Evolution controversy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
fixing the only substantive problem mentioned which the discussion page mentions |
Duncharris (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by Ed Poor to last version by Guettarda |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Creation-evolution_controversy]] |
|||
{{cleanup-date|September 2005}}. |
|||
{{merge|Creation_evolution_controversy}} |
|||
The '''evolution controversy''' is a centuries-old conflict over the origins of human life (in particular; all life in general). According to [[materialist]]s, it is possible for all life (even human life) to have "evolved" from lower forms of life and ultimately from inorganic matter - without any divine intervention actually being involved or even being needed. According to [[theologian]]s, human life was created by [[God]] (or a god, or gods). |
|||
Related to the main controversy is the controversial theory of [[intelligent design]] (ID), which argues that living things show signs of having been created deliberately. The chief reason ID gives is the claim that there are enough differences in species which could not have arisen from natural forces and laws that an designer is the only logical explanation. This is akin to archaeologists finding monoliths, statues, or strange marks on a wall and concluding that erosion could not have made them. |
|||
==Motivation and methodology== |
|||
Some thinkers start with a premise and try to come up with a theory which supports this premise while being consistent with observed facts. |
|||
Atheists, tending to embrace materialism, generally begin from the viewpoint that there is no God and that natural forces and laws govern all. "Science is sovereign", they say, meaning that only the material world exists and that science should concern itself only with discovering the natural laws which govern the material world. |
|||
Religious adherents profess believe in God (whether as genuine faith or for some pragmatic purpose), and they begin from the viewpoint that God created all matter and life. Their claim is that God intervenes from time to time in the material world. Generally, though, they accept that after a time of intervention, God allows the results to follow natural laws. For example, after creating the sun and the planets, God does not move them around Himself, but allows momentum and gravity to move them in the elliptical paths observed by astronomers. |
|||
A completely open-minded approach is rare. Thinkers usually begin with a conclusion and then seek to justify it, so it is hard to find anyone who begins with the observed facts and then looks for a hypothesis which can explain these facts. The tendency is to pick a hypothesis which conforms either to atheism or religous belief and then go from there. These two schools of thought (or opposing camps) sometimes express their arguments in terms of a search for a hypothesis which can be fitted to the facts, but it is not remarkable that their arguments always reach the foreordained conclusion. |
|||
==Wrangling over the fossil record== |
|||
Materialists all accept the fossil record, but many creationists do not. This is the first of several obstacles or bones of contention which keep the two major camps apart. Creationists are splintered into many different groups depending on how they view fossils. Perhaps the most important distinction is between those who think God made the fossils Himself, versus those believers who think that fossils are authentic records of living things. (It is amusing to non-believers to think that God might have tricked people by "planting false clues".) |
|||
Regarding the fossil record, there are three main viewpoints: |
|||
#It is authentic, and it shows that natural forces alone gave rise to life, the various species of plants and animals and people |
|||
#It is authentic, but God created life and intervened at various points to create new species and human beings are a special creation |
|||
#It is not an authentic record: God created life a relatively short time ago (including human beings) |
|||
In America, these views are held by approximately the following proportions of people: |
|||
{| border=1 |
|||
|how life originated |
|||
|percentage of adults |
|||
|---- |
|||
|natural forces alone |
|||
|approx. 10% |
|||
|---- |
|||
|guided evolution |
|||
|approx. 45% |
|||
|---- |
|||
|special creation |
|||
|approx. 45% |
|||
|---- |
|||
|} |
|||
Terminological confusion can be traced to this. Adherents of the materialistic, (natural forces alone) viewpoint like to say, "Over half the people believe in evolution". In this sentence, the word ''evolution'' refers to both the naturalistic viewpoint concept and the divine guidance viewpoint. Some observers call this a blurring of a crucial distinction. |
|||
Critics have even accused these adherents of exploiting this confusion to give a false impression of the size of their camp. If 10% believe in natural forces alone and 45% believe in guided evolution, lumping the second group in with the first inflates the size of the first group by a huge factor. It allows adherents to say that most people side with them (55%). |
|||
Adherents in the non-materialist camp like to say, "Most people reject evolution". In this sentence, the word ''evolution'' refers only to the naturalistic concept. Some observers call this usage dishonest. It's making a false distinction. |
|||
Critics have accused these adherents also of inflating the size of their camp. If 45% believe in evolution (but not by natural forces alone), and 45% reject evolution altogether, then lumping the first group in with the second doubles its size. It changes a 50-50 standoff into a 90-10 rout. |
|||
Revision as of 18:06, 28 September 2005
Redirect to: