There has been much controversy in recent years about the teaching of evolution and/or sepcial creation...?

Question

There has been much controversy in recent years about the teaching of evolution and/or special creation (aka:intelligent design) in schools. -- What is the difference between evolution and natural selection? How could beliefs about special creation/intelligent design be in agreement with the theory of natural selection? How could they be in disagreement?

Answer 1

I hope this isn't for biology class. (Is it?)

It's a great question for a debate class, or essay writing, or sociology, or political science, etc. But for a biology class, this would be deplorable tactic of a creationist teacher to "teach the controversy" ... and leave students hopelessly confused.

As far as the "controversy", it is important to understand that there really is no controversy at all within science. Scientists are pretty much unanimous that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the bedrock theory of the origins of species, and that this is backed by an enormous body of evidence.

The "controversy" over whether it should be taught in classrooms is being waged entirely in legislatures and school boards, not in scientific journals, laboratories, or universities.

"What is the difference between evolution and natural selection?"

Evolution just means change, over time, at the species level.

Natural selection is the mechanism proposed by Darwin to explain *how* evolution occurs in nature.

In other words, there could be alternate explanations of evolution (change) other than natural selection. Examples are artificial selection (selective breeding), or even some flavor of intelligent design.

"How could beliefs about special creation/intelligent design be in agreement with the theory of natural selection?"

There are many different versions of "special creation"; some are compatible with the theory of natural selection, many are not. Those versions of "special creation" that are compatible are those that allow that God can work through evolution. This is the creation belief held by the Catholic church. There are also versions of creationism that are in agreement with certain facts held by the theory of evolution ... such as Old Earth Creationism that accepts the scientific notion of a 4.6-billion year old earth, but still insists on a specific act of non-evolutionary creation. There are also versions of creationism that accept natural selection as an agent of change in a species (what they call 'microevolution') but deny that this can produce new species ('macroevolution') much less all the species we find today. This is a partial agreement with evolution, but it also uses this distinction between 'micro-' and 'macro-'evolution that is not one accepted by most biologists.

As far as Intelligent Design (ID), this is harder to describe, as ID is still such a premature branch of science. Many ID advocates consider ID to be an alternate "theory of evolution" ... that a designer is involved in changing a species or structure from one form to another. But other ID advocates reject this idea.

"How could they be in disagreement?"

Some of the differences are outlined above (denying that evolution can produce new species, much less all of the current life forms). But the deepest difference is that "special creation" and "intelligent design" both introduce an outside agent (God in one case, and the 'designer' in the other) that purposefully controls the process of the creation of species. The theory of natural selection has no need for that outside agent.

It is on this point that "special creation" and "intelligent design" have problems serving as *explanations*, much less *scientific* explanations. An "explanation" should describe something complex in terms of something simpler. Special creation and intelligent design do the opposite. They introduce an agent *more* complex than what they are trying to explain.

And finally, both "special creation" and "intelligent design" do not adhere to the scientific method. They do not make testable predictions. They are not falsifiable. They are designed to be immune from being disproved. This is because they both introduce a supernatural agent that can work outside the known laws of nature. As such we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of this agent by using observation or experiment.

I hope that helps.

Answer 2

Natural selection is a mechanism by whish evolution expresses itself. Evolution happens, "nature" decides if it works or not.

IF you want to make ceationism / ID a counter, or even complimentary, theory, then it needs some testable evidence. Until that is forthcoming, then it is just a concept, no better than somebody waving a wand and producing a rabbit out of a hat.

Answer 3

In evolution, the whole species generally changes in order to adapt to certain needs. In natural selection, those who cannot or have not adapted or who are worse off (ex: injured) die off and those who survive are "naturally selected".