Evolutionism vs. Creationism....

I was bound to write a post about this subject sooner or later, and CL's comment to my last post (Is God real? Or is he imaginary?) virtually prodded me to share my own views on the subject.

First of all, I'm neither a paleontologist, nor a man of the cloth, though I have studied and read a lot of material on both fields.

Do I consider myself an evolutionist? Well, the quick answer is yes. I do recognize that it is still considered a theory even up to now, but I believe that the theory of evolution has some substance to it, though the depth of its substance has always been and is still open to debate. It admittedly cannot explain all aspects of our origins, but it does manage to answer a lot of questions.

Am I a creationist? It depends. As a Catholic, I do believe that God is responsible for creating everything that is around us, even our very selves. If having such a belief defines a creationist, then maybe I am. However, I am not really comfortable with using a blanket attribution of the creation of everything in the universe to an intelligent designer without some recognizable basis in science or in fact. To put it another way, I do not dispute the belief that God created everything in this universe. But I do tend to have some arguments on how God created everything. That statement may be a bit hard to fathom for some, or may even appear contradictory, but such is often the case when you try to coalesce science and faith.

That being said, please feel free to take everything you read in this blog with a grain of salt. What I write down here are my own beliefs. Like I said earlier, I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be an authority in this matter, but I still feel inclined to share my humble opinions on this subject nonetheless. If I am correct, you are free to agree with me, and if I have gotten it wrong, you are also free to tell me how. I always try to keep an open mind.

CL has pointed out that Darwin's theory of evolution has too many flaws, and makes mention of a site named The COLLAPSE of DARWINISM which is based on the writings of Turkish author Harun Yahya as a reference for these flaws. I have browsed the site myself, read a lot of the material, and even viewed all seven chapters of the interactive documentary. While it presents a good argument for the flaws of evolutionism, it doesn't really present a good case supporting creationism or the intelligent design theory, only relying on the flaws of the theory of evolution to bolster its own claim that an intelligent designer is responsible for creating the universe.

The intelligent design theory is based on the analogy that if you take a walk in the woods and come across a small stone, that stone could have easily appeared there by chance, because of the simplicity of its existence which can be attributed to various random events. The small stone could be part of a bigger stone which it crumbled off from, it could be the result of weathering, etc. On the other hand, if you take a walk in the woods and come across, let's say, a fine Swiss pocket watch, the pocket watch is too complicated a device to come into existence via a random confluence of events. Someone must have made it.

While it sounds logical enough, the application of this theory to the universe in general is frought with various complications. As finite beings, we cannot say with all certainty what events can take place by chance, and what cannot, except for those within our sphere of understanding. Yahya has stated as a fact, and I agree, that science has not been able to replicate the various random events which lead to the creation of living organisms from non-organic compounds. But we have to consider that if science cannot prove something, or even if no proof exists, it does not necessarily that a thing is not so. It is entirely plausible that we may just be devoid of such an understanding. It is possible that we may understand it eventually, and it is also possible that we may never understand it. But that doesn't mean that the basis is not there, or that a thing is not true. A cockroach may not understand combustion as a chemical process, but we all know that combustion is a real, natural phenomenon, and it takes place notwithstanding the lack of understanding of the cockroach. Perhaps that is the case with ourselves as well. If you look at the grand scale of the universe, we aren't even cockroaches. We're probably just viruses.

I was rather disappointed with the conclusions of the site, which presents the closing argument that taking into consideration that the theory of evolution is highly flawed, intelligent design and creationism should be considered as a better alternative. It just feeds on the weaknesses of an opposing theory to encourage belief in another without any strong arguments in its own favor.

Does that mean evolution is correct and creationism is wrong? Again, not necessarily. A flawed argument is of no consequence if creationism or intelligent design is indeed true. But conclusive evidence or proof for both theories don't exist as of yet. It is here that evolution seemingly has an edge, as it cites for proof the morphological evidence (the fossil record) and genetic sequence evidence (DNA). Admittedly, I am not well versed in creationism arguments. If you are aware of evidence being touted as positive proof for creationism, than by all means please feel free to share the same with me, so that I make mention of it in this blog.

So what conclusions can I derive from this brief, and admittedly humble treatise? There is no irrefutable evidence that either the theory of evolution or creationism/intelligent design is indeed true. However, science has established that evolution has some basis in fact, albeit as a theory it has had a lot of flaws ever since Charles Darwin first presented it in 1858. As for creationism, while there is at least some logic to its assumptions, I would like to see some positive proof in its favor instead of the negative evidence being brandished by its adherents against evolution.

I believe that evolution still has the upper hand, and science has been able to make the pieces more or less fit with evolution as the basis of our origins despite some flaws. But let us see what arguments may yet emerge in intelligent design's or creationism's favor.

But let's face it. Evolutionism just makes more sense, and the science fits. Not perfectly, but it does, nonetheless.

I still have a lot of ideas on this subject that I wish I could put down, but for considerations of both time and space, this analysis will have to do for now. Besides, I doubt it if we have heard the last of this debate. Let me know what you think.

Links:

Evolution
Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind
Evolution Deceit.com
Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine