Punctuated Equilibrium is one of current views in the evolution camp. It has largely replaced Gradualism. You aren't Keeping Up. Epistemology is the study of how we can know what we know. It concerns logic, truth tests, and the like.
Your question sets up false alternatives. In your long running love affair with bad logic you have managed to indulge in what is known as The Fallacy of the Complex Question. The Creationists can be correct in arguing that evolution is bad science, or even a question of metaphysics, without their view of Creation being correct.
So we need to clean up your question to avoid the logical error of the complex question. First, is macro-evolution true, especially the Darwinian variety that relies on chance plus time? I don't know. No one has witnessed it occurring in real time in nature, and we haven't forced evolution in the lab. What we have is a theory based upon inductive reasoning. I know of no test that can be conducted on evolutionary theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been subjected to a number of tests which it has passed. I would call Relativity a scientific fact, or certainly very close to one. Evolution hasn't been tested, it may not be able to be tested. I wouldn't put evolutionary theory on a par with Relativity theory.
Second question. Is Creationism true? Well, which form of Creationism? In your Fallacy of the Complex Question you managed to force Creationism into a belief that "posits that all life forms were created here fully formed a few thousand years ago as taught in a Bible legend". I would say no to that particular view. It sounds to me like dubious Biblical exegesis as well as bad science. But that doesn't rule out a view like Augustine's, that believes design is built into creation, a creation that unfolds over time. An Augustinian creationism could live harmoniously with some types of evolution.
The real problem that some evolution poses to the religious, once the sloppy logic is cut away, is whether or not all evolution is purely random and arbitrary, or whether there is design in nature. The Bible Belters are correct to object to a teaching of evolution that smuggles in a naturalistic metaphysical worldview and tries to pass it off as "science". This is an epistemological question, not a scientific question, and it is similar to what Hayek condemned as "scientism" and "the abuse of reason" in his great little book The Counter-Revolution of Science.
I have no problem with all sides presenting their views regarding evolution and creation. And I do find it amusing that it is the Evolution camp that is now so eager to censor what can be read in the schools. |
