The Nauseating Evolution Debate

I find both sides of the evolution debate nauseating in the way they arrogantly draw conclusions that are beyond the scope of science.

The Big Bang theory holds that there was a starting point to space, time, mass and energy. As Science can only speak of space, time, mass and energy it can say nothing about before the Big Bang, as that is before space, time, mass and energy.

It is interesting that when the Big Bang theory was first debated, scientists didn’t like it because for philosophical reasons they preferred a universe that had always been there.

Evolution holds that different species arose at different times. I am happy that fossil records clearly show that different species arose at different times.

I see no reason to feel threatened as a Christian by that. If for some reason I actually wanted to go down the following line of thought, I could say that the creation account of the bible is that different phases of creation happened at different times. But I see no point in going there.

It is also safe to say that within a species, those that have features making them better able to survive and procreate will be the ones that prosper. Clearly natural selection through survival of the fittest does occur.
As to the mechanism that could allow new species to form, the intelligent design people have a point that it is an open question whether or not survival of the fittest, time and chance alone are enough for complex organs and complex systems of organs to come into existence, especially as often all parts of the system need to be working for the system to work and be of any use.

People can make their own decisions on whether or not survival of the fittest, time and chance are sufficient to account for the myriad of living creatures we have today. I myself do not think survival of the fittest, time and chance is a satisfactory explanation. But that doesn’t mean the Intelligent Design protagonists can declare victory. If there was a Devine Creator involved , that poses further questions of how this Devine Creator came into being. It is a much simpler explanation if no Devine Creator was involved. Simplicity is an important criteria of the scientific method. Thus neither side wins.

Science cannot say anything about a Devine Being that is other than space, time, matter or energy, as it is beyond the scope of science. It is fair game for Scientists to make comments using Philosophy, Theology and History, but those comments cannot claim the authority of scientific methods, and should not be taught as Science.

I hold that it is intellectually dishonest to teach Intelligent Design as scientific proof for a Divine Creator, just as it is intellectually dishonest to teach Evolution as scientific proof against a Devine Being involved somehow in creation. As to what is meant by Devine Creator, well the subjects of religion and theology are vast.