CAN DARWINISM AND DESIGN BE RECONCILED DRAFT A

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2014

The* issue* of* creation* and* evolution* has* been* a* major* source* of* conflict* between* the* Theologians* who* believe* that* the* universe* is* the* creative* ability* of* God* and* that* this* creation* is* exPnihilo.* The* exPnihilism* of* the* creation* has* also* engendered* series* of* argument*among*various*interests,*particularly*among*the*scientists*and*Philosophers* alike.* This* came* as* a* result* of* the* apparent* contradictions* observable* in* creation* which* calls* for* attention.* It* is* in* this* regard* that* these* various* groups* have* arisen* to* either* debunk* or* refute* the* creationist* principle* on* the* ground* of* its* incoherent* and* illogical* trends* which* do* not* ascertain* the* basic* requirements* for* explaining* the* rationale*behind*observable*difference*in*the*universe*which*is*believed*to*have*been* created* by* God.* Consequently,* the* scientific* and* philosophical* traditions* seem* to* be* disillusioned*by*the*claim*of*the*theologians*with*regard*to*creation.*Hence,*this*paper* attempts*to*explore*the*scientific,*the*philosophical*and*theological*perspectives*of*the* issue* of* creation* and* evolution* with* the* view* to* ascertaining* the* veracity* of* their* claims.

Science Education, 2006

The social movement known as creationism has had a long history and a variety of manifestations through time. To understand it takes considerable study" (p. 135). So states the author in part three of this book. After reading this volume I could not agree more. Let me say at the outset that this is quite an extraordinary book, and one I predict is destined to become a classic. Eugenie Scott brings to bear her encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the conflict, passion for the subject, and deep understanding of the legal framework tempered by her long involvement as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. This work provides a well-balanced synthesis of the complexities of science, religion, jurisprudence, and education as they pertain to understanding the continuing dichotomy between evolution and creationism. Perhaps its greatest strength, however, is that all this information is so expertly brought together under one cover. Scott has made a concerted effort to write for an audience that includes "bright high school students and college undergraduates" (p. xvii). The book is organized into three main sections: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism; A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy; and Selections From the Literature. In the third section, readers will find a plethora of information, including primary scientific literature, important legal opinions, legislative bills, committee reports, and obscure historical documents. Most of these selections are well chosen and provide the reader with a rich perspective of the ongoing debate. Unfortunately, many articles from the creationist literature were not included because permission to publish them was refused. Scott does her best to summarize those articles she considers important and encourages readers to explore them in their entirety. True to the spirit of the book, the final section contains an impressive and perhaps unparalleled collection of references for further exploration. In the Introduction, the author erects "three pillars of creationism" under which is claimed all arguments should fall: evolutionary theory is flawed, evolution and religion are incompatible, and fairness to both sides. As the book unfolds, all arguments do indeed appear to fall into one of these three categories. With Scott's scientific background, it is not perhaps surprising that the strongest sections are those which elaborate on the nature of science, evolutionary theory (chapters 1 and 2), and biological patterns and processes (chapter 8), although these are not without fault. The section that elaborates the principals of biological evolution is, in general, extremely well done and puts to rest any suggestion that "evolutionary theory is flawed." While the example illustrating natural selection using rabbits and myxomatosis is well presented, it should be pointed out that rabbits are not in fact rodents, but lagomorphs. Some other minor but important concerns include the correct use of terminology. A very important

It is a common assumption that biological organisms appear as though they were designed. Prior to the Darwinian revolution, the order of biological organisms was often taken as a sign of their divine Creator. It is also commonly argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory as a good explanation for the adaptive complexity of biology reveals this appearance to be merely an illusion. However, in recent philosophical discussion several defenses of the compatibility of divine design and Darwinian evolution have emerged. These defenses argue that not only are divine design and evolution compatible, but even that biological organisms can continue to function as pointers to the Creator even in a Darwinian cosmos. This article explores and extends these recent arguments. I analyze four different strategies for arguing that the wisdom of the Creator is apparent in biological organisms. The basic underlying assumption is that the products of some larger whole can reflect the rationality and designedness of that whole.

Complexity, 2005

The Darwinian View of Evolution Is a Scientific Fact and Not an Ideology O n July 07, 2005 the New York Times published a letter submitted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. In this letter he raised the claim that nature provides evidence for intelligent design and criticizes evolutionary biologists for being unable to recognize the design. The letter reads: "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." and "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not scientific at all, but … an abdication of human intelligence." Thereby, the Cardinal rejects the concept of evolution driven by random variation and selection, apostrophized as "chance and necessity" in the Neo-Darwinian spirit. The two quoted sentences are remarkable not only because the Cardinal aims at the recognition of intelligent design in nature but also because he accuses evolutionary biologists of adhering to an ideology. Almost all scientists who answered the letter reacted sharply because they felt that science has its own well-established rules for the dialog of the researcher with nature, and this dialog so far has not led to the necessity to assume a plan or a designer for understanding the evolution of the biosphere. The reaction of the nonscientific public, however, was ambiguous: Some answers were liberal and said: "Let the scientists do their job and define what science is about, and accordingly the Cardinal should care about belief and religion." An appreciable fraction of letters to newspapers in response to the letter in the New York Times, however, welcomed the Cardinal's position because they found that time has come to regulate scientific thought. Without digging into the deeper reasons of the somewhat burdened relation between science and laymen in the public, it seems in place to address some facts concerning the issues on which the most frequently invoked arguments for design are built. In the following six paragraphs an attempt is made to present these facts in the light of biology of today, which is more than 50 years after the formulation of the synthetic or Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. PROBABILITY ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF DESIGN ARE FUTILE An argument often raised against evolution by variation and selection is the low probability to obtain one particular biomolecule or one organism (see, e.g., Eugene Wigner [1]). We present it here in a simplifying caricature: In order to find one particular genome of chain length one million nucleotides, the number of trials required to hit the target in a random search with probability one is 4 1,000,000 Ϸ 10 600,000. Although the mean path length would be smaller than a path visiting all sequences, the number is so incredibly

Evolution is a theory held by scientist and scholars who do not believe in an intelligent designer but instead that everything came into being due to natural causes. The big bang theory is the most recognized theory of evolution. These scientist and scholars prefer the idea that something came from nothing. Evolution by a broad definition is a cumulative change through time. The change refers to facts that the universe and everything in it have had a history of change which has been observed by humans over a long period of time. Evolutionist prefers to think that this change has taken place over millions of years. Charles Darwin has been credited as the father of the theory of evolution. Charles Robert Darwin, in 1831, graduated from Cambridge University. After graduating, he found a position on the H.M.S. Beagle. He served as the naturalist of the ship. Darwin cataloged all the plants and animals that he encountered along his voyages. During his time "most European Scholars believed that extinct life forms no longer existed on Earth." 1 The extinction of life was caused by sudden catastrophic events such as floods or earthquakes. These same scientists believed that the last great catastrophic event was the flood that was described in the book of Genesis. The flood wiped out all the animals except the ones that were taken into the ark by Noah. The animals that did not make it into the ark drowned and were buried under mud and rock. From the animals that died is where the fossils have been uncovered centuries afterward. Based on this theory, "all life forms existed at the same exact time in the same form from the very beginning of time." 2 This theory about the appearance and disappearance of all life forms is sometimes called the catastrophe theory. During Darwin's time, the scientist who

Dialectical Anthropology, 1975

“Critical Reflections on Evolutionism as a Scientific or Pseudo-Scientific Theory and as an Atheist Ideology”

2000

Primitive man was overwhelmed and horrified by nature and natural phenomena just as animals are when they face an unknown situation. He could not give a naturalistic explanation so he looked for explanations in his imagination filling the world with imaginary forces, then to creatures hypostasizing these forces. At the same time, however, man was making real observations of the world and natural phenomena and attempting to give primitive scientific answers.