I enjoyed the pieces on intelligent design vs. evolution in the Nov. 27 Perspective section.
The authors were well-informed, and I agreed with many of the points that were made.
But as comprehensive as these pieces were, I have no illusion that they will bring an end to the debate. As this debate continues, I hope several points will be kept in mind, including the following:
– There is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is the process by which small changes occur in organisms. We can observe these changes directly, e.g. the development of resistance to antibiotics in bacteria. Most people would accept microevolution, including proponents of intelligent design and even creationists. Macroevolution is the process by which different organisms develop from earlier forms, giving rise to bacteria, plants, invertebrates, vertebrates, human beings, etc.
– Intelligent design cannot be proven by science, and it cannot be proven by science even if intelligent design is true, at least not by the science that is currently available to us. But intelligent design cannot be disproved by science.
– There are limitations to both science and religion. Science does not teach us about values and ethics, and religion does not teach us the principles of chemistry and physics.
– Darwinian biologic macroevolution is not Social Darwinism. Darwinian biologic macroevolution is described above. Social Darwinism is the process that brings about human progress through competition and “survival of the fittest.” Darwin himself was a biologist, not a Social Darwinian. Most proponents of biologic macroevolution reject Social Darwinism, because the latter has been associated with imperialism, colonialism, militarism, racism, eugenics and even genocide.
But it seems more consistent to accept or reject both biologic macroevolution and Social Darwinism, because both are based on similar mechanisms.
Many thinkers in the late 1800s and early 1900s accepted both.
Those who held a religious point of view tended to reject both.
A third possibility, which I favor, is to doubt both. I have doubts about biologic macroevolution for several reasons, one of which is the Cambrian Explosion around 500 to 600 million years ago when many animals and plants appeared in the rocks without Precambrian ancestors in the deeper layers.
I also doubt Social Darwinism, because I have seen too many Third World individuals flourish when they had suitable opportunities.
Perhaps by the end of the next century, some of our doubts will be put to rest. In the meantime, I liked best the approach of the biology teacher, Nevin Longenecker, described in the third Perspective piece. He plotted the “middle road” as he “made it clear he thought Darwin was basically right. He just wanted us to understand why some people would think the idea of a designer has merit beyond religion.”
So as the debate goes on, I hope that we can keep several things in mind:
Maintain a clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.
Recognize the limits of science and religion and intelligent design.
Include Social Darwinism in the debate.
———-
Editor’s note: Readers may now post comments on letters to the editor that have been published in the Chicago Tribune by visiting chicagotribune.com/letters
