>>the way it ACTUALLY happened?
I'll try my hand at this, even though I may be in for some red-pencil action by our guardian of rigor. (And when I do get it, a good case can be made that I was indeed sloppy. I'm more of a seat-of-the-pants thinker.)
Evolution is a story, the simplest story available to fit the facts (field data, fossil record, cladistic relationships from present species' bones etc.) we've gathered to date. In a pure scientific sense, we don't know if it's *actually true*. But it has one overridingly valuable trait: it fits what we know so far.
In a broader sense, evolution theory has become "truth" to the avg. college graduate. To become "truth" as opposed to "a useful framework for organizing the data", that's where you invoke the "naturalistic metaphysical worldview", i.e. purely natural, God-free forces started and are shaping the universe. That imho is a big jump from science to philosophy.
My big gripe with creation science of any stripe is that it starts with a prejudice. It seeks to start from the Biblical account as an organizing principle and fit the field data into the prescribed frame. I think this costs openness of mind regarding coming up with a best-fit story. This doesn't disqualify creation science as a category, but it suggests caution from the reader!
Finally I don't think it's possible to come to a good personal judgment on this issue without reading up on a lot of material on both sides of the question. Either that, or decide which authority you're gonna trust. Folks with great stacks of credentials can be found to back up almost any conclusion these days, as the global warming story has shown here. |
