Christian creationists have their explanation of man’s origin. Other religions’ creationists have theirs. They will never agree. Which points to the mystical rather than scientific basis of creationism. In an attempt to give their “theory” a scientific veneer modern-day creationists would pull the wool over our eyes with the introduction of a designer. Which is no more than putting a Groucho mask on the God figure.
No, He is neither our creator nor our designer.
Scientists are not fooled by this flim-flam. Almost to a warm body they espouse the Theory of Evolution. Is it a scientific cabal? Are scientists having a laugh at the expense of the man-in-the-pew? Hardly. Their Theory has literally had its day in court, as has the creationists’ version. Each time, evolution has survived the experience with its reputation burnished, while the judge has ordered the mystical crowd to stop trying to shoehorn their crack-pot ideas into science class.
Even grown-up religions have accepted Evolution as a holy truth. They just ask that God get credit for getting the whole thing started. (Started, mind you – He keeps His hands to himself afterwards.) Evolutionary purists might want to extract the last gram of flesh and deny any divine role – but really, where’s the harm?
We must look to the most gullible to find the soil in which creationism flourishes; to those who least understand the nature of science. The Bible thumpers, and their fellow-travelers in the far reaches of other faiths.
Science doesn’t have the option of declaring the debate over and the final victory won. But it may assign a likelihood that that the Theory will stand the test.
Consider this. We can say with almost perfect certainty that we are the product of our parents’ having sex. But we cannot be so sure that those people who claim to be our parents actually are. We may have been at the seminal event, but our memory is missing.
Jenna is so clearly George and Laura’s daughter. For Barbara we need more evidence.
Nevertheless there are things we can do to test the validity of their claim. Do we look like them? It won’t be conclusive but it may indicate shorter odds. Photographs of the new-born probably exist. Again, not definitive proof – but another step toward the truth.
Then there is documentation – birth certificates, hospital records and the like. Each of these things bolstering the case. Next you can test blood types. That could definitely exclude these parent claimants, or line up one more fact to support their claim. And finally a DNA test. Now the truth can be discovered to a one part in millions certainty.
That’s were we stand with evolution. It has passed all tests from the broadest “looks like” review – to the analysis of its DNA. At any time the Theory could have been revealed as a fraud. But it has not been.
So where does that leave creationism? In bad shape. There are two main “proofs” for creationism/ID. The first the plaintive claim – we must be designed, because we look like we were designed.
A favorite tale is the watch in the field. It goes like this. If you were walking across a field and found a watch you would not believe that all its elements came together spontaneously to create its chronographical existence. Rather, you would believe it to be the creation of a designer. But the difference between living things and a watch (besides the living part) is that living things reproduce.
Reproduction provides the agent of change. People produce people, but watches don’t produce watches – so where’s the validity of the comparison?
The second, more confidently held, assertion is that evolution is riddled with errors and impossibilities. There is plenty of sound scientific literature that refutes those claims. There is no need to do it here.
So in short, facts support evolution. Faith supports creationism/ID. Facts are the basis of science. Faith the basis of religion. And there we have it.
No comments:
Post a Comment