Contrary to the way it is portrayed by Creationists, the theory of evolution wasn’t handed down from the Goddess Athe [1] to her true prophet Darwin, to whose faith all subsequent researchers have to slavishly adhere. From the day each of Darwin’s books were published, and for the century and a half since, serious and powerful researchers (as well as semi-educated and/or pseudo-scientific dabblers) have busily been trying (and mostly failing) to make a name for themselves by finding a flaw — any flaw — in the overall Theory of Evolution. Darwin’s singular contribution, the principle that those members of a population best adapted to an environment will survive, is rarely challenged.
I was inspired to write this post after reading Can God be scientific? Consider the evidence, Part II [2] by Daniel Jarvis. His post makes it clear that Creationists believe that all fields of science that are cited in support of this basic principle of modern biology have to meet criteria set by Darwin. These include astronomy, geology, genetics, tectonics, crystallography, quantum theory, and many other fields of study.
Let’s look at one supporting pillar of biological evolution: Things take time. The best Creationist argument (IMHO) is that all the species could not possibly have evolved in the short time since the beginning of the universe (or just of the world, for those who accept astronomical science) a few thousand years ago. I discuss this in detail here [3]. In brief, the age of the world and the age of the universe were both determined independently with no reference to Darwin. Before Darwin was born, both geologists and astronomers knew that the Universe and the Earth were older than Biblical time indicated. The estimated ages exponentially increased as more and more accurate methods of measuring were developed. However, for the last few decades the estimates have held steady.
If the world is very young (Biblical history including Genesis is shorter than the archaeological record of modern man), then there obviously wasn’t time to evolve the diversity we see today. That the world is old is not a presumption, it is a hard-won conclusion based on millions of pieces of independent corroborating evidence, and no contradicting evidence.
It is not a matter of tens of thousands of living and retired/demised researchers all obeying an authority, but rather of all these people following the evidence and constructing and modifying theories to fit the facts. Their greatest wish is to change a theory and win a Nobel.
What of the popular Creationist argument that evolutionists have contradicted themselves, and even Darwin? Sure. That’s how science works. First, review what is known, and then try to improve on it. Most newly announced Creation Science discoveries are already on record, and their fallacies well documented. Scientists record both their successes and failures. Creationists are doomed to repeat their history because they only examine the (scant and questionable) positive results they’ve had before proceeding.
As with the age of the universe, the Theory of Evolution will continue to be refined (evolve) as better methods of measurement and detection are developed (evolved). Therefore, the Theory explaining the observed fact of evolution will likely never be complete or uncontested. But at the core, there are no objections within a scientific frame. The basic kernel of it has remained unchanged for over a century.
Print this post [4]
[5]