those great discoveries still stand today.
I believe that evolution (assuming the atheistic variety of it here) is like a parasite that lives off of true science and that it should no longer be confused with it. Proponents of each system will often talk past each other just because the the assumptions and implications of each are so intertwined. Evolution is a philosophical system with implications that affect understandings of science, morality, and theology. Creation is a theological system with implications that affect understandings of science, morality, and philosophy. Science in its purest form is philosophy, which does not necessarily need to contend with the theological sphere. It is an amoral system, available for a variety of purposes. As an empirically based system though, it also has its limitations. There are certain events/phenomena which cannot be fully probed by human understanding, because we are by our very nature limited.
There is one other point I must mention that makes the mixing of these issues all the more confusing. Speaking of evolution or creation strictly as systems of thought-one having a primarily philosophical basis, the other a theological one-each system involves the process of deduction which means that one starts with general principles/premises and then makes conclusions about what is observed from there.
Science involves both processes of deduction and induction. If one starts with a hypothesis based on a foundation of creation or evolution, one could come to very different conclusions (deduction is the main agent here). Empiricism-speaking strictly of observed phenomena here-involves the very different process of induction. One might not necessarily start with a premise, but have a whole set of observations and come to a conclusion based on those. The conclusion could even support each hypothesis based on one’s interpretation.
This is why each side talks past the other and loses patience with the other. I do understand evolution and what it entails; I simply do not believe that it occurs. The evolutionist has the same problem with my understanding of things.
We accord an almost idolatrous respect to science in our day and age-even making it into a religion. We must recognize it for what it is: a particular kind of philosophy with its own limitations. It can be seen as a gift from God, or be used as the bane of mankind. All in all, it need not take sides, but be enjoyed by the believer and the non-believer, complicated though the situation is. -Cal Samuel August
Personally I don’t question science. I question the philosophy of the evolutionists who pose their philosophy as if it were science.
As do I. Such questions are, indeed, anathema to the established “wisdom,” Professor. Try as I might I can’t seem to make the die-hards understand that even science is a philosophy–probably because they believe “philosophy” to be a dirty word, which taints the “pristine” objectivity of their naturalistic paradigm. Probably such debates are wasted anyway. That doesn’t seem to stop me from indulging, though. Have a good one.