• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Evolution Fight Not About Origins of Life ; Science Cannot Address Some Issues

Posted on: Wednesday, 28 September 2005, 12:00 CDT

By Terrence Tilley & John Rowe

When President George W. Bush recently said intelligent design should be taught along side evolution in public schools, he set off a national debate. One must not confuse issues of evolution with issues of the origin of life.

Evolution explains a natural selection for plant or animal populations. Some organisms adapt best to a particular environment. They, therefore, reproduce better. They ultimately predominate over the precursor species in that environment.

The "origin of life" is often discussed with evolutionary theory. But Darwin never considered "the origin of life" in his original proposal of natural selection. Theories dealing with the origin of life try to account for the formation of life from energy and matter using the physical and chemical laws of the universe. This is a quite different concept from Darwin's original theory of natural selection.

Evidence of Darwinian natural selection is vast and no longer relies primarily on the fossil record. Recent work in molecular biology has demonstrated conclusively that huge numbers of genes are shared between the highest and lowest organisms. Darwin's theory seems intuitive to most of us who have casually observed selective breeding of dogs, cats or other domestic animals.

In contrast, there is very little hard evidence for theories involving the origin of life. Beliefs about the origin of life are derived from some scientific knowledge, but no good scientific evidence.

Defining "life" is not a scientific issue. It seems clear that crystals are not alive and turtles are. But whether some viruses, for example, are alive depends on how one defines "life." Nor can science say that some species of the genus homo are "human" and some not. These are not a scientific issues, but philosophical ones: What do "human" and "life" mean?

Scientists have demonstrated that random changes occur in the DNA of organisms. DNA changes sometimes allow better adaptation and reproduction for the "new organism" in a specific environment and thus give the organism a reproductive advantage. Those changes that do not provide a positive adaptation to the environment do not provide the organisms -- or populations -- with a selective advantage and tend to fade away.

Random DNA changes are not decisive evidence against some forms of "design." What appears random may be a result of purposeful design. Scientific evidence counts neither for nor against intelligent design in evolution. Science neither prohibits nor requires postulating a designer. "Design" is not a scientific issue.

A similar point applies to "origin of life" claims. There is no scientific evidence for or against a divine creative intervention at the genesis of life or for the existence of energy and matter. We have no scientific way to know what it was like in the infinite time before the Big Bang.

One must not confuse science with philosophical or theological views or commitments about nature.

Some argue that the fact that senseless rocks gave rise to sentient beings, and sentient beings gave rise to intelligent beings with moral and aesthetic capacities seems inexplicable in a universe without some sort of creator/designer/sustainer. Others argue that the apparent randomness of evolution is just that -- undesigned randomness needing no divine designer to "explain" anything.

Both theories are compatible with the data scientists gather and the scientific theories they construct. Science cannot warrant a "theistic" view over an "atheistic" view or vice versa.

That there is a science curriculum without "creationism" or "intelligent design" is as it should be. The issue is not a scientific one.

The problem is that there is so little reasonable discussion of the fact that scientific theories do not conflict with religious belief. The conflict is not between religion and science, but between philosophical materialism that finds science incompatible with religious views and religious views that demand the use of non- scientific concepts in the practice of scientific investigation.

The issue is not science, but philosophical or theological dogmatism. Even the late Pope John Paul II found no conflict between evolution, properly understood, with Catholic dogma.

Real issues abound. But these issues are fundamental philosophical and theological issues that need responsible discussion in our schools and our policy debates.

The "evolution" vs. "design" debate is both confused and not within the realm of science. Until we distinguish scientific from philosophical issues, our public debates will remain useless posturing and endless wheel-spinning.

Terrence Tilley is professor at the University of Dayton Department of Religious Studies. John Rowe chairs the UD department of biology.

Source: Dayton Daily News

More News in this Category