Creationism vs. Evolution
(Note: This is a book excerpt. Click to see the table of contents or the next page. Also, feel free to follow the author for more on the books release. Copyright 2020)
Chapter 2
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” — Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de’ Galilei
The universe is incredibly complex. No one fully understands it. Nor will anyone ever be able to. Despite scientists proclaiming their hopes for a theory of everything, they often do not literally mean “everything”. In the case of physics, where this so-called “theory of everything” is often thrown around, most physicists are merely speaking of a foundational theory. Perhaps one that could unite quantum mechanics with Einstein’s theory of relativity — an explanatory framework with the ability to explain currently unexplainable phenomena.
If you were to walk into the Jordan Hall of Science at Notre Dame, you might take notice of the mosaic medallion embedded into the floor of the main hall. Curiosity may then lead you to approach this work of art, to see that within it sits the double helix, surrounded by the following quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky.
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
For Biologists, evolution is their theory of everything. Some scientific fields bear the very word in their name. We now have Evolutionary Biology, Molecular Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, Evolutionary Anthropology, Evolutionary Linguistics and Evolutionary Medicine to name a few. The disciplines of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology and Medicine are following suite with Biology, beginning to stress the theory of evolution more and more. Of course, other disciplines come to mind when speaking of evolution. Zoology, Bacteriology, Virology, etc. etc., every life science relies heavily upon the theory of evolution. Does this mean that evolution has to be true? Absolutely not, but if evolution is not true, then so much of what the life sciences proclaim should fall apart. To say the theory is absurd would be to say that the bulk of our current scientific understanding is bunk.
When scientists formulate a hypothesis, they make certain predictions about what must be true if the hypothesis is to be correct. They then go out into the real world, where they observe and conduct experiments to see if the predictions hold. If those predictions hold time and time again, then the hypothesis becomes a theory (i.e., an explanation with the ability to accurately predict and explain natural phenomenon).
Considering this, why do so many people struggle to believe in the theory of evolution? Take the words of biologist Jerry A. Coyne.
“Today scientists have as much confidence in Darwinism as they do in the existence of atoms, or in micro-organisms as the cause of infectious disease…. Why then do we need a book that gives the evidence for a theory that long ago became part of mainstream science? After all, nobody writes books explaining the evidence for atoms, or for the germ theory of disease. What is so different about evolution?”
Pg. xvii Why Evolution is True
There are a good number of scientists who do identify as religious, however, and a large number of them also believe in evolution. Take Francis S. Collins, for example, a geneticist who has spent the better part of his life studying human DNA, a geneticist mind you, that is also a Christian!
“No doubt many readers have reasoned for themselves, or been taught in various religious settings, that the glorious beauty of a flower or the flight of an eagle could come about only as the consequence of a supernatural intelligence that appreciated complexity, diversity, and beauty. But now that molecular mechanisms, genetic pathways, and natural selection are being put forward to explain all this, you might be tempted to cry out, “Enough! Your naturalistic explanations are taking all the divine mystery out of the world!”
Do not fear, there is plenty of divine mystery left. Many people who have considered all the scientific and spiritual evidence still see God’s creative and guiding hand at work. For me, there is not a shred of disappointment or disillusionment in these discoveries about the nature of life — quite the contrary!” Pg. 106–107
Speaking as a Christian, Collins admits that the advancement of science has came at the cost of traditional reasons for belief in God.
“When we had no idea how the universe came into existence, it was easier to ascribe it all to an act of God, or many separate acts of God. Similarly, until Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo upset the applecart in the sixteenth century, the placement of Earth at the center of the majestic starry heavens seemed to represent a powerful argument for the existence of God. If He put us on center stage, He must have built it all for us. When heliocentric science forced a revision of this perception, many believers were shaken up.”
Pg. 85
So how has Collins managed to become one of the most decorated geneticist’s of our time? Did he give up on some aspect of his faith? Did he give up on some aspect of science? Surely something had to give, right? Well… no, not according to Collins. You see, for Collins, humans evolved as per the scientific model and are also created in the image of God. In his mind, there is no contradiction. And guess what, there are a lot of scientists who hold to their faith and feel the same way.
But is this conversation even warranted? The world is simply too complex! How could evolution, some blind process, ever produce the vast varieties of life? If we cannot see species evolving, how can we prove evolution? Isn’t science supposed to be based on provable observations? Those quirky scientists walk around in lab coats and claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old! How could they possibly know that? And then they have the nerve to tell me I came from a monkey… come on, seriously?
Jokes aside, these are all honest questions. Tough questions, even. Yet we must attempt to answer them. They are too important to be left by the wayside. If the earth was created 6,000 years ago by an all powerful creator, then that is what we need to teach our children. Likewise, if the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago, giving rise to life through evolutionary processes, then that is what we need to teach our children. Both of these explanations cannot be right. One of them must be wrong.
According to recent gallup polls, four out of every ten Americans believe that God created humans in their present form approximately 10,000 years ago.¹ An evolutionist might argue this is simply due to a misunderstanding of evolution, that if these people could only be shown the evidence, their minds would change. But there are much deeper reasons for why people disregard evolution.
Evolution conjures in our minds a dog-eat-dog world. The biblical account of genesis, on the other hand, is written as though it were some sort of Shakespearean play with the theme of morality at its center. It’s no wonder people choose the latter explanation. To many, evolution not only undercuts God’s word, but also the basic tenets of human morality!
So how does someone like Collins get around this? How do people reconcile evolution and a creator? In short, they simply do not believe every verse of scripture was meant to be taken literally. Collins writes,
“… there are clearly parts of the Bible that are written as eyewitness accounts of historical events, including much of the New Testament. For a believer, the events recorded in these sections ought to be taken as the writer intended — as descriptions of observed facts. But other parts of the Bible, such as the first few chapters of Genesis, the book of Job, the Song of Solomon, and the Psalms, have a more lyrical and allegorical flavor, and do not generally seem to carry the marks of pure historical narrative….
Surely the right arm of God did not really lift up the nation of Israel (Isaiah 41:10). Surely it is not part of God’s nature to become forgetful and to need to be reminded of important matters from time to time by the prophets (Exodus 33:13). The intention of the Bible was (and is) to reveal the nature of God to humankind. Would it have served God’s purposes thirty-four hundred years ago to lecture to His people about radioactive decay, geologic strata, and DNA?” (Pg. 174–176 The Language of God)
Collins is not saying the bible is fallible. He is saying that the bible often makes use of allegories and metaphors, things that should be interpreted to reveal meaning rather than fact. This is not to say the bible makes no claims to facts, but rather that there are some verses in the bible which should not be taken literally. To the skeptic readers I am sure this notion seems questionable, but to the religious readers I am sure it seems poetic. Nevertheless, more and more, people are turning to science and the theory of evolution, and this number includes the secular minded and believers alike.¹
Why might this be the case? For starters, scientists do not say things such as “the Hypothesis of Evolution grants X is true…”. Instead they say things such as “the Theory of Evolution grants X is true…”. When scientists say evolution is a theory, they mean evolution is based on a large body of facts. When they say evolution is based on a large body of facts, they mean these facts have been repeatedly confirmed. When they say these facts have been repeatedly confirmed, they mean they have been observed by countless numbers of scientists. When they say countless numbers of scientists, they mean human beings who have dedicated their lives to the search for truth.
Sure, scientists are often wrong, sometimes there are even bad scientists that are intentionally wrong. But scientific inquiry demands there be no collusion, no falsifying of data, no biases to interfere. Those who get caught falsifying observations or experimentation are ostracized from the community. They’re shunned, spit upon and defamed by their peers. Much pressure bears upon the scientist. If he or she is even accidentally wrong, that wrongness can mean the end of their career.
Some might argue that scientists often depend on funding from an outside source, and since they depend on this funding, they have a motivation to agree with currently held theory. While this is occasionally the case, it fails to acknowledge the other part of the equation. Namely, the fact that a scientist will often be more successful if he or she proves something new, or proves there’s a flaw in a previously held school of thought.
To illustrate the other part of this equation, consider the made up story of a scientist we’ll humorously call… Carles Marlin:
What you need to know about Carles Marlin, is that he received his doctorate from the University of Cambridge. You also need to know that while there, he studied natural science and followed in the footsteps of Charles Darwin.
“This theory of evolution is brilliant!”, or so Marlin once thought.
You see, there was a point in his career when Marlin believed in the work of Charles Darwin. However, upon leaving school, Marlin set off on a voyage, only instead of going by ship, he went by plane. Marlin discovered motion sickness and the perils of travel, but even more disturbing, he discovered evidence that had previously been undiscovered! He knew this evidence would be controversial, so Marlin made observations and conducted experiments, and he did this for twenty years! Finally, after countless hours of work and many sleepless nights, Marlin decided to publish ‘The Genesis of Species’.
Marlins book upturned the scientific community like sand beneath a tidal wave. Before long, countless papers were being written on and about ‘The Genesis of Species’. Marlin sold thousands of copies. ‘The Genesis of Species’ hit the new york times bestseller list and stayed there. As more and more scientists confirmed the observations and experiments within the book, college professors soon began to teach the material within it. Marlin went to conference after conference, speaking to hundreds, sometimes thousands at a time.
Marlin could not believe it. Grant money flew onto his doorstep like a mob of hungry birds in a Wal-Mart parking lot. He was a millionaire. Why? Because he disproved the Theory of Evolution!
A cheesy story can occasionally uphold a point. Scientists not only stand to make money by upholding a theory, they also stand to make money by disproving one. Attempting to disprove a theory may be more risky, but there is certainly much more money to be had in the business of disproving theories. Consider what our good friend Francis Collins has to say on the subject,
“One of the most cherished hopes of a scientist is to make an observation that shakes up a field of research. Scientists have a streak of closeted anarchism, hoping that someday they will turn up some unexpected fact that will force a disruption of the framework of the day. That’s what Nobel Prizes are given for. In that regard, any assumption that a conspiracy could exist among scientists to keep a widely current theory alive when it actually contains serious flaws is completely antithetical to the restless mind-set of the profession.” Pg. 58 The Language of God
The Theory of Evolution has withstood these scientific rigors. Even though, we will look into the alternatives which have been presented, starting first with Young Earth Creationism or YEC. The discrepancy between evolution and YEC is worth pointing out. While evolution and YEC are both explanations for our existence, they are absurdly discordant. Evolutionists say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Young Earth Creationists say the earth is 10,000 to 6,000 years old. There’s a big difference there.
To see how big of a difference this is, imagine a cartographer making the claim that the distance from New York to San Francisco is 4,526,720 yards. Now imagine a different cartographer saying the distance from New York to San Francisco is 7.8 yards.² Obviously one of these cartographers is way off the mark. Yet this is precisely the magnitude of discrepancy between mainstream science and YEC. To say the earth is 4.5 billion years old is akin to saying the distance between New York and San Francisco is 4,526,720 yards. To say the earth is 6,000 years old, however, is akin to saying the distance between New York and San Francisco is only 7.8 yards. Anyone who argues for YEC must prove not only that scientists are wrong, but that they are astoundingly far from the mark. If the age of the earth were a bullseye on a dart board, YEC proponents would have us believe scientists threw the dart and hit a yard dog thousands of miles away. To say science is wrong about something is one thing, but to say science is that wrong is a whole different story!
In an attempt to date something, scientists usually employ multiple methods. As you browse the dating methods in the charts below, please note the variety of tools that scientists have at their disposal.
RELATIVE DATING METHODS
Cross-cutting relationships
Fluorine absorption dating
Harris matrix
Seriation (archaeology)
Law of included fragments
Sequence dating
Law of superposition
Palynology
Principle of original horizontality
Paleopalynology
Principle of lateral continuity
Morphology (archaeology)
Principle of faunal succession
Typology (archaeology)
Melt inclusions
Varnish microalamination
Nitrogen dating
Vole clock
Lead corrosion dating
paleomagnetism
Tephrochronology
Marine isotope stages based on the oxygen isotope ratio cycle
ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS
Amino acid dating
Archaeomagnetic dating
Argon-argon dating
Uranium-lead dating
Samarium-neodymium dating
Potassium-argon dating
Rubidium-strontium dating
Uranium-thorium dating
Radiocarbon dating
Fission track dating
Optically stimulated luminescence
Luminescence dating
Thermoluminescence dating
Iodine-xenon dating
Lead-lead dating
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating
Rehydroxylation dating
Wiggle matching
Datestone
Obsidian hydration dating
Molecular clock
Dendrochronology
Herbchronology
Tephrochronology
Scientists are perpetually bombarded with dates that come in as being much older than 10,000 years old. Whether scientists are saying something is 1,000 years old or 1,000,000 years old, they’re usually relying on more than one dating method. If a large enough number of methods are used, and a large number of scientists employ them, and in every instance they get the same date, then we can safely assume the date of said object. This reinforcement and confirmation lies at the very heart of science. When it comes to ascertaining the age of the earth, the same principle applies.
By now you may be wondering which methods are used to date the earth. These methods usually employ some sort of radiometric dating. If that sounds complicated, it’s because it is. The process of radiometric dating and the tools used to do it are extremely fascinating. For our purposes, however, we will not get muddled down in the details. If you are interested, a great introductory text would be The Age of the Earth by Brent Dalrymple. Few books present the same kind of open minded and honest approach. Brent does well to synthesize all that has been said by both theologians and scientists.
What I am about to say next may come off as offensive, but sometimes you have to call something as it is. Despite honest attempts to do so, young earth creationist are not out in the field confirming how everything on earth is younger than 10,000 years old. They’re just not. Any time creationist have entered the field, they’ve either published questionable results or admitted mainstream science is right. One of the more thorough attempts made by creationist was the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). Over the course of eight years, this group received $250,000 from the Institute of Creation Research and over $1 million in donations.³ The conclusions to this well funded study made for a grand total of 1,552 pages.
What is intriguing about this magnum opus of YEC ideology is that they admit there is overwhelming evidence pointing to more than 500 million years worth of radioactive decay. There is a big difference between 10,000 years and 500 million. But never mind the absurdity of this. The researchers of RATE still try to argue for a young earth.
According to RATE, radioactive decay must have been accelerated by “approximately a factor of one billion during the first three days of creation and during the Flood.”³ They then go on to admit this concept of accelerated decay leads to two unresolved scientific problems. The first problem is a heat problem and the second is a radiation problem. Radioactive processes generate thermal energy which just so happens to be a major source of heat in the earth. But if those processes were accelerated to the point RATE researchers claim, the earth would have evaporated!
RATE researchers attempt to get around this evaporating earth by claiming there must have also been some sort of extraordinary cooling mechanism at play. Unfortunately, the authors fail to provide any scientific explanation for how this immense heat could have been applied. They also fail to provide any scientific explanation for how this extraordinary cooling mechanism would have worked or even occurred in the first place. All they do is state that they are hopeful science will one day provide an explanation.
The more obvious question to the layperson is if there was so much radioactivity during the year Noah was on his ark, then how did he or any of his passengers manage to survive? Once again, all our friends at RATE manage to do is state they are hopeful science will one day provide an explanation. Only someone with a pre-committed theological viewpoint will go to such lengths. The researchers at RATE started with a conclusion, and when the evidence did not match up, they resorted to far-out explanations. What we see with the RATE project is scientists attempting to work around the data, not with it.
Religious apologists, not to mention young earth creationists, often hold contradictory views in regard to science. I know because I used to be one of them. I would subconsciously cherry pick evidence from science when it could be used as an argument for God’s existence, and then I would turn a blind eye to that same evidence when it showed otherwise. Simply put, I was only critical of evidence that didn’t fit my worldview. Fortunately, a day would come when I realized I had this cognitive bias, and I no longer misconstrue reality to fit my beliefs. At the least, I am more aware of my biases, and I am better prepared to see the contradictions in my thinking. There is still the possibility that I could be wrong, but by acknowledging this psychological propensity that we all share, there is a higher possibility that I am right, and that I am being intellectually honest with myself.
Using astronomy for an example, the urge for one to point to the stars and proclaim God’s name is immensely strong. There is no shortage of religious literature based on astronomy. Entire series of sunday school curriculum revolve around the stars. The pastor Louie Giglio has inspired stadiums full of people by alluding to these interstellar spectacles. “How great is our God?”, he asks, rattling off galaxies which exist millions of light years from our own.
This is all fine and dandy if you believe the universe is millions of years old. If you don’t, then you’re harboring a contradiction. Anything millions of light years away would be unviewable in a universe that only came into existence 6,000 years ago. Since a light year is the distance it takes light to travel in a year, the light would not have had the time to get here. Our observable universe would only be 6,000 light years wide! In fact, we would only be able to observe a small fraction of our own galaxy. Astronomy tells us the universe must be much older than 6,000 years old. The Hubble telescope has revealed around 100 billion galaxies, many of which are also billions of light years away!⁴
If you are a young earth creationist, I kindly ask you again, please read The Age of the Earth by Brent Dalrymple. You might also like to consider The Language of God by Francis Collins. One of the best online resources is The Talk Origins Archive. There you can find an index to Creationist Claims. We will be moving forward under the assumption that everyone agrees the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We are also going to assume everyone believes in evolution. The evidence for an older earth is out there, as is the evidence for evolution. This fact of life, namely that we evolved, is something that has directly affected who we are as human beings. As a result, the readers of this book must at least accept the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. If you still need more convincing, then please, flip over to appendices A, B and C. Those three appendices address the arguments associated with Intelligent Design, Fine Tuning and the possibilities of life arising on earth.
In the following chapter, we will move on to the question of whether or not there is a God. Since monotheism holds the minds of our day, we will not discuss every possibility of the supernatural. Obviously, there could be multiple Gods. There could also exist some mysteriously supernatural force, something we would not even call or consider to be a God! Nevermind that, though! We will keep things simple and discuss the matter as though it is God vs. no God, which is essentially the same thing as saying there are either supernatural factors at play or there are not.
Continue shall we?
Sources —
- In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins
Jeff Jones, Lydia Saad
https://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
2. The God Delusion — Pg. 378
Richard Dawkins
Paperback
3. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II
Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, ed.
Waco, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2005
4. How Many Galaxies are There?
5. Elizabeth Howell
