Creation/evoluton debate

Mar. 19, 2005

What the creation/evolution debate is ultimately about


It's important to know whether a fight is merely a skirmish, with the chance of winning slim to none, or whether it's worth battling to the bitter end.

The creation/evolution debate, I contend, is a more of a skirmish. But there is a fight that should be waged at all costs -- and with no thought of surrender.

First, let's understand who the combatants are and what's being fought over.

Once again, the Kansas State Board of Education will look at science standards and decide later this summer how evolution should be taught in public schools.

The issue has come up, as it did in 1999, because some people believe there should be a more critical approach to teaching evolution, including a requirement that intelligent design or creationism be part of science classes.

Here's how the lines tend to be drawn:

Most who support a creationist's belief have a static worldview: No living forms ever change. As a result, proponents must constantly reinterpret geology and paleontology, to note two examples, to fit the biblical data. Creationists won't allow for any science that isn't viewed through the filter of the biblical account of creation.

On the other side, most scientists speak of evolution from one of two perspectives:

It can refer to relatively small changes that occur in living species of animals and plants, or it can maintain that all living forms come from a single source, which was derived from a non-living form.

One view is limited and makes few generalizations based on experimental observation. The other has broader assumptions and makes far-reaching speculations. The distinction is crucial.

A scientist will test an idea and hold on to it as long as other evidence doesn't refute it or suggest that it should be modified. A problem arises when the theory becomes a unifying belief about the world that won't be discarded even if evidence is lacking or shown to be erroneous.

The latter type of evolution, or "evolutionism," as some call it, then becomes a philosophical construct that takes on dogmatic overtones.

What is clear in this evolution/creation standoff is that presuppositions determine the outcome.

If you believe that no change is possible in living forms, then evolution is not a science that's faulty but a philosophy that undermines faith.

If your view of evolution takes specific evidence and attempts to make sweeping though unsubstantiated conclusions, then science is no longer only about observation and experiment but advocacy.

Put simply -- and I hope not simplistically -- that's what the evolution/creation argument comes down to.

The science behind evolution, when understood in its narrow sense, is widely established and accepted. Other views -- creationism, intelligent design -- have not made their case among most scientists.

But there is a more important issue that people of faith can and should address. While evolution attempts to explain the development of complex life forms, it cannot advance our understanding of humanity's worth or purpose. Its principles deal with experimentation and observation but don't help us make ethical decisions or guide us into becoming better people.

"The only value judgments ever present in evolution are those injected into it from the outside," D. Gareth Jones, a biologist, once wrote. "And whenever that occurs, we are dealing with some form of evolutionism."

The fact is, evolution cannot decipher our spiritual nature or what the ultimate meaning of life is. It can neither describe nor arbitrarily dismiss the existence of a Creator and the significance of the divine/human relationship. That's not its field of study.

With that clear distinction, those who don't insist on a static view of life and still acknowledge the Creator of all need not fear the work of science.

But if science demands acceptance of beliefs outside its purview, then its methods and its conclusions should be challenged.

And the battle waged.