Part 2: Darwin, science and theories
The other side, the people who like scientific, tangible proof, are called, well anything really, ”realists”, ”scientists”, ”Darwinists”.
They think that Darwin’s theory is, has been, and will be, proven to be the truth about the diversity of life on Earth.
Let’s put the two sides side by side, there’s creationism, very strict:
- the bible is literally the TRUTH
- God created everything from scratch, in exactly 6 days
- all life was created exactly as it is now, fish, birds animals, and us (the ”crown of creation”)
(according to: us)
(oh, no: according to the bible)
(written by us though)
- it stops here because we are perfect, and in the image of God
(according to us, and what we imagine God to be, eg an old bloke with a beard)
(which seems silly as I am a beautiful youngish woman without a beard)
- the earth is 6000 years old
- faith is all the proof we need
and Darwin’s theory of evolution:
- the Earth is billions of years old, geological fact. This can be scientifically proven, I mean really proven. Has nothing to do with the theory of evolution but supports it. The Earth is not 6000 years old.
- life ”evolved” slowly, from the simplest of organisms into more and more advanced organisms, culminating in ultimate perfection: the horse
(according to me)
- life forms on earth evolve to fill a niche.
- The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life forms on earth
- this ”theory” is proven by… well the whole world really, animals, islands, fossils, genetics, carbon dating, and new science. True to a correct scientific theory, new discoveries in science affirm predictions made by the theory of evolution
Before I go on there is one very important problem I need to clear up before we go on. This is also symptomatic for the utter stupidity of creationists. I am very sorry to call it stupidity, but I have been going through the dictionary and it’s the only word which fits the bill.
The creationists stupidity for me is really represented by their stupid use of the word ”theory”
–noun, plural -ries.
|1.||a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.|
|2.||a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.|
|3.||Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.|
|4.||the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.|
|5.||a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.|
|6.||contemplation or speculation.|
|7.||guess or conjecture.|
So when we say: ”Darwin’s theory of evolution” the word ”Theory” is meant in the truly scientific way. A scientific ”Theory’: Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.
For example: the ”Theory” of gravity.
This ”theory” predicts, and that prediction can be proven by experiments and results. For example: if I throw a Creationist from the top of a church tower, he will drop, crash into the ground, and splatter the pavement. This experiment can be predicted, implemented, and verified.
Try it out!
Now the Creationists call ”intelligent design” a ”theory”, but in this case the word means ”guess or conjecture”. Because they don’t understand the nature of the scientific use of the concept of a ”Theory” they think that if they use the same word for ”Creationism” or ”Intelligent Design” the concepts are therefore equal.
They are not. Darwin’s ”theory” of evolution is a verifiable scientific explanation, predicting events which are proven again and again to be correct. The Creationists ”theory” of Intelligent Design, is a conjecture based on ”faith” in a bronze age creation myth. It is demonstrably wrong in its conception, there is no scientific tangible proof for any of its claims, and it does not predict anything.
Moreover, Genesis, the book on which Creationists base their ”theory” of intelligent design actually gives us two creation myths, the other one is completely ignored by Creationists who claim to take the bible by the letter. The grammar of Genesis is ambiguous as well, it could either mean
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void…” (King James Version), or as “At the beginning of the making of heaven and earth, when the earth was unformed and void…”(Rashi, and with variations Ibn Ezra and Bereshith Rabba). The second reading supposes a pre-existing cosmos which God uses as the raw material for his work. The phrase “heaven and earth”, for example, is a set phrase in Hebrew denoting “everything,” and the word commonly translated as “created” (in “God created the Heavens and the earth”) is commonly associated with molding something from already-existing raw material.
So lets see, creation myth 1:
God created the Earth and the heavens and on successive days fish, birds, animals, culminating with us, created in God’s own image.
And then there is the other creation myth 2 from the very same book of Genesis:
It begins with God creating Adam and Eve who live with God in the garden of Eden until they gain knowledge of good and evil (in Hebrew it was ”knowledge of everything”) and are kicked out. No mention of 6 days.
Now the early church was not literalist and considered these as allegorical anyway.
Choosing one of the Genesis creation ”theories” literally is a recent development.
So what the creationists want is that American schools teach both ”Theories”, so the ”theory” of ”Intelligent Design” should be taught to schoolchildren as an equal to the scientific, proven, and accurately predicting theory of evolution. For the beginning, because the eventual goal is that the bronze age creation myth of faith should replace the scientific proven and provable and predicting ”Theory” of evolution.
I’m not finished , there will be a part 2 of part 2.