Evolution vs. Natural Selection

[Bill Shear]

Should we not be distinguishing between the observable fact of evolution
and the various theories, prominent among them natural selection, that have
been proposed to explain it?

Trying to falsify evolution is like trying to falsify gravitation.  We can
think of some wierd circumstances which would certainly raise questions
about it, but that it occurs is, in the realm of the real world, undoubted.

What we are really arguing about is how evolution has occurred.  Has it
come about by means of natural selection (descent with modification), or by
some other means, or (as is most likely) by natural selection in large
part, with some aid from other means?

Evolution, defined as a change in composition and form of the Earth's biota
over time, is simply an observation.  The question is, how did it happen?
Christian Creation "Scientists" are constrained in their explanations to
those congruent with the traditions of a wandering desert tribe, developed
over centuries during which they responded to the circumstances of the
historical moment.  There is no a priori reason for thinking that the
Hebrew tradition is any closer to the real answer than that of Greek
mythology or the Rig Veda.  It just so happens that in the western world,
one branch of the Hebrew tradition happened to be the culturo-political
winner in a struggle for power.  Because any religious tradition can always
apply to the supernatural for an explanation, no lawful science based on it
is possible.  The paradox is that while the constraints of a particular
religious tradition apply to creationism, in one sense it is unconstrained,
because anything can happen.

Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, have the advantage of no
constraints save observable physical law.  They also have the luxury of
being able to constantly revise their theories to accommodate new facts; it
is not neccessary to explain those facts away or to ignore them because
they do not fit the framework.  On the other hand, no explanations are
allowed that violate known "laws of nature (themselves perhaps subject to
revision from time to time)." To us this is a great strength, but it is
exploited by creationists as a weakness: "Those darn scientists are always
changing their minds."

This is a distinction that I have found almost impossible to get across to
the general public.

For that reason, when I used to get involved in public debates on creation
(back when I was young, arrogant and foolish), I would go on the attack and
show what absurd conclusions scientific creationism would lead to.  This
always surprised the creationist side, who expected me to defend and
explain evolution, and put them so off balance that I actually "won" or
"tied" a number of these debates.
The fine book by Arthur N. Strahler, SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY, is a
wonderful source of these points.  Since creationist arguments don't change
over the decades, it's easy to learn them all and be ready to refute them
point by point.


Bill Shear
Department of Biology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney VA 23943
(804)223-6172
FAX (804)223-6374
email<bills at hsc.edu>