I love evolution theory; I love creationism. These are active and competing theories of human and life's existence, one based on contemporary scientific methodology and the other based on traditional, though religious beliefs. Both involve a level supplemented by plausibility arguments.
Both try to tell us where we are on a chronological scale and within a broad scheme of events. The first tells us where we came from, how long it took, what were the steps, and ultimately how we got here. It doesn't explain how it happened, but does assume it did happen. The current evolution theory is consistent, contiguous, though evolving and incomplete. Science should explain the how - but hasn't done so yet. Science conjectures, theorizes, i.e. guesses on at the marvelous processes. The problems are difficult. In contrast, the creationist (i.e. religious) viewpoint explains the origins, with the "how" being a Devine intervention. With the how "established" in the background, the processes are open to active modeling of all types. The modeling seeks to establish the how, though it is intrinsically assumed all along. It is a type of science where the nature is established via mechanisms that cannot be otherwise be believed.
Let’s consider an analogy. You are playing roulette. Your "system" is to play alternately red and then black. You have won 100 consecutive rounds, basically doubling your winnings each time. You conclude your system is the nature of roulette BECAUSE the probability of your experience is so fantastically remote from any mathematical possibility.
So, we have these disparate views on how we are, what we are, where we came from, and where we might be going. Wonderful. For evolution, we have the affirmation of the academy. Yet, the academy has a spotted record on theoretical endorsements. To name a few, there have been theories of earth, air, fire, and water, with epicycles added to account for data anomalies, and with phlogiston thrown in during the 17th century. In addition, there have been theories of spontaneous generation, the four humors of blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm including blood-letting*, and alchemy (even the great Sir Issac Newton was a follower). We should point to the classical Newtonian theory of physics. It was sustained for centuries until it failed at the atomic level. Now, it is merely a macroscopic theory, though widely used for just about everything we can see, and touch, and live with. For evolution, we have events that seemingly defy mathematical expectation. Nonetheless, the academy has the most powerful voice in modern times, with church authority in retreat and disarray.
There remain the fundamental questions on how matter came to be. If you or I accept the universe as an entity, complete with laws of action and reaction, we can consider evolution as a matter of course. The Baconian method is in play. The creationists, never saying this, argue the deeper issue of how all of what we know or perceive was created in the first place. Sure, they give specious and probabilistic arguments of how unlikely evolution could be. They use big numbers, translated into probabilities giving incredibly small numbers, but they avoid the really big issue of how what is - is. Please note that the whole of statistics and statistical conclusions is based upon improbability. This is where theology, deism, theism, atheism, and all come into play, all argue from a basis of faith.
Until and unless there is a model for the fundamental creation of the matter and force within "this" universe, all theories are nothing more than theories, or models, or guesses on the transaction of existence. All theologies are relegated to the not-so-simple element that God created the cosmos but not why or how. Some suggest He intervenes actively, some suggest he "wound the clock" and let it go. Nonetheless, evolution follows the accepted path of science, and the evidence amassed is overwhelming. The evolutionary advocates are more modest, arguing only from evidence and theories based upon them
Until there is a consensus or model on the existential nature of the cosmos, all theories are suspect. And this means, all theories are cannot to be fully trusted. Except on faith - either way, one on evidence-based science and the other mostly on phenomenology.
Evolution is a model based upon a universe that just simply IS. Moreover, evolution itself evolves. As more information is uncovered or discovered, old theories are supplanted and refined by new ones. Darwin's ideas, if proposed today, would not pass muster if only for lack of sophistication. We don't quite know where evolution is headed, but we do know there is a substantial body of knowledge to which new findings MUST submit. This also makes one suspicious. Indeed, we cannot know when or if a fully new theory of evolution will emerge, basically supplanting the old. If there is, it will be a model that fits the known data as well and subsumes data – it’s that simple and that difficult
Creationism, on the other hand, is a model based upon the unlikelihood of a universe that was in fact created without a force beyond description - no matter how scientific their advocates wish it to appear. This, also, makes one suspicious. Naturally, with the second, we are faced with an even more incomprehensible problem, that of where God came from in the first place. Creationism is a theory retrofited for traditional beliefs, to give comfort and argument and certainty.
Creationism, in its early, primitive, and even modern forms, is and has been the Original Model for millenia. Then came evolution, originated by Charles Darwin. With the age of enlightenment and age of humanism led by Descartes, Voltaire, Hume and others, with the amazing success of mathematical models for description of all sorts of physical phenomena, with the skepticism of established dogma, and with the deterioration of established beliefs, the Original Model has been slowly abandoned, diminished, even deprecated. Evolution has ascended. Adherents of evolution rejoice but yet not quite fully. Aspects, such as spiritualism are missing in the description, or at least not quite defined beyond secular components - still specious. Adherents of the Original Model try to adapt, difficult though are their times. Traditionalists try hard to avoid the Original Model and spin the dogma toward a scientific explanation, or more accurately toward a "scientificness" acceptable to their followers.
The conflict is fully engaged. By consensus, the verdict is out. This is the way mankind proceeds, in fits, in starts, in conjecture, in evidence, in anecdote, in affirmation, in denial, in conclusion, in contradiction, in pro-idea, and in contra-idea. One model replaces another. Each generation feels some confidence in their model as the final one. Hurray for mankind! Our existence has many facets, all to be considered in full. This one is deep and may have an indeterminate solution. Mathematically, this problem may be undecidable, or even ill-posed with different theories concluding identical results, and with simultaneous theories allowing for multiple universes.
Are we looking for a winner. No! We are looking for a resolution, maybe a consensus, maybe some peace about ourselves within the cosmos. Want we want is certainty - like with everything - but this time, my friends, all we get is theory and conjecture.
As a personal view, evolution theory has the strong hand in this competitive milieu.
* Remarkably, blood-letting for fever stricken patients did have the desirable affect of lowering body temperature, long considered a positive goal for treatment.
Both try to tell us where we are on a chronological scale and within a broad scheme of events. The first tells us where we came from, how long it took, what were the steps, and ultimately how we got here. It doesn't explain how it happened, but does assume it did happen. The current evolution theory is consistent, contiguous, though evolving and incomplete. Science should explain the how - but hasn't done so yet. Science conjectures, theorizes, i.e. guesses on at the marvelous processes. The problems are difficult. In contrast, the creationist (i.e. religious) viewpoint explains the origins, with the "how" being a Devine intervention. With the how "established" in the background, the processes are open to active modeling of all types. The modeling seeks to establish the how, though it is intrinsically assumed all along. It is a type of science where the nature is established via mechanisms that cannot be otherwise be believed.
Let’s consider an analogy. You are playing roulette. Your "system" is to play alternately red and then black. You have won 100 consecutive rounds, basically doubling your winnings each time. You conclude your system is the nature of roulette BECAUSE the probability of your experience is so fantastically remote from any mathematical possibility.
So, we have these disparate views on how we are, what we are, where we came from, and where we might be going. Wonderful. For evolution, we have the affirmation of the academy. Yet, the academy has a spotted record on theoretical endorsements. To name a few, there have been theories of earth, air, fire, and water, with epicycles added to account for data anomalies, and with phlogiston thrown in during the 17th century. In addition, there have been theories of spontaneous generation, the four humors of blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm including blood-letting*, and alchemy (even the great Sir Issac Newton was a follower). We should point to the classical Newtonian theory of physics. It was sustained for centuries until it failed at the atomic level. Now, it is merely a macroscopic theory, though widely used for just about everything we can see, and touch, and live with. For evolution, we have events that seemingly defy mathematical expectation. Nonetheless, the academy has the most powerful voice in modern times, with church authority in retreat and disarray.
There remain the fundamental questions on how matter came to be. If you or I accept the universe as an entity, complete with laws of action and reaction, we can consider evolution as a matter of course. The Baconian method is in play. The creationists, never saying this, argue the deeper issue of how all of what we know or perceive was created in the first place. Sure, they give specious and probabilistic arguments of how unlikely evolution could be. They use big numbers, translated into probabilities giving incredibly small numbers, but they avoid the really big issue of how what is - is. Please note that the whole of statistics and statistical conclusions is based upon improbability. This is where theology, deism, theism, atheism, and all come into play, all argue from a basis of faith.
Until and unless there is a model for the fundamental creation of the matter and force within "this" universe, all theories are nothing more than theories, or models, or guesses on the transaction of existence. All theologies are relegated to the not-so-simple element that God created the cosmos but not why or how. Some suggest He intervenes actively, some suggest he "wound the clock" and let it go. Nonetheless, evolution follows the accepted path of science, and the evidence amassed is overwhelming. The evolutionary advocates are more modest, arguing only from evidence and theories based upon them
Until there is a consensus or model on the existential nature of the cosmos, all theories are suspect. And this means, all theories are cannot to be fully trusted. Except on faith - either way, one on evidence-based science and the other mostly on phenomenology.
Evolution is a model based upon a universe that just simply IS. Moreover, evolution itself evolves. As more information is uncovered or discovered, old theories are supplanted and refined by new ones. Darwin's ideas, if proposed today, would not pass muster if only for lack of sophistication. We don't quite know where evolution is headed, but we do know there is a substantial body of knowledge to which new findings MUST submit. This also makes one suspicious. Indeed, we cannot know when or if a fully new theory of evolution will emerge, basically supplanting the old. If there is, it will be a model that fits the known data as well and subsumes data – it’s that simple and that difficult
Creationism, on the other hand, is a model based upon the unlikelihood of a universe that was in fact created without a force beyond description - no matter how scientific their advocates wish it to appear. This, also, makes one suspicious. Naturally, with the second, we are faced with an even more incomprehensible problem, that of where God came from in the first place. Creationism is a theory retrofited for traditional beliefs, to give comfort and argument and certainty.
Creationism, in its early, primitive, and even modern forms, is and has been the Original Model for millenia. Then came evolution, originated by Charles Darwin. With the age of enlightenment and age of humanism led by Descartes, Voltaire, Hume and others, with the amazing success of mathematical models for description of all sorts of physical phenomena, with the skepticism of established dogma, and with the deterioration of established beliefs, the Original Model has been slowly abandoned, diminished, even deprecated. Evolution has ascended. Adherents of evolution rejoice but yet not quite fully. Aspects, such as spiritualism are missing in the description, or at least not quite defined beyond secular components - still specious. Adherents of the Original Model try to adapt, difficult though are their times. Traditionalists try hard to avoid the Original Model and spin the dogma toward a scientific explanation, or more accurately toward a "scientificness" acceptable to their followers.
The conflict is fully engaged. By consensus, the verdict is out. This is the way mankind proceeds, in fits, in starts, in conjecture, in evidence, in anecdote, in affirmation, in denial, in conclusion, in contradiction, in pro-idea, and in contra-idea. One model replaces another. Each generation feels some confidence in their model as the final one. Hurray for mankind! Our existence has many facets, all to be considered in full. This one is deep and may have an indeterminate solution. Mathematically, this problem may be undecidable, or even ill-posed with different theories concluding identical results, and with simultaneous theories allowing for multiple universes.
Are we looking for a winner. No! We are looking for a resolution, maybe a consensus, maybe some peace about ourselves within the cosmos. Want we want is certainty - like with everything - but this time, my friends, all we get is theory and conjecture.
As a personal view, evolution theory has the strong hand in this competitive milieu.
* Remarkably, blood-letting for fever stricken patients did have the desirable affect of lowering body temperature, long considered a positive goal for treatment.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.