Rejection of evolution by religious groups

See Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared for a column-by-column comparison of points-of-view in the debate.

What is generally known as the creation vs. evolution debate is a debate over more than just the General Theory of Evolution. Rather, it also a debate about the origin, age, and development of the universe, Earth, and life itself. As such, the debate covers a broad set of issues, including the philosophy of science, abiogenesis, evolution, astrophysics, and geology.

In Europe, evolution has nearly universal support. In the Middle East, creation has nearly universal support. In both of those places, there is very little debate, due to the dominance of one opinion. In the United States, however, opinions are mixed, leading to a great deal of debate in political, educational, religious, and some scientific circles. According to a 1997 Newsweek poll on the origin and development of human beings, among the general population, 44% believed in biblically literal creation, 39% believed in theistic evolution, and 10% believed in purely naturalistic evolution. Among American scientists, 5% believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 55% believed in naturalistic evolution [1]. Less than 1% of earth and life scientists in the United States believe in biblically literal creationism.

Support for a "young" Earth (i.e. around 6,000 years old) is not as broad as for the creation of life.

Nature of the debate

The different participants in the debate look at the same facts of biology, fossils, geology, physics, and astronomy. But the different groups in the debate have different priorities when explaining those facts. On the one hand, naturalistic scientists hope to explain the facts of nature by looking only at the facts. On the other hand, creationists hope to explain nature to be the result of divine intervention--even if naturalistic theories are sufficient to explain the facts without divine intervention.

Accordingly, the mainstream science community widely accepts the naturalistic scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, together with the naturalistic general theories of astronomy and geology, although there is debate over the details as scientists continue to develop naturalistic theories to explain more and more detail of the origin of the universe, earth, life, and species diversity. Mainstream scientists argue that as science has progressed, many speculative theories have been eliminated from serious consideration by being 1) contrary to known facts or 2) unacceptable by being incapable of being tested; as a result, the facts have convinced scientists of the improving validity of naturalistic explanations in biology, paleontology, physics, and astronomy for the origins of the earth, species diversity, and life itself--all without divine intervention.

In contrast, creationists acknowledge and embrace all scientific theories which they believe to be grounded in empirical science, but believe that while the functioning of nearly everything can be explained by empirical science, the origin of many things is most reasonably explained by a creator, because of the extraordinary complexity apparent in life and the universe which they believe cannot be explained by chance alone. Creationists do not believe that science and religion exist in opposition, but rather that True Religion is consistent with True Science (as argued by Thomas Huxley [2]), and that True Science requires True Religion in order to function properly (as argued by Albert Einstein [3]).

They argue that the widespread doubt or disbelief in God among scientists (92% by one study) has turned evolution into a tool for justifying atheism; and that, as noted by evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith, "The main task of any theory of evolution is to explain adaptive complexity, that is, to explain the same set of facts that Paley used as evidence of a Creator." (Maynard Smith 1969). Creationists argue that True Science and True Religion are consistent, that support for evolution derives from ideology, not science, and that true empirical science supports the creationist viewpoint.

In the United States, creationists have mounted an effective political and cultural challenge to naturalistic mainstream scientific thinking, though mainstream scientists think that creationists ignore facts and practical common sense. For example, in summarizing the "rich fabric of evolutionary biology" which has contributed to solving crucial practical problems in industry and medicine, Kutschera and Niklas (2004, p. 273) stated that creationism has mounted a political and cultural challenge to evolution that "jeopardizes our future as a species by virtue of rejecting science." They said, "Scientists tend not to enter into public debates about creationism versus science, many of which are now taking place in local communities rather than in more general public forums." Accordingly, the National Center for Science Education notes that, in the United States, much of the controversy between creationism and evolution takes place in power struggles in local communities. For example, "a school superintendent had teachers glue together pages of an earth science textbook that discussed the 'big bang' because the Genesis account wasn't also presented." [4]

Pennock (2003) reviewed the arguments of the various parties in the debate between creationism and evolution and concluded the following. "Creation science and ID [intelligent design] are alike in that neither offers positive evidence for their belief that biological organisms were the result of supernatural intervention, but rely entirely on negative arguments against evolution" (Pennock 2003, p. 152). Furthermore, he reviewed the allegedly leaked three point agenda [5] of the creationist Discovery Institute for getting general acceptance of creationism over evolution: 1) scientific research, 2) publicity and opinion-making, and 3) cultural confrontation. He concluded that, among creationists "no scientific research appears to be happening"; there are a lot of op-ed pieces and popular arguments, but "there are no preprints of research articles, let alone published scientific articles" (Pennock 2003, p. 149). But, given the strength of the creationists' intent "to crack the materialist edifice" [6] no matter what the reality and facts are, a "significant point is that lack of scientific support for the ID [intelligent design] movement’s 'theory' has not stood in the way of considerable cultural success in promoting ID as a purported alternative to evolution. . . and in transforming the terms of this political, if not scientific, debate" (Pennock 2003, p. 150).

Kutschera and Niklas close their 2004 review of the recent and continuing successes in evolutionary theory by saying, the scientists' "reticence [to enter into public debates over creationism and evolution] can have grave consequences. In our view, evolutionary biologists – indeed, all scientists – must step forward and educate the public about science in general and evolution in particular. We cannot afford to be shy or modest about what we have learned. It is our responsibility to advocate scientific thinking and to educate non-scientists" (Kutschera and Niklas 2004, p. 273).

What is driving the debate?

One issue of particular concern in the debate is the objectivity of the two sides of the debate, and whether their beliefs about God inform their interpretation of science, or their interpretation of science inform their beliefs about God. According to a 1996 poll, 92% of a randomly-selected sample of American scientists expressed "doubt or disbelief" regarding the existence of God. An identical study conducted by Leuba in 1914 attributed this to "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience," indicating his belief that the science and acquired knowledge of the mainstream community has informed their widespread atheism. According to the study, the results cast doubt on the published claim of the NAS that "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." [7]

In contrast, the American National Academy of Sciences attributes "opposition to evolution" (i.e. creationism) to a purely religious motive: "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion." [8]

By contrast, many creationists believe that their faith is informed by their science, that is, that the findings of empirical science strongly support a creationist viewpoint, while evolution is "faith in total naturalism," informed by the religion of Atheism.[9]

A study of over 100 creation scientists with advanced academic degrees, conducted by Jerry Bergman, found that creation scientists reported suffering widespread discrimination at the hands of the mainstream scientific community, including name-calling, as well as refusal to award degrees, promotion, or tenure, even after all the appropriate requirements had been met. According to his study, the thousands of creationists who had earned science degrees from mainstream universities were able to earn their degree in only one of two ways: to stay "In the closet," that is, to not state their beliefs publicly until after being awarded the degree, or to become a creationist after their degree was awarded. The author of the study argued that the widespread atheism among the mainstream scientific community biased them against creationism, and led them to exclude creation science from scientific dialogue by means of intimidation, oppression, and discrimination.[10]

Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

Main article: Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared.

This page deals with the various viewpoints held by creationists and main stream scientists. Points are displayed side by side for ease of comparison.

Introduction to the theories

The theory of naturalistic evolution

Main article: Evolution

According to the theory of evolution, all life differentiated from a single common ancestor by the process of random variation and natural selection. Originally, organic compounds organized themselves in such as a way as to become self-replicating. Over the course of a great deal of time, those compounds varied naturally through random changes at replication. The protoorganisms with more advantageous traits were better able to self-replicate, and so they spread more quickly. Eventually, cells developed; then sexual reproduction; then multicellular organism; and over the course of millenia, life developed from a single protocell to its present diversity. The fossil record reflects this development, as organisms of increased complexity were buried by means of sedimentation over time.

Young Earth Creationism

Main Article: Young Earth Creationism

According to biblically-literal creationism, God created a number of "kinds" of animals approximately 6,000 years ago that were able to change over time, but those changes may take place only within definite bounds. Essentially, while all dogs share common ancestors, dogs and cats do not share common ancestors. Those original animals (and the humans at that time, who the Genealogies of Genesis state lived between 770 and 970 years) are believed to have had a significantly superior genetic makeup than current species. Approximately 4,500 years ago, God sent a world-wide flood to cover the Earth and wipe out all mankind, with the exception of the animals and eight people preserved in the ark. Before the flood, two of each unclean animal and seven of each clean animal were taken on board the ark. After the flood, those animals were released, and they differentiated and developed over time into the present variety of species. Fossils are explained as animals who lived before the flood and were buried by rapid sedimentation and liquefaction.

Introduction to the arguments

Pitting Creationism against evolution creates something of a false dichotomy. Strictly speaking, Creationism refers only to the belief that the Universe in general and life in particular were created by the intelligent design of some divine agency (usually God), while evolution refers only to the scientific theory that the processes of mutation and natural selection are responsible for the diversity of life found on Earth.

Evolutionary theory and Creationism are not mutually exclusive: Theistic evolutionists, for example, believe that God created life, and that species differentiated by means of the mechanism of evolution.

The controversy in biology centers on two issues:

1. Abiogenesis: that is, the origin of life, and whether it was brought about by purely naturalistic processes, or a divine, creative act;
2. Differentiation: that is, whether or not families, genera, and species developed naturally through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

The secular position on these issues is that of "Naturalistic evolution", in other words they believe both that life originated and that species differentiated through purely naturalistic means. "Evolutionary creationists" believe that life originated and differentiated through naturalistic means, but under God's divine guidance. This is the offical position of a number of Christian Churches, including the Church of England.

However, the main creation vs. evolution debate is between evolutionists (including evolutionary creationists) and those creationists who believe that all the basic "kinds" of life were created through the deliberate act of an intelligent being. Of these creationists the largest group are probably Young Earth creationists, who believe that their scriptures teach that the Earth is only tens of thousands of years old. These include many Christians, Jews and Muslims, with a number of dates for creation suggested, ususally in the 6th, 5th or 4th millennia BC. Other believers, particularly those ascribing to Intelligent Design, do not necessarily hold Genesis to be literally true, but hold that evolution is also insufficient to explain the existence and diversity of life, and conclude simply that life was created in some as-yet-unknown way by God's creative power.

Abiogenesis

Main articles: Origin of life, Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis

The natural origin of life remains elusive to science, and is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of our world. Progress in this field is slow and sporadic, but it still draws the attention of many. A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are elusive. The issue revolves around the means by which the chemical ingredients of life, primarily carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, could have become arranged in such a way that they became a single, "living" entity, able to reproduce itself. The defining research in this field is known as the Miller-Urey experiment, which demonstrated that, under certain conditions, many of the organic components of life may arise spontaneously. However, no experiment has yet managed to produce self-replicating "living" compounds from these organic ingredients, and creationists have argued that the experiments actually support creation better than a naturalistic hypothesis.

Naturalistic abiogenesis hypotheses

In this absence of conclusive research to support either side, several theories have arisen:

• "Genes first" models, the the RNA world hypothesis, suggests that short RNA molecules could have spontaneously formed that would then catalyze their own continuing replication. Early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids, protein-like molecules that are produced when amino acid solutions are heated. Other possibilities include systems of chemical reactions taking place within clay substrates or on the surface of pyrite rocks. None of these various hypotheses have strong experimental evidence behind them at this time, however. Many of them can be simulated and tested in the lab, but a lack of undisturbed sedimentary rock from that early in Earth's history leaves few opportunities to determine what may have actually happened in practice.

• "Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world hypothesis and others reject the idea of the self-replication of a "naked-gene" and postulate the emergence of a primitive metabolism which could provide an environment for the later emergence of RNA replication. One of the earliest incarnations of this idea was put forward in 1924 with Alexander Oparin's notion of primitive self-replicating vesicles which predated the discovery of the structure of DNA. More recent variants in the 1980s and 1990s include Günter Wächtershäuser's iron-sulfur world theory and models introduced by Christian de Duve based on the chemistry of thioesters. More abstract and theoretical arguments for the plausibility of the emergence of metabolism without the presence of genes include a mathematical model introduced by Freeman Dyson in the early 1980s, and Stuart Kauffman's notion of collectively autocatalytic sets discussed later in that decade.

• Hybrid models incorporate aspects of each.

Creationist abiogenesis hypothesis

Creationists propose no scientifically-verifiable mechanism for abiogenesis. They assert the hypothesis that life was created by God, and, by its very nature, could only have been created by God. They assert that the creationist hypothesis, although not provable, is falsifiable, as a single demonstration of life arising from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent being would disprove the hypothesis that it could only have been created by God. Creationists note that there has been no such demonstration, or even a fully coherent theory to explain it.

Creationists assert that while science has synthesized some organic ingredients of life, the organic components of life are different than life itself, because they are not self-replicating. They also assert that despite a number of efforts, neither the Miller-Urey experiment, nor any subsequent research nor theory, have conclusively demonstrated how the organic buildings blocks of life could have become arranged into a self-replicating "protocell". They further argue that the Miller-Urey experiment actually demonstrated the difficulty of life arising by chance, as, for example, the amino acids produced in the experiment were a racemate, which is unsuitable for life.

Creationists argue that in the absence of a demonstrable, verifiable mechanism for the origin of life, dogmatic belief in atheistic abiogenesis is just as dependent on assumption as dogmatic belief in creationistic abiogenesis, and is therefore equally "unscientific." Thus they conclude that creationism is an intellectually justifiable position as to the origin of life.

For a discussion of the creationist abiogenesis hypothesis in relationship to Occam's Razor and the God of the gaps, see the appropriate section below.

Species differentiation

Main articles: Mutation, Natural selection, Microevolution, Macroevolution, Speciation

The issue of mutation and natural selection is the primary source of debate between the different schools of thought.

• The theory of evolution asserts that Heritable variation and natural selection allowed for the development of all life from the first life to all the species that have ever existed. As such, it predicts a naturalistic mechanism for the appearance of new orders, familes, species, etc., and concludes that this took place naturalistically.

• Creationism asserts that the basic "kinds" were created in their original form, by God. These kinds had large amounts of genetic potential, allowing for them to differentiate into different varieties, even to the point of not being able to interbreed (thus speciate). However, creationists deny that there is any natural mechanism for the generation of new genetic information, thus preventing the kinds changing into something quite different.

Creationary scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said:

"The main scientific objection to the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so the use of the terms "micro-" and "macro-evolution" should be discouraged"). It isn't even about whether natural selection happens. The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content." (Refuting Compromise, Master Books, 2004)

In addition, special-creationists assert that certain biological structures exhibit irreducible complexity, which, by definition, would be impossible to have arisen through naturalistic evolution alone.

Microevolution

Microevolution refers to small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection.

For example, moths may randomly develop white and black variants, and as a city becomes covered in soot, black moths are better camoflaged than white moths, so black moths grow in population, while white moths die off. There is a great deal of evidence for such changes, and special-creationists acknowledge that microevolution is a scientifically verifiable phenomenon.

Macroevolution

Macroevolution is the theory that speciation, or the development and differentiation of species, occurs by means of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time.

Evolutionists assert that all life on Earth originates from one common ancestor, and that more closely related species have more closely related common ancestors. Evolutionists claim, for example, that humans and apes have a common ancestor, as do fish, dogs, penguins, and cabbages.

Creationists, on the other hand, claim that while some differentiation can be explained by microevolution, differentiation has definite bounds beyond which it cannot take place. For instance, while there is evidence that all cats evolved from a common ancestor, they assert that there is no evidence that cats and dogs evolved from a common ancestor.

Special-creationists and evolutionists disagree regarding macroevolution. Evolutionists assert that the only substantial difference between microevolution and macroevolution is one of scale, and that fossil evidence supports common ancestry. Creationists assert that while research overwhelmingly supports microevolution, there is neither a coherent mechanism nor empirical evidence for macroevolution.

The history of the debate over macroevolution

The debate over the relationship between macroevolution and microevolution has been going on since the 1860s, when evolution first became a widely accepted idea. However, the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" were not used in this context until 1927, first by the Russian embyrologist Iurii Filipchenko in a German language publication. It was first used in English by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his Genetics and the Origin of Species in 1937.

Charles Darwin who is the central figure in early evolutionary theory, saw no fundamental difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Darwin concluded that the scientific evidence supported or at least allowed for the theory that variation (microevolution) and natural selection, over time, could account for speciation (macroevolution)—even all speciation. Darwin himself did not know what mechanisms might cause variation.

Gregor Mendel, a contemporary of Darwin, was a Christian monk and creationist, is popularly known as the "father of modern genetics" for his discovery of the laws of genetic variation in his study of natural variation in plants. In a lecture on March 8, 1865, Mendel noted that his research described the mechanism of microevolution, but gave no grounds for belief in macroevolution, asserting that the tendency was toward stability, rather than toward instability.

For a period in the beginning of the 20th century, known as the "Eclipse of Darwinism," evolutionary biologists ascribed to "orthogenetic" evolution, which held that variation (later known as microevolution) occurred through darwinian mutation and natural selection, but large-scale change (later known as macroevolution) was directed by the Creator. This was essentially the state of affairs in Darwin's day. According to Mayr, "Teleological thinking was extremely widespread in the first half of the nineteenth century. For Agassiz and other progressionists the sequence of fossil faunas simply reflected the maturation of the plan of creation in the mind of the creator."

Genetic mutation gained acceptance as the mechanism of variance in the 1960s, in what is called the Williams revolution involving many scientists. This developing theory of evolution was then called the modern evolutionary synthesis, which remains prominent today.

The current debate over macroevolution

The modern evolutionary synthesis essentially equates microevolution and macroevolution, saying that variation caused by genetic mutation, in concert with natural selection, accounts for all species diversity. The mechanism of genetics for variance implies that variation must take place in small steps from one generation to the next: this is called gradualism. This leaves the weight of speciation on natural selection, which must then account for the development of species seen in the fossil record.

Creationists, however, assert that while creation and microevolution and perhaps even orthogenetics are an adequate explanation for species diversity, the modern evolutionary synthesis is untenable, because it is not adequately reflected by transitional forms in the fossil record, and cannot account for major physiological changes or irreducible complexity.

A main point of contention has been that gradualism predicts that when one species evolves into another, there need to be intermediate forms morphologically and genetically. Creationists assert that these are sparse in the fossil record. Evolutionists since Darwin have pointed out the incompleteness of the fossil record and called for more research, though they do not do so because of doubt of the existence of intermediate forms, but for the purpose of clarity. Mainstream scientists have disagreed over the number of transitional forms in the fossil record. Some believe that there are adequate fossils to support gradualism. Others believe that the fossil record is discontinuous, but that the discontinuities are due to rapid evolution in the model of punctuated equilibria. Others, including Richard Dawkins also claim that the concept of an intermediate form is misleading pointing out that the more fossils that we find the more gaps there will be between them. Creationists assert that while some transitional forms within "kinds" have been discovered (such as the development of the modern horse), there exist no transitional forms between kinds.

During the mid-twentieth century, possible mechanisms for macroevolution were developed by scientists such as Ivan Schmalhausen, Niles Eldridge, and Stephen Jay Gould. Gould's development of the natural selection mechanism is punctuated equilibria. In these theories, natural selection, and thus the speciating force of macroevolution, occurs in spurts among subcommunities of species rather than gradually over the entire species. Although these changes are fast in geological terms, they are still within the limits of microevolution and so do not break gradualism. Gould viewed his theory as revolutionary, while some scientists view his theory as only a minor development in the mechanism of natural selection.

While Gould rejected the synthetic model of evolution, he believed that the theory of evolution itself was so well-established as to be beyond dispute, and that the debate among the scientific community was merely the process of refining the theory.

"I well remember how the synthetic theory [of evolution] beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution.....I have been reluctant to admit it--since beguiling is often forever--but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Paleobiology, Vol.6, 1980, p. 120).

"Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand."

Creationists assert this changing formulation of evolution shows that the theory of evolution has not reached the status of scientific fact or law, but remains a hypothesis which has yet to be adequately evidenced or explained. Creationists simply assert that the hypothesis is false, and will never be adequately evidenced or explained, because it did not occur. They also argue that theories such as punctuated equilibrium place possible evidence of evolution (such as transitional fossils) beyond the accuracy of the fossil record itself, making macroevolution in the past an unprovable fact which must be taken on faith. They also claim that punctuated equilibrium would not work because small communities of animals would become less fit due to inbreeding.

Evolutionists object to these claims, saying that the fossil record does contain evidence of gradual speciation, and furthermore that there are modern examples of macroevolution; evolutionists often claim that creationists simply ignore evidence that they don't like, and so in this area the debate is at an impasse.

The heart of the debate, therefore, lies on the issue of adequate evidence and coherent mechanism for major physiological changes among and across species, over time.

Irreducible complexity

Main article: Irreducible complexity

Evolutionists and creationists disagree on the issue of irreducible complexity. Special creationists assert that it exists, while evolutionists deny that it exists.

"Irreducible complexity" is defined as: "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). Those ascribing to irreducible complexity assert that systems that demonstrate irreducible complexity cannot be explained naturalistically, because each component of the system would be useless, or even disadvantageous, without the others. They conclude that "irreducible" systems must have been assembled simultaneously, by an Intelligent Designer. For evidence, they proclaim phenomena such as the eye, the four chambered heart, blood clotting, cilia, and mammary glands as being "irreducibly complex," in that they require an enormous number of parts which would not function on their own in order to function at all.

Supporters of evolution consider "Irreducible complexity" to be pseudoscience, and state that in addition to there being clearly defined evolutionary pathways, many of the allegedly "complex systems" are remarkably simple. For example, for the eye (from light sensitive surface cells), the heart (gradual expansion of an important artery-vein interface - which already contains valved chambers like all veins), cilia (from bacteria with cilia), blood clotting (from blood's natural chemical property of congealing), and mammary glands (from increase and localisation of lactose releasing cells, and reassignment of some of the associated lymph ducts).

Biblically literal creationism

Evolutionary theory is, without question, the dominant point of view among the scientific community. In 1987, Newsweek reported: “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism. However, although only a tiny minority of scientists ascribe to biblically literal creation, they have proposed a number of alternative interpretations of empirical evidence, in support of their belief.

Biblically literal creationists believe that God created the world from nothing approximately 6,000 years ago (although some will allow for up to 10,000 years ago), that the world was destroyed by a global flood approximately 2,000 years later, with only a single boat of people, and two of each kind of animal, surviving, and spreading after that. The hypothesis therefore makes several predictions:

• Evidence that current geological formations were formed catastrophically, by means of global flood and rapid continential motion;
• Evidence that rock strata were laid down by means of liquefaction;
• Parallel strata and polystrate fossils;
• Evidence of an ice age following the flood approximately 4,000 years ago;
• Evidence of catastrophic climate change and mass extinction;
• Evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted;
• Evidence of some means by which humans could have lived 800 years or longer prior to the flood;
• Evidence that all life descended from a set of "kinds" within the past 4,000 years;
• Evidence of microevolution leading to subsequent variation of life within bounds;
• Evidence of some mechanism by which water could have covered the whole Earth;
• No evidence or mechanism for macroevolution or transitional forms between "kinds;"
• The law of biogenesis;
• Evidence that civilization originated in the Middle East approximately 4,000 years ago.
• No explanation or evidence for the evolutionary development of major organs;
• No explanation or evidence for the evolutionary development of sexual reproduction;
• Evidence of irreducible complexity.

Some creationist hypotheses.

Criticism of creationism.

The Great Flood

The Flood and mythology

A great number of cultures at all times and places had, or still have, a story of a worldwide flood. American Indian, Chinese, African, Aboriginal Australian, European, and Middle Eastern Cultures all have some ancient report of a worldwide flood. For a partial catalog, see Deluge (mythology).

• Creationists typically assert that the fact that nearly all cultures have a flood story makes it very likely that the myth originated in some historical event: namely, an actual, historical, global flood. They argue that the variation and mythological nature of the stories is a consequence of its being passed down through oral tradition by ancient cultures spreading across the globe after the flood; but that the universality of the story indicates that it has a basis in fact. They point in particular to the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains an account of the flood very similar to the Genesis account, but with a significantly stronger mythological character. They note that, while the vast majority of ancient accounts of the flood have a strongly mythological character, the Genesis account is unique in that it speaks in very concrete terms of the events it purports to describe: of names and periods of time and types of wood used to construct the Ark. They conclude that, among all the ancient accounts of a global flood, Genesis is the most historically reliable.

• Evolutionists typically assert that no worldwide flood occurred, although they support views of large local floods, such as the flooding of the previously mostly dry Black Sea (which is where linguists postulate indo-europeans originated), when the bosphorus was breached by geological factors. Evolutionists postulate that the widespread myths reflect a deep cultural memory of these catastrophic events, and that those myths likely influenced the author of Genesis. Those with knowledge of ancient civilisations also point out that there are remarkable similarities between the account of Noah in Genesis, and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, for which much earlier written forms have been found than for the Torah. They also assert that although the account in Genesis is detailed, this is no reason to assume it is true, since a man can write a detailed lie, and another a vague truth.

The Flood and geology

Full article: Flood geology

Central to biblically literal creationism is the Flood. If the global flood actually occurred, then it had a radical effect on geology, and traces of that flood should be observable today, making the theory at least somewhat falsifiable.

Flood geologists argue that geology is better explained by the effects of a global flood than by uniformatism. They argue the following:

• The fact that 80% of the Earth's crust is covered by sedimentary strata is best explained as liquefaction on a massive scale;
• Extensive submarine river canyon extensions, such as those found in the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson rivers, which extend under the sea for thousands of miles, thousands of feet below the sea, and are often as deep as the Grand Canyon, are best explained by runoff from new continents into new low-lying areas after the continents divided and rose and the seabeds dropped within a relatively short period of time;
• The existence of fossils is best explained by a massive flood, as fossilization requires that the remains be quickly buried by sediments, as would be expected in a flood.
• The existence of large oil deposits is best explained as the result of the accumulation of large amounts of dead plant and animal matter during the flood which were subsequently compressed below the surface.
• A number of phenomena, such as transported blocks, sand plumes, layered coal and limestone deposits, the near total purity of the 500,000 sq. mile St. Peter Sandstone, smooth bending rock strata, and aquifers, are explained simply and easily by massive liquefaction, and remain inadequately explained by mainstream geology.

Mainstream geologists claim that flood geology is unscientific.

• They contend that if there had been a worldwide flood we would have expected very small populations of various species to have seeded current populations and claim that this would be evident in their genetic variability, and that this is not the case.
• They contend that the remains of animals are not found where they would be expected if all of them settled down together in the same flood.
• They contend, based on the principle of Uniformitarianism, that climactic information based on ice core samples indicates no evidence of high rates of decomposition 10,000 years ago, as would be expected in a flood. [11]

For a creationist account of flood geology, see this article.

Several evolutionary critiques are collected on Flood Geology page of Talk.Origns archive.

Dating fossils and geological structures

Accelerated radiometric decay hypothesis

In 2002 creationists in the US and Australia proposed a new dating method based on helium diffusion through rock. Helium is a by-product of radioactive decay and the amount of trapped helium is, in principle, as good a measure of time as the heavier decay products such as potassium or lead. However, helium is a gas and diffuses through the rock. The team of creationists arranged for the diffusion rate of helium to be measured for the first time. The diffusion rate enables an independent dating method to be established. On rocks dated to be one billion years old (by radiometric means) the creationists found that much of the helium had not diffused out and obtained a rock date of only 5700 years. The creationists argue that this indicates that nuclear decay rates must have been accelerated in the past by some mechanism. Mainstream scientists argue that the diffusion calculations are flawed. The debate is on-going.

Creationists claim that the speed of light may have changed over time, thus providing a mechanism for the changing rate of radioactive decay. Only a few supported this proposal in the past but the recent helium diffusion dating method has spurred interest, although the speed of light is only one of the fundamental constants that are being considered. While there is some recent, controversial evidence that the speed of light might have changed in the very early universe, physicists say that the possible change is too small to create the claimed effects.

Relativity and time measurement

The General theory of relativity implies that the passage of time on Earth may have been different from the passage of time in the wider universe. Creationists state that while a few thousand years elapsed on earth, millions of years may have elapsed in the wider universe. In particular, the physicist Russell Humphreys has proposed a creationist 'Big Bang'-like cosmology with an expanding universe that is bounded, unlike the conventional Big-Bang.

The field equations of General Relativity dictate that time transpires millions of times faster at the edges of a bounded universe as compared to the centre early during expansion. Late in expansion time transpires at an approximately uniform rate. This cosmology, which allows for billion-year old galaxies initiated from an only thousands of years old centre, appears to be the natural consquence of an expanding non-bounded universe.

Physicists have said that for time to be warped on Earth enough to cause such an effect would cause a gravitational distortion large enough to destroy the planet.

The Debate, the God of the Gaps, and Occam's Razor

Many mainstream scientists argue that the above creationist arguments are instances of postulating a God of the gaps; that is, using God to explain things that science cannot yet explain, without any positive evidence of the existence of God. They conclude that the creationist theory fails by an application of Occam's Razor, because it requires the extraneous assumption of an invisible God.

Creationists respond that every step in the development of science has uncovered greater and greater evidence of design, and the God of the Gaps that created the geocentric universe pales in comparison to the God of the Gaps that created the universe as we now understand it. They argue that if the God of the Gaps were getting smaller with scientific advances, one could expect Him to ultimately disappear. On the contrary, however, every step of science has made the God of the Gaps bigger, making his existence more reasonable. They argue that while Creationism requires the assumption of a single enormously powerful creator, naturalism requires the assumption of innumerable unknown sources and causes for the intricately interwoven nature of the universe. They conclude that since Occam's razor prefers the theory requiring the fewest discrete assumptions, creationism is more reasonable than naturalism.

The debate and the scientific community

Support for evolution is the dominant point of view among the scientific community to an almost exclusive extent; however, a small number of scientists continue to develop creationist theories of origins.

Supporters of evolution assert that no other theory has been advanced which matches with existing scientific knowledge and makes predictions for future research and experiment, and that the widespread acceptance of the theory among those with sophisticated scientific educations, backgrounds, and experiences, coupled with the fact that creationism is relegated largely to parts of the religious community and a few fringe movements among academics who are often widely accused of pseudoscience, gives evolution significantly more credibility.

Supporters of creation assert that all current scientific knowledge is consistent with both creation and evolution, and the debate revolves around propositions which cannot be observed or falsified, and are therefore beyond the realm of empirical science; further, that the size of a movement is not necessarily associated with its credibility. Just as Darwin started a "fringe movement" looked down upon by the general scientific community until it became popularly accepted, creationists feel their critiques of evolution should be addressed on their merits and not merely brushed aside. As to the small number of creationists with advanced biology degrees, some such individuals have said, "A creationist getting through evolutionary biology coursework is like an atheist getting through seminary."

The debate and the religious community

David Bergman, creationist physicist, wrote, "The underlying worldview assumptions of creationism are centered on reality, causality, and unity -- logical assumptions that came to be imbedded in science and the scientific method. Creationism has been opposed by atomism since Epicurus (342-270 B.C.) asserted that random events occur in matter. The early atomists developed a theory of matter to support a pantheistic worldview; in modern science, atomistic principles are implemented into current theories of matter, forces, and cosmology ... each of the two ancient theories that explain life have underlying worldview assumptions and prominent spokesmen. Moses wrote the earliest extant defense of creationism, while many ancient and modern writers have developed and expanding his theme. The foundations of atomism were described by the Roman poet Lucretius (circa 96-55 B.B.) whose poem On the Nature of Things made him the principal spokesman for atomism (and evolution) during the last two millennia. More recently, Charles Darwin described evolution theory -- a logical outcome of atomism, its assumptions, and objectives. [12]

Conrad Hyers wrote in The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science: "It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it." [13]

"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind: 'Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Stand up like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:1-7.

David Hull, reviewing Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial for Nature magazine, wrote: "What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror.... The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray."

Creation and evolution in public education

Main article: creation and evolution in public education.

The legal status of creation and evolution in public education is the subject of a great deal of debate in scientific, legal, and religious circles.

Perspectives on the debate over time

One of the earliest extant written expressions of the creationist viewpoint is in the Hebrew Bible, which asserts that the existence and Glory of God are self-evident in His creation. For example, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Psalms 19:1.

Early naturalists, however, asserted that all things had natural causes, and the gods were merely figments of man's imagination, created to explain the unknown, instead of seeking to understand it. Lucretius, for example, wrote:

Only because looking on land and in sky there is so much, but seemingly unknown, do men think divinities work there. Whilst once we comprehend that nothing is created from nothing, we shall see more clearly which we seek - those things, from which alone all is created, and how it is accomplished by no instrument of gods.

--Lucretius, " De rerum natura," written about 60 BC

Creationists asserted that these naturalists were merely denying the self-evident Truth of creationism, and that the denial of God led to intellectual and moral ruin. Paul of Tarsus, for example, wrote: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:18-22.

For a time in Europe and North America, creationism became the universal point of view. With the advent of Darwin's theory of evolution, however, naturalism once again came to the fore. While some creationists continued to assert that God's handiwork was evident in creation, and some naturalists continued to assert that all natural things had natural causes, some asserted that there was no real conflict between evolution and creation, except as a result of short-sidedness on the part of some religious people and some scientists. For example, Thomas Huxley was one of the first advocates of evolutionary theory. In 1885, in an essay to William Gladstone [14] Huxley argued that the conflict between religion and science was misunderstood. True religion, according to Huxley, is embodied in the words of Micah: "What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God?" Huxley argued that religion benefits from science insofar as science strips it of the things that burden that "obscure" or "mutilate" that "perfect ideal of religion."

"A faculty of wrath lay in those ancient Israelites, and surely the prophet's staff would have made swift acquaintance with the head of the scholar who had asked Micah whether, peradventure, the Lord further required of him an implicit belief in the accuracy of the cosmogony of Genesis!"

At the same time, however, he chastised "equally short-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes for its province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension; and that, outside the boundaries of that province, they must be content with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance."

Similarly, Charles Darwin saw no conflict between religion and the theory of evolution, writing in 1859 his concluding chapter of The Origin of Species: "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled." [15]

After Darwinism came into the public sphere, some noted that Western Culture seemed to be much more concerned with preserving Darwinism than with preserving traditional Christianity. For example, Samuel Butler, a famous 19th century author and critic of both religion and Darwinism wrote, "I attacked the foundations of morality in Erewhon, and nobody cared two straws, I tore open the wounds of my Redeemer as he hung upon the Cross in The Fair Haven, and people rather liked it. But when I attacked Mr. Darwin they were up in arms in a moment." (Butler, p 54).

After the orthogenetic revolution (otherwise known as the "Eclipse of Darwinism") during which microevolution was considered to occur by naturalistic means and macroevolution through the creative power of God, evolutionary biologists developed the Modern evolutionary synthesis, which quickly rose to almost universal prominence among the scientific community with the Williams Revolution in the 1960's.

Around that time, a prominent evolutionist wrote, "The main task of any theory of evolution is to explain adaptive complexity, that is, to expain the same set of facts that Paley used as evidence of a creator." (Maynard Smith 1969).

Many evolutionists came to believe that naturalistic evolution had been essentially proven by science, and that creationists merely resorted to misrepresentation in an attempt to show that there was doubt among the scientific community as to the historical fact of evolution, when in fact there was none. For example, Theodosius Dobzhansky, a developer of the modern evolutionary synthesis, wrote in Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution in 1973: "Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin." [16]

Creationists, however, came to believe that the mainstream scientific community was equally given to misrepresentation and distortion of creation, but steadfastly refused to address creationism on its merits. For example, Henry Morris, Founder of the Institute for Creation Research, wrote, "In all their polemics, the anti-creationists invariably avoid discussing the actual scientific evidence for macro-evolution. If there were any such evidence, they could easily settle the whole conflict, merely by presenting the evidence! Instead they seem compelled to resort to bombast ridicule, defamation, intimidation, and distortion. Surely that great body of working scientists, largely uninvolved so far in the creation/evolution conflict will soon begin to see that a two-model approach to all scientific study is salutary and will persuade their more emotional brethren to open their minds to potential truth wherever it might be found." [17]

On the other hand, those same creationists were also given to explicitly choosing to believe their interpretation of scripture regardless of the implications scientific research. Henry Morris, for example, wrote: "No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." [18]

Evolutionists interpretted such dogmatic belief in creation despite "difficulties, real or imagined," as a perverse withholding of provisional assent to the theory of evolution, which they asserted was the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Stephen Jay Gould, a vocal evolutionist and scientist, compared the scientific acceptance of evolution to the acceptance of gravity: "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." [19]

Evolution gained the status of "more than a hypothesis" within the Catholic Church when Pope John Paul II in 1996 made the official position of the Catholic Church partial acceptance of evolution: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge." [20] The Pope excluded, however, evolutionary adjuncts that relied on materialist assumptions: "Theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

Many creationists, however, refused even to accept evolution as "more than a hypothesis." Evolutionists, by contrast, asserted that the theory of evolution was virtually proven by the evidence, and that those who refused to believe in it did so on a purely emotional, and often irrational, basis. Carl Sagan wrote, "I meet may people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. Evidence has little to do with it: what they wish to be true, they believe is true ... The clearest evidence of our evolution can be found in our genes. But evolution is still being fought, ironically by those whose own DNA proclaims it -- in the schools, in the courts, in textbook publishing houses, and on the question of just how much pain we can inflect on other animals without crossing some ethical threshold." (Sagan 1996, p. 325)

Creationists, on the other hand, continued to assert that the naturalistic theory of evolution was based on a faulty definition of science. For example, Phillip Johnson, creationist author, wrote "One way or another, Darwinists meet the question 'Is Darwinism true?' with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: 'Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.' Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity." [21].

While creationists assert that their science informs their religion, giving validity to both, evolutionists assert that the religion of creationists informs their science, invalidating their science. For example, The American National Academy of Sciences stated: "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion." [22].

References

• Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background. In The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ed. MB Adams, Princeton University Press.
• Carl Sagan. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
• Darwin, "Origin of Species," New York: Modern Library, 1998.
• Dobzhansky, Th: 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press
• Henig, The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
• Kutschera, Ulrich and Karl J. Niklas. 2004. "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis." Naturwissenschaften 91, pp. 255-276.
• Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.
• Morris, H.R. 1963. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
• Pennock, Robert T. 2003. "Creationism and intelligent design." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4, pp. 143-163.
• Samuel Butler, Evolution Old and New, 1879, p. 54.
• Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-darwinism," in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (C.H. Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.

External links

Evolution links

• Archive of the Talk.Origins usenet newsgroup.
  • Description of modern synthesis of evolution.
  • Evidence for Macroevolution by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
• Criticism of creationism.
• Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences

Creation links

• Some creationist hypotheses.
• Answers in Genesis, one of the largest Creationist organizations.
• Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary, an article on abiogenesis by Answers in Genesis' Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
• A Bahai perspective on the development of theories of origins
• The True Origin Archive
  • Critique of Douglas Theobald’s "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"
• Institute for Creation Research
• Presenting evidence for the Creation Science Model