This is not a controversy between evolution and creationism. If evolution is defined as “change over time” I haven’t heard many people dispute that. The “theories of evolution” concern the mechanisms by which change came about, and they can be divided into two categories, materialist theories and theories that include mechanisms of purposeful intent.
I think the following is an accurate statement of the materialist position:
quote:
“all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; . the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems.”
Non-materialistic theories all contain some form of intelligent purposeful organization. My own view is that the ability to make intelligent, purposeful responses is an observable trait of all living systems. Even single cells are capable of some limited creative response to environmental stimuli. Such responses are heritable, epigenetically, as traits develop, and only become encoded into the genome if persistent over generations.
If the organizing intelligence of nature is internal, a natural force, life is still intelligently designed. Random mutation and natural selection may be the only known materialistic explanation, but where does it say everyone must be a materialist. Furthermore, theism is not the only alternative to materialism. Acknowledgement of the reality of volition and freewill are the main points of non-materialism.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/ (questions about materialism)
No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/