Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
If the theory of evolution does not include how life started, then how is it that it exists in a manner that is mutually exclusive of creationism which is explaining how life started.
To me it is all the same thing.
|
I missed this response, but wanted to address it even though it's a few days old and other posters have touched on it.
Evolution is not intended to be a replacement for creationism; if any scientist sat down and attempted to come up with a replacement theory for creationism, they would be operating outside of the scientific process.
Creationism is essentially answering two questions: how life came into being, and how that life came to be the life on earth that we know today.
Evolutionary Theory is only interested in that second question; it looks at life today as well as the fossil record, and attempts to determine how one lead to the other, and how we might predict further evolutionary changes in life on earth. This is typical of the best scientific theories: they look at evidence, and attempt to produce hypothesis from the evidence, and eventually, if they're lucky, they will answer some big questions. They don't start with big questions and attempt to answer them.
So it's not a replacement for creationism, because it does not answer that fundamental question of how life came into being. However, it and (classical) creationism are still mutually exclusive, since they have very different ideas about how life as we know it today came to be.
There are a number of hypotheses about how life came to be in the first place. It's an important distinction that these are hypotheses rather than theories. The strongest one thus far is surrounding RNA: Basically, a DNA-based life-form could not have been created on its own, because DNA is simply an information storage system. It can not actually duplicate on its own, without the presence of proteins. However, as I understand it (and I appreciate corrections if anyone knows more about this than I do), RNA isn't quite as good as DNA for information storage, but it can also act as an enyzme, meaning that it can replicate itself. This RNA-life forms a theoretical missing link between chemical reactions and extremely simple DNA-based life.
A hypothesis like this obviously owes a lot to Evolutionary Theory. It is based on our understanding of DNA and reproduction mechanisms, but to include it as part of evolutionary theory would be to weaken the entire theory. Our understanding of how life first came into being isn't nearly as sophisticated as our understanding of how it has adapted and changed, and how it continues to do so.
I think this is one of the major stumbling blocks for the acceptance of evolution; creationists are used to a theory that attempts to answer everything, even this answer is full of problems. Evolutionary Theory simply attempts to answer one question very well.