Common Sense, Evolution, and the Debates Beyond Special Creation

The conversation around the scientific theory of evolution often intersects with the realm of common sense and rational thinking. Biologists and other scientists who study the evolution of a taxon indeed possess a wealth of common sense, which is a term that, in this context, encompasses sound practical judgement. However, this common sense is notably absent in the beliefs of those who champion special creation, such as the students and faculty at Liberty University.

The Intersection of Common Sense and Evolution

Evolution, the theory that explains how species change over time, is not only a central pillar of modern biology but is also supported by overwhelming evidence. It is a fact that can be observed through various scientific means, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and observational studies of populations undergoing natural selection. In contrast, the notion of special creation, as espoused by organizations like Liberty University, is based on a 2-3 thousand-year-old religious text, a source that lacks the empirical evidence necessary to support such claims.

The Disconnect: Suspended Belief vs. Sound Judgement

The debate between evolution and creationism often hinges on the concept of common sense. To accept the theory of evolution, one must possess a form of common sense – the ability to think logically and scientifically. On the other hand, belief in creationism often requires suspending disbelief and ignoring a plethora of evidence. This would imply a suspension of common sense, which is not a characteristic of practical judgement.

Evolutionists vs. Creationists: A Matter of Rationality

The terms “evolutionist” and “creationist” are often used to categorize individuals based on their belief or disbelief in the theory of evolution. However, these labels are somewhat misleading because, in this context, "evolutionary biologists" who follow evolution are the ones using common sense and rational judgement, whereas those who promote creationism often do so based on faith rather than evidence.

Atheism is characterized by the absence of belief in supernatural entities, including gods. It is based on rationality, defined as being based on facts and reason, not on feelings or emotions. Atheists adhere to the principle that there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of any deity and that the claims made by religious texts are scientifically unfounded and often contradictory. In contrast, theism, the belief in a supernatural creator, is often defined as irrational because it requires suspending disbelief in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.

The Scientific Rejection of Creationism

Creationism, including intelligent design, is not based on science but is instead a form of pseudo-science. It has been repeatedly rejected by the scientific community because it lacks empirical evidence and relies on unverified assertions. For instance, the case of Edwards vs. Aguillard and later Kitzmuller vs. Dover School District demonstrated that intelligent design is not a scientific theory but rather a creationist rebrand. As a result, it has no place in scientific discourse or classroom settings.

Evolution, on the other hand, is supported by data from multiple scientific disciplines, including genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the best-supported theory in the history of science, backed by a vast and consistent body of evidence. The use of evolutionary principles in agriculture, medicine, and other fields demonstrates the practical applications and empirical verification of this theory.

Conclusion

The debate between evolution and creationism is fundamentally a test of common sense and rationality. While creationism requires accepting unverified claims and ignoring contradictory evidence, evolution is based on observable and verifiable facts. By adhering to common sense and evidence-based reasoning, one can clearly see the disparity between these two worldviews. Thus, the challenge is to prioritize empirical evidence and logical reasoning over emotional or religious beliefs.