Re: Evolution and Creationism

[Glenn Knapp <kahuna@VCN.COM>]

At 10:40 AM 19/08/99 -0700, you wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, David Abineri wrote:

>

>> I have heard many discussions wherein holes are poked into the evolution

>> hypothesis (some of which are not unreasonable because it is a THEORY

>> and represents the best ideas about how life arrived at the present) but

>> I would like to know the evidence that leads, in a similar way, to the

>> theory called creationism.

This discussion has been interesting, but I think that terms need to be nailed down so that everyone is speaking the same language.  This is, I believe, responsible for much of the confusion that exists.  Evolution itself is not really a theory, it is simply a body of consistent observations in which life on earth has progressed from very simple forms that existed billions of years ago, to more complicated multicellular forms around 1 billion years ago, to fairly complicated life forms around 700 - 600 million years ago, through the dinosaurs, etc.  None of this can really be disputed.  The evidence is overwhelming from every area of science - the fossil record, geologic deposits, astronomical observations, radioactive dating, etc.

The theory part, where the controversy exists, is simply the mechanism that caused all this change.  Was is natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin or is it perhaps a punctuated evolution caused by global (or maybe local) catastrophes, or something else that we haven't discovered yet?  

>If this situation cannot be changed, then the alternative is to declare

>that "science" and "religion" are separate.  Was mankind created?  That's

>a religion/science debate, and cannot be answered as long as all religious

>questions are declared to lie beyond the bounds of scientific

>investigation.  Fine.  But what then do we teach in school, if we cannot

>state that the religious anti-evolution claims are definitely wrong?

One would think that evolution is outside the ken of the physics class, but it really isn't.  I find that it intrudes (actually the students bring it up) when the subject matter is radioactive decay, the big bang, the expansion of the universe, and even the good old second law of thermodynamics.

I think that it is important to lay out what is known; i.e., that evolution happened, and then what the best science we have has to say on the subject. It is a good opportunity to discuss the scientific method.

Glenn

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Physics Kahuna
Kahuna Physics Institute - on the flapping edge of physics research.