Another example of a theory: Gravity. All the knowledge we have on gravity is based on circular reasoning.
How do you tell how heavy a planet is? By its gravitational pull...
How do you tell how hard a planet's gravitational pull is? By how heavy it is...
How do you tell how hard a planet's gravitational pull is? By how heavy it is...
Intelligence, at least the human variety, is not necessary for other animals to survive. A crocodile has developed instincts sufficient to sneak up and kill a water buffalo for food . All a bird has to do if find grain and berries and make a nest.
Humans really have no other means to survive. No way to stay warm, we lack the fur coats, the feathers that other animals use to stay warm. We are not fast enough to run down our prey, our teeth are not sufficient for killing. Our intelligence is what sets us apart and allows us to survive and procreate.
The human brain elevates it above the restraints on natural selection, we have defied the cycle of evolution and extinction. Man has, despite nature, taken a direct hand in our own evolution. We allow simple physical deformities, like poor eyesight, to flourish with the understanding that we are not simple physical creatures. We apply our ability to adapt and to artificially correct these deformities in order to allow the other aspects of these people to enrich us. Hawking is a perfect example. Completely deformed. Even to the point of a superior intellect. His work has moved his field forward by leaps and bounds. In fact, in general our species is becoming more physically abated. Look at what has happened to America in terms of obesity, and yet our civilization thrives and the average lifespan continues to increase here. By using our minds to overcome and exploit our frailties we subjugate nature.
Taking into account everything that I have said, I do not think that creationism, which is based on faith, and evolution are mutually exclusive. Creationism is based almost solely on faith not empirical evidence. Evolution, while not completely fleshed out yet, is the very best we have based on scientific observation.
My beliefs concerning evolution incorporate a view of evolution and creation. I believe that God organized the Universe, creating and using fundamental laws that we observe and use today; and established a way for life to form. I find that evolution is an elegant example of creationism. Perhaps the way a supreme creator would do it. I'm also mindful of the fact that many scientists believe in a 'god', although not always one that religious fanatics believe in. Physicists believe that according to the laws of motion there must have been a 'prime motivating factor', something that set the entire universe going, the ultimate 'external force'. That’s just as powerful an argument for the existence of God as any I've heard.
Everything we know exists within time. There is a beginning and there will eventually be an end. Matter and the laws of physics must have been in existence in order for the "big bang" to occur in the first place. If it is the beginning of all things it must have always existed; or an eternal God must have put a beginning to it. Sure organisms came from organisms, but where did those organisms come from? Where did those come from? Where did that matter come from? To say that matter was "always there" and it's infinitely backwards is something you cannot prove. There's no way you can prove something is infinitely backwards because no matter how far back you go you can always go still further back. ‘Nothing’ could not have been the origin of matter and the laws of physics - they must be infinite and eternal and an eternal God must have created them.
Humans by nature have a desire to break boundaries, to learn and progress. We observe the world and make deductions based on what we learn from our senses. We hypothesize, create theories and write laws based on empirical evidence and proof. The universe is governed by a set of laws and standards that, as far as our toolbox that is science affords us, are unbreakable. It is important to recognize the unclear nature of human understanding, and that even with our seemingly broad assortment of tools that science gives us, there is still room for doubt. Science is, for the most part, subjective. While it is based on empiric observations, history has shown that science is constantly subject to change, update and overhaul. The more we progress in the scientific domain, the more we realize that perhaps we weren't 100% accurate about a certain subject.
Some more food for thought. Tom stated that we can apply human logic to everything and figure anything out. The truth is that we do not know the limits of our knowledge, comprehension, and understanding. We are not even sure what we are capable of. Think of Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave.’ In his allegory humankind are all prisoners and the tangible world is our cave. The things which we perceive as real are actually just shadows on a wall. In the allegory, a prisoner breaks free of his chains and is able to see the shadows for what they are, a poor depiction or portrayal of a grand and intricate object (ie a tree, or a bird, perhaps a kitten). Another example: we cannot see microscopic organisms but does that mean they don't exist? Only by using the aid of a microscope can you see them. Human understanding changed significantly due to the invention of the microscope. There are sure to be major future discoveries and inventions that will change our way of thinking. One more example to illustrate my point: There are some animals that are colorblind. They never developed the ability to see the entire spectrum of color. So to them - if they had the ability to reason - certain colors wouldn't exist simply because they never evolved the ability to see color. Does that mean that color doesn't exist? We are basing our results of evolution based on what human logic we have. We know the extents of colorblind animals simply because we are more advanced. But there isn't anything more advanced than us to tell us some ability or logic we lack. We are limited by the breadth of our perception. But as I stated earlier evolution, while not completely fleshed out yet, is the very best we have based on scientific observation.
Personally I think that the empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that evolution by way of natural selection is a very acceptable theory of the development of life on this planet. The proof lies in genetics, common traits, survival of the fittest, fossils, geologic records, heredity, biodiversity, ecology, mass extinction, chemistry, the Animal Kingdoms, glaciers and rational thought.
All animals need simple requirements--food, water, safety. If these requirements are met, the animal does not need to change. Over time stronger offspring will succeed the weaker, earlier generations, more suitable adapted offspring will pass on their superior DNA and eventually we have a new, more powerful species.
Populations better themselves and acclimate to different habitats and changing environments through natural selection. Natural Selection is driven by competition against other species for limited resources. The fittest species survive, and weaker species must adapt or else they die. This is how, overtime, populations grow more suited to their environment.
Mutation also has a hand in evolution. All living things are prone to mutation. It's random and it happens relatively often. Any mutation that does not prevent the organism from procreating is carried on to the next generation. Any mutation that actually improves the chances of procreation and the survival of offspring has even greater chances of being carried on to the next generation. Very few results of evolution actually result in an improvement. The simplest model of this is in bacterium. It is well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. Often however, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant. Mutations that were already present in a minute percentage of the bacterium made it so they were already immune. Thus those mutations and immunities were passed onto the following generations creating more powerful bacteria.
What doesn't kill the subject gives it a chance of becoming a part of the larger gene pool. What happens when millions of micro-evolution events over eons change an organism to the point where it can't produce offspring with its original species? That is macro-evolution.
Whether or not there is a celestial guiding force is for each person to discover by himself. It is not the purvey of public institutions or government. The purpose of education is to provide a foundation of knowledge and the tools to further that knowledge. Evolution theory is one of the best examples of the scientific method, with examples that can be witnessed. It also helps broaden minds to accept that there are events beyond our limited personal scope but within our understanding.
