"Creation vs. Evolution" or "Biblical Literalism vs. Naturalism?"Part of having a productive debate is agreeing on definitions. Framing the debate is key to getting anywhere. In this, the notion of a "Creation vs. Evolution" debate has done its debaters a disservice.
Evolution is only one piece of the naturalistic puzzle, but its opponents seem to misunderstand that more often than not. I can't tell you how many times I've heard creationists say "Something can't come from nothing" in a debate about evolution. The thing is, evolution doesn't suggest any such thing.
Evolution requires life to already be there before it can start working. Evolution says nothing at all about how the universe came to be, or about how life first appeared on Earth. It doesn't address the issue one way or the other. It can't. It's not designed to. It deals with what happens once life capable of reproduction is already in place. Anything outside of that is not evolution. The formation of the universe is not evolution. The appearance of life on Earth is not evolution. The planets being in rotation around the sun is not evolution. Got it?
Creationists have a hard time with this. They have an entire system which gives them all the answers they need. It's counterintuitive to say that one theory explains X, another explains Y, and the two have nothing at all to do with each other. X might turn out to be 100% wrong, but Y is still true. That gives people trouble.
What creationists are really arguing against is a naturalistic/materialistic explanation of the universe and our place in it. They can't keep straight what part is The Big Bang and what part is Abiogenesis. Personally, I find it a bit amusing that they don't tackle abiogenesis. For one, evolution is about as proven a science as you can get. You fight evolution, you're fighting a losing battle. Secondly, abiogenesis is not that well documented or even theorized. It's a much, much weaker theory than evolution. By contrast, it's easy pickings for creationists. Yet most of 'em haven't even heard the term before.
Abiogenesis describes the origins of life on Earth. How life arose from non-life. You have a regular old planet, then life suddenly forms. This is abiogenesis and not evolution.
Progress on abiogenesis is slow. There are several competing hypotheses and no clear winner yet. It's a rough field to get a straight answer in. The chemistry and conditions of very very very very early Earth aren't around anymore for us to study, and it's not the sort of thing that fossilizes well. You'd think creationists would hop all over that as the weak point in naturalism, but they're stuck in the anti-evolution rut. That's like boxing Mike Tyson in his prime when you could just fight Dakota Fanning in a cage match and call it a night.
This is not to say that if abiogenesis is flawed, creation is the only alternative. That's what's known as post hocto procto (pulling lobsters out of your ass like Jayne Mansfield).
Labels: abiogenesis, creation vs. evolution
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home