Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, September 3, 1994 TAG: 9409080033
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By FRANK MUNLEY
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
First, let's distinguish between the empirical basis for evolution and theories that explain how the evolutionary process unfolds. A wealth of evidence from nuclear physics, astrophysics and paleontology indicates that Earth is about 4 billion years old, that simple life forms appeared before more complicated forms, and that human beings are late-comers to the natural world. ``In time, all things are possible,'' and the great age of Earth certainly makes it possible for biological evolution to occur. The greatest shame of creationism is its claim that Earth is about 6,000 years old. How convenient. If Earth were so young, there would be no chance at all that evolutionary processes could produce the fantastic variety of species we see today.
What is the mechanism of evolution? Darwin's theory of natural selection is one answer, but it certainly isn't the last word. Indeed, there's healthy debate among biologists concerning details of the evolutionary process. Darwin is a convenient straw man for creationists, but whether he's right or wrong, and whether we find the ``missing link'' between humans and their nonhuman ancestors, your editorial correctly states that there are ``mountains of empirical evidence'' in support of evolution.
Larry Necessary, in his Aug. 13 letter to the editor (``The evolution theory is not sacrosanct'') foolishly pits science against science when claiming that evolution of inanimate matter into more complicated living forms violates the second law of thermodynamics. This venerable law supposedly tells us, in his words, that ``any system, without intelligent direction, will degrade to a more random state.'' He might just as well claim that all developmental processes, e.g., the growth of the embryo to an infant or the formation of a highly ordered snowflake from water vapor, also violate the second law.
So how does life develop? Most creationists I'm familiar with believe that a divine intelligence (``God'') is needed to help things along. This supernatural explanation is entirely unnecessary, because the second law, properly understood, suffices nicely, thank you. As every student of thermodynamics knows, the second law applies only to isolated systems. Living systems, if they're to survive, cannot be isolated - they must continually exchange matter and other forms of energy with the environment. In this way, matter can be organized in the living system by exporting disorder to the environment, thus leaving the second law satisfied globally. Earth's biosystem, as a whole, isn't isolated either. It's driven by energy from our sun, without which all life on Earth would cease.
Hugh W. Maness (Aug. 17 letter, ``Believe it or not, it's not science'') and Raymond C. Hopkins (Aug. 21 letter, ``Evolution theory being challenged'') claim that evolution isn't scientific because its subject matter is historically unique and, hence, unrepeatable. How, then, should the famous crater in Arizona be explained - as a thump of God's great fist, or as an (unrepeatable) meteor impact?
Hopkins audaciously demands that, for unique and unrepeatable events such as the occurrence of life forms on Earth, science and creationism should stand equal. Real science proceeds differently: If we don't completely understand how certain historical events happened, let's humbly admit it and plug away until we discover a natural explanation based on repeatable experiments. Invoking an interventionist ``God of the gaps'' to explain puzzling phenomena is intellectually lazy, and disastrous to true science.
Al Trimpey (Aug. 23 letter, ``Evolution plan sows seeds of destruction'') outdoes your other correspondents when he takes the theory of evolution to mean that people are "worthless descendants of slime." Worthless in whose view? A more tolerant mind would recognize that pantheism - the doctrine that nature and God are one - perceives great significance, beauty and meaning in the world of nature. My studies of science show me a world of infinitely complex, infinitely interesting behavior in inanimate, animate and human realms. The world of nature deserves my respect, even my reverence. I'm proud to be made of such stuff!
Trimpey also claims that evolution undermines morality by eliminating the need for a God who rewards and punishes. Evolution, he says, promotes instead the secular teachings of ``situational ethics'' and ``values clarification.'' But life, like nature itself, is staggeringly complex. Situational ethics properly recognize this fact, and require us to creatively address the unique ambiguities of each moral problem without requiring us to scrap our moral principles. Trimpey suggests, instead, that moral problems can be solved by applying the lessons of the Bible.
As valuable as the Bible, the Koran and countless other moral teachings are, to suggest that we can avoid the challenge of situational ethics in this way is to indulge in a moral laziness that is in perfect company with the intellectual laziness of the phony creationist dogma.
Frank Munley of Salem is associate professor of physics at Roanoke College.
by CNB