Introduction

This section provides answers to common questions regarding creationism and the relationship between evolution and religion. Where appropriate, links to other parts of this site or to external resources are provided. If your question is not answered here, or you would like an answer in more depth, please see The Talk.Origins Archive, an excellent resource that explores the controversy between evolution and creation.

This section is divided into two general areas:

• Scientific Creationism Questions
• Evolution/Religion Questions

Scientific Creationism Questions

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove evolution?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all things tend toward a greater degree of disorder (entropy) is not violated by evolution. The Second Law applies only to closed systems without energy input; the earth has energy input from the sun (though it will eventually cease to shine). Remember that life is the localized and temporary reversal (not violation) of the law of increasing entropy. As Michael Shermer put it in Why People Believe Weird Things, "Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up" (p.150). Please see Talk.Origins - The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

Is scientific creationism the only alternative to purely materialist, atheistic evolutionism?
Of course not. There is a highly varied continuum of positions between creationism and "atheistic evolution" - for example, many people believe that God used the evolutionary process as his mechanism of creation. Moreover, evolution is not inherently atheistic, and numerous scientists reject divine intervention in evolution yet still maintain religious beliefs. Any position along the continuum between creationism and pure "atheistic evolution" will have its supporters and detractors, but that says nothing about the position itself, which is a highly individualized philosophical choice (though logical consistency is often debated). Please see Religion and Evolution, Talk.Origins - What is Creationism?, Talk.Origins - God and Evolution.

Natural selection can account for minor changes within species, but not for creation of new species.
Natural selection can, in fact, account for both phenomena - indeed, they are not really separate phenomena, but merely varying degrees of evolutionary change. Minor changes within species, left to accumulate over many, many years, will lead to the evolution of new species. This is especially true when one population of a species has been isolated. Please see Natural Selection, Talk.Origins - Macroevolution.

Is the order of fossils in geological strata produced by "hydrodynamic sorting", as creationists claim?
The evidence overwhelmingly points to an answer of no. First, the argument is much more wildly improbable than creationists often accuse evolution of being: according to their theory, not a single extinct organism - such as trilobites, dinosaurs, etc. - floated higher than it "belonged". Similarly, not a single mouse, tiger, or elephant fell into a lower stratum. Worse, hydrodyanmic sorting would tend to distribute smaller organisms on top and larger organisms on the bottom; in reality, nothing but microorganisms are found in the very lowest strata, and larger organisms never appear there. Moreover, there is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood, and other independent lines of evidence - such as radiometry - confirm that the fossils were not formed contemporaneously. Please see Talk.Origins - Floods & Fossils.

Does Dr. Thomas Barnes' data on the decay of the magnetic field show that the Earth is younger than once thought?
No. Dr. Barnes' calculations on the strength of the Earth's magnetic field are based on flawed assumptions. He assumed that the decay of the magnetic filed proceeded at an exponential rate, when in reality geologists have shown that it varies with time. Moreover, radiometric dating from a variety of different sources all give approximately the same age for the Earth. This convergence of evidence makes the old age of the Earth essentially certain. Please see Talk.Origins - Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field.

Evolution could not have worked because half-formed structures would not be adaptive. So doesn't special creation fit the evidence better?
This is a very common argument from creationists, and it has been repeatedly refuted by numerous scientists. "Half-formed" structures may very well be useful and adaptive - for example, an eye without a lens is better than no eye at all; the awkward, jerry-rigged thumb of a panda is better than no thumb; and a flap of skin that is a "half-formed" wing might well be an efficient glider or a thermoregulator. And it is virtually impossible to prove beyond any doubt that any given structure could not possibly have arisen by slow accumulation of adaptive changes - that is, natural selection. The best resources on this topic are Richard Dawkins' books The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.

How could a complex organ like an eye possibly evolve through simple random mutations? It had to be perfect before it could work!
First of all, evolution does not consist only of "simple random mutations" rather, it is the differential survival and reproduction of organisms whose slightly better adaptations arose from random mutations. Second, this is an example of a fallacious argument that Richard Dawkins has called "the Argument from Personal Incredulity." Essentially, if the person making the argument cannot imagine a possible evolutionary sequence, he then leaps to the conclusion that there couldn't have been such a sequence. Once again, please see the work of Richard Dawkins for effective refutations of the argument: River out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable. For Dawkins' online essay on the evolution of eyes, see Where d'you get those peepers?.

Is creationism really science, and should it be taught along with evolution in schools?
No and no. Scientific creationism - also known as Biblical literalism or fundamentalism - is really a religious doctrine, though its proponents are trying not to admit the fact. Consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a prominent creationist institution: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism). These are not scientific words and this is not a scientific theory. As such, it should not be included in public-education science classes; such inclusion would give a false impression of scientific methodology. Please see National Center for Science Education.

Evolution/Religion Questions

Are evolution and religion mutually inconsistent? Do you have to be an atheist to support evolution?
Absolutely not. Evolution and religion can be successfully reconciled in a number of different and highly individualized ways. For example, the Catholic Church's position is that evolution was God's method of creation, but God is still responsible for the human soul. Others, such as Kenneth Miller, see divine intervention in quantum indeterminacy (see Finding Darwin's God). Also, there are many evolutionists who are atheists, hut this is certainly not required - as mentioned above, there are many religious people who also accept evolutionary theory. Please see Religion and Evolution, Talk.Origins - God and Evolution, and Evolution - A Catholic Perspective.

Does evolution disprove the Bible?
That depends on how you interpret the Bible. If you take the Biblical account of creation as literally true scientific fact, then yes, evolution contradicts the Bible (it's up to the individual to decide which is disproved). But if you interpret the Bible as allegorical, as a product of human scribes, or as exclusively a work of theology, then evolution and the Bible can peacefully coexist. Please see Religion and Evolution, Talk.Origins - God and Evolution, Talk.Origins - Interpretations of Genesis, Talk.Origins - What is Creationism?.

What implications does evolution have for morality?
Evolution by itself is a scientific theory, and as such it does not have direct moral implications or results. However, it does offer insights into human nature that could be important in the implementation of ethical systems, as well as in social policy. In addition, evolution's information about human nature could be used to evaluate ethical systems for their congruence with basic facts about humans. The scientific facts of evolutionary theory also hold implications for the truth or falsehood of certain moral and ethical standpoints - for example, evolution rules out on empirical grounds any argument exalting one human race over another. Please see Evolution and Ethics.

Is evolution ultimately just a creation myth, and is it based on faith?
No. Evolution is not "just a creation myth", as some extremists argue. Creation myths are, in general, stories about the creation of the world and/or of humans told by a culture and often accepted as true on one level or another. They are not upheld by facts or by evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory that has been rigorously tested by the scientific community and that successfully explains phenomena that other theories fail to account for. Support of evolutionary theory, therefore, derives not from faith - either in evolution or in its philosophical underpinnings - but from careful review of the scientific evidence. Please see Talk.Origins - Evolution and Metaphysics.

What implications does memetics have for religion?
None, really. Memetics and the theory of memes simply explain cultural phenomena, including religions, in terms of the differential survival of replicators - memes - which aggregate into larger meme sets and memeplexes. However, the mere fact that something is a meme has no reflection on its truth or falsehood, only on its behavior as a replicating entity. The fact that religions are memeplexes has no bearing on their truth or falsehood, and neither does the fact that they are extremely successful replicators. Finally, a memetic analysis of a religion (such as that provided in Memes in History on the spread of Christianity) implies nothing about the religion and does not facilitate any conclusions regarding the religion's various claims - it only explains the religion's spread in scientific terms. Please see Memes as Replicators.

Evolution is, fundamentally, based on the fact of death. Does this deny an omnibenevolent God?
This is a religious or philosophical question, and is best handled in that realm, rather than in the realm of science. The answer to this question is highly variable with individual conceptions of good and evil, of human nature, of humans' relationship to the world around us, and even of the divine being in question. Please see Religion and Evolution for discussion of religious topics.