Logo Evolution vs. Creation  

Home
Biological Evolution
Cultural Evolution
Languages
Philosophy
History of Evolution
Interactivities
Evolution FAQ's
Replicators Forum
Guestbook
About Us

Replicators List (disabled by ThinkQuest)

subscribe
unsubscribe

Evolution vs. Creation

It has long been assumed that the only possible explanation for the diversity of life invokes the divine. However, with the advent of Darwinian thinking, it has become possible to study and categorize the living things we observe without recourse to a divine explanation. Some, however, find this paradigm shift disturbing, and a few of these people turn to a theory they call "scientific creationism". According to this theory, the events narrated in the Christian (generally Protestant) Bible are literally true, and much of contemporary science - biology, evolutionary theory, geology, astronomy, etc. - is false. This theory is sometimes presented as if it is nonreligious, but virtually always comes back to accepting the literal truth of the Biblical accounts.

Please note that this section deals specifically with scientific creationism. If you are interested in other aspects of the relationship between evolutionary theory and religious tradition, please see Religion and Evolution.

Definition of Terms

The term "creationist" has taken on a number of different meanings during the course of the ongoing evolution/creation debate. In this section, the term "creationist" will be used as synonymous with "scientific creationist", meaning a person who takes the Biblical account to be literally true. People who make other syntheses between religion and evolution will be referred to as "theistic evolutionists", though this term too encompasses a large group.

The Premises of Scientific Creationism

Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.

The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.

The Burden of Proof

Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)

Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)

In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.

Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "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).

It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.

Evolution as Religion?

Another common creationist argument is the assertion that evolution, just as much as creation, is fundamentally based on faith in the philosophical backing of all science - "philosophical naturalism". Discarding or downplaying standards of proof in scientific discourse, creationists argue that evolutionary explanations amount to nothing more than "just so stories" and therefore are no better or more truthful than creationist explanations.

In making this argument, creationists display poor logical reasoning: they try to simultaneously elevate creationism to science and make evolution a religion; both arguments cannot be made at once while still maintaining consistency. In addition, creationists make the accusation that evolution relies on faith by once again overlooking the vast array of evidence in support of the theory, which would seem to negate the idea that faith is necessary. Finally, creationists often denigrate naturalism as a philosophy, but overlook the fact that science, based on this philosophy, can be clearly shown to work - it has discovered useful things about the natural world that hold true across a vast range of experimental conditions. For more discussion of science and philosophy, see Evolution and Philosophy.

Evolution and Social Evils

A fourth argument commonly made by creationists is that evolutionary theory gave rise to all manner of what they consider to be social evils, from atheism to pornography to birth control. Not only does attributing some of these things to evolutionary theory exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of its implications, but it also is a classic example of a non sequitur. First, evolution and atheism are commonly but not necessarily correlated, and many religious people are still evolutionists. Second, it is clearly maladaptive from a Darwinian perspective for people to be aroused by pornography or to use birth control since they both decrease the likelihood of reproduction. Other "social evils" connected to evolution by creationists exhibit similar lack of correlation.

In addition, creationists are committing a fairly large logical fallacy in claiming that social evils arise from evolutionary theory. First, social evils clearly have existed throughout human history, and the modern era is indeed much safer than some time periods of the past, such as hunter-gatherer lifestyles. For much of human history slavery has been a common and acceptable practice; when Darwin first published The Origin of Species, America was preparing for a bloody conflict over the institution. In fact, for Darwinism's entire tenure on earth, slavery has been recognized as evil and morally corrupt, whereas it was not regarded as such for the majority of the time in which humans did not have evolutionary theory. Finally, though it could be argued that some social ills are more common now than they were before Darwin's work, correlation simply does not imply causation. Just because two things happened one following another does not mean that the first caused the second; this would be as illogical as claiming that waking up causes someone to go to work.

Finally, claiming that evolution has caused social evils does not make it incorrect. Just because a theory has been misapplied (and evolution certainly has) does not mean that the theory is false. Certainly eugenics is a major misapplication of genetics, but the fact that eugenics programs have been attempted does not negate genetics and heredity.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it can be shown - and has been shown, many times - that scientific creationists work on false premises, and scientific creationism is no more than a veil for religious doctrine. As stated before, the Biblical account may indeed be taken as religious or moral allegory, but must be applied on a philosophical level only; it is simply nonsensical if taken as literal scientific truth.

You be the Judge!

Do you have strong opinions on any of the issues discussed in this section? Please feel free to share them with us - take our Evolution/Religion Poll!

Express Yourself!

Are you interested in the evolution/creation controversy? Would you like the opportunity to express yourself in an open-ended format? Please feel free to share your opinions with other users - just visit the Replicators Forum!

Looking Further: Links and References

The following links and references are useful in the exploration of the relationship between evolutionary theory and religion.

Here are some pro-creation resources that provide insight into the creationist perspective and the evolution/creation debate in general.

BackTopNext
Biological Evolution | Cultural Evolution | Languages
Philosophy | History of Evolution | Interactivities
FAQ | Forum | Guestbook | References | About Us
Home | Search | Index | Features | Newsflash!
Site News | Our Awards | New!  Featured Links
ThinkQuest

Copyright © 2000
Team C004367