Pages

16 May 2006

And on the eighth day, God created natural selection

Arguing instead of thinking - the creationists' way.
Over the last couple of years, the argument between so-called evolutionists or Darwinists (people who accept and support the science of evolution) and so-called creationists or IDiots (people who believe that the imaginary concept of an 'intelligent designer' is on par with the theory of evolution in a scientific context) has been getting a lot of airplay in the news, current affairs programs and all over the web. My thoughts? I reckon evolution is a valid scientific theory that is perfectly appropriate for teaching people in a science classroom. And I think creationism (or Intelligent Design, which is a weasel word for the same concept) is a religious and/or philosophical concept that does not bear any resemblence to a scientific theory (I'm trying to say "poppycock" as nicely as I can).

I'm not here to further the Evo vs ID argument - people like Orac, Peter Bowditch and Robert T Carroll are more than competent at articulating my stance, and I've been reading their stuff fairly regularly for a couple of years. But after reading argument after argument for and against both sides, one question sticks in my head: Why do creationists argue that Intelligent Design and Evolution are incompatible?

I just don't get it. If the main point of the creationist's argument is that "God did it", why doesn't it fit that God (or the Intelligent Designer, or Geppetto or whoever) also created the process of evolution? I can't see why evolution as a science can't logically fit with creationism as a religious or philosophical concept.

I think it's the pure and stubborn determination of creationists to exclude and ignore evolution that's making them deny a perfectly reasonable and rational argument. The desire to replace evolution with Intelligent Design gets in the way of actually making sense. Surely it's much easier to back up the claim that God invented natural selection (for which there is solid and growing scientific evidence) than it is to prove that the diversity of earthly life is the result of an anonymous boffin with a project plan. At the very least they could come up with better "proof" than the 'evolution is pretty bloody unlikely' excuse. Just because it hurts your head to think about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

2 comments:

  1. I laughed. I cried. I agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. your mother10:48 am

    A brilliant argument. Your extensive reading on this subject makes "Quilters' Companion" look a little shallow.

    ReplyDelete