From: David Bradbury
Now, getting back to basics, what do you think of the following? Is there anything here to which you, or other reasonable critics with whom you are acquainted, might object?
EVOLUTION (in the context of high school -college level science curricula): = "The postulated process by which new, biologically beneficial, increasingly complex genetic code appears and accumulates over time in a pre-existing (simpler) gene pool by random mass/energy interactions."
Do recognize that this is but a second suggested 'draft' definition. Are there flaws? Can we improve this further?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In what I've read, the word Evolution is used three different ways.
Evolution:
1. Change. This is the most basic understanding of the word and I think everyone accepts this as a valid definition.
2. Genetic Variation. The is simply the common, ordinary genetic variations we observe in nature. Some call it the Fact of Evolution. I believe that most people also accept this as true.
3. The origin and development of all current life forms came from a single (or more?) source through some kind of Darwinian means or another. This is the Theory of Evolution.
Definition 3 is a logical extension of definition 2 based on two assumptions.
A. The sedimentary rocks are as much as millions of years old.
B. Fossils represent the record of life forms which existed over millions of years.
Both of these assumptions are not provable, and are accepted on faith. For this reason I believe that this third definition of evolution should really be called Evolutionism. The Theory of Evolution is thus really Evolutionism.
So often we hear that the controversy is between Evolution and Creationism, but in reality it is Evolutionism verses Creationism.
And we also hear the argument that because Evolution is a fact (Definition 2) then that proves Evolution (Definition 3) is true. Not so.
I believe that there are three 'isms' which dominate the quest for origins:
A. Evolutionism.
B. Creationary Evolutionism.
C. Creationary Catastrophism.
Evolutionism is built upon the two assumptions mentioned above:
A. The sedimentary rocks are as much as millions of years old.
B. Fossils represent the record of life forms which existed over millions of years.
Creationary Evolutionism is built upon the same two assumptions with the caveat, however, that the Darwinian process was originated and/or guided by God.
Creationary Catastrophism is built upon the following assumptions:
A. The sedimentary rocks represent (for the most part) deposition during Noah's great catastrophe.
B. Fossils represent the record of life forms which had existed since the Creation week which died and were buried in the great catastrophe.
The Creationary Catastrophism assumptions are based on interpretations of the eyewitness evidence given in the Bible. However, Creationary Catastrophism is no more (or no less) religious than Evolutionism. Religion (according to Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary) is a belief, activity, or cause pursued with fervor and devotion. One does not have to believe in a supernatural being or power to be religious. And anyone who as observed the discussion on this net and even more so on Talk.Origins can see the fervor and devotion to which all sides of the issues pursue their causes and beliefs.
The differences between Creationary Catastrophists and Creationary Evolutionists are complicated. The Creationary Evolutionists believe that it is possible to interpret the Biblical record such that it is consistent with the Evolutionary assumptions. Creationary Catastrophists disagree and say that it is not necessary to consider the Evolutionary assumptions.
I think that in trying to define terms we need to seriously and closely consider the differing assumptions which we all have on this issue. Otherwise we will be talking past each other endlessly.
Allen Roy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 15:05:36 EST