1.8 Theories of Evolution

Theories of Evolution

Having mentioned several different theories of creation, I will move on to discussing several facets of the “theory of evolution”; actually several different theories, as understood by the scientific community. Although I haven't tried to focus this blog on the narrow topic of “creation vs. evolution,” that is a common topic of discussion. However, it’s not enough to just speak of the “theory of evolution” as a whole -- often those who do, tend to lump a lot of things together that are actually different things and should be considered individually. We need to clarify the definitions of the various types and varieties of evolutionary concepts in science, in order to identify what kind of evolution we are speaking of and consider how to properly address them.
See Craig Rusbult, “Evaluation of Evolutions” (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/evolution2.htm) for links to many resources on these topics.

Some of the meanings of evolution include the following (see “A Voice For Evolution As Science”, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF12-92ASACouncil.html; Keith Stewart Thomson, “The Meanings of Evolution”, American Scientist, Vol. 70, pp. 529-31, Sept-Oct 1982):

1. the general concept of “change over time”; this is a very broad definition, and includes a lot of things which are simply not controversial, even for Biblical fundamentalists.
2. the hypothesis that all “organisms are related through common ancestry”; this is one of the fundamental concepts of biological evolution, as suggested by Charles Darwin and others.
3. a theory proposing a particular explanatory mechanism for the pattern and process described in (1) and (2). For any scientific theory, different hypotheses are suggested and modified over time based on the evidence. Some of the things Darwin suggested have been discarded, modified and supplemented over the last 150 years, so that “Darwinism” is no longer a useful term, unless referring specifically to Darwin's particular beliefs. The term “Darwinism” is no longer used much in scientific literature, and it is mainly used today only in a perjorative sense by creationists.
4. a scientifically focused concept of populations adapting to changing environments;
5. a religiously value-laden tenet of naturalistic faith, that “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1967, p. 345.).

This last “meaning” of evolution should be recognized as a philosophical statement of belief, not a scientific hypothesis or conclusion. To say that natural processes are “purposeless” and that man is “simply” a result of these purely physical processes, is clearly beyond the scope of what science can legitimately conclude. Yet, some scientists insist on promoting this philosophical view in the name of science. Many creationists accept this false definition, helping blur the distinction between science and philosophy.