Creation and Science: What is the Relationship?
Dan Bridges 11/2/98
I. Introduction
III. Creation and Science
IV. Obstacles for Creationists
VI. Conclusion
VII. Bibliography
We have all heard about the evolution vs. creation debate. Two sides opposing each other in fits of heated passion. One group believes that humans developed from monkeys, and the other group is a bunch of religious fanatics. Does this sound somewhat familiar? This is one of the most stereotypical views of the dispute, but is, unfortunately, how many people believe it to be. So what is it all about? What makes these groups (there are actually quite a few more than two) so determined to fight and try to win others over to their belief? In the answers to these questions lie the truth about why humans take this aspect of science so personally.
There must be some fairly significant reasons that cause individuals to become so committed to arguing their point of view in the evolution/creation debate. Many creationists feel that without a supernatural creation by an intelligent being there is no purpose to the universe and no reason to live (Wager, 1997). Many Christian creationists hope that by convincing others of Godís role in the origins of life, they can more effectively lead others to salvation. Still others believe that it is the duty of Christians to "defend against the godless dogma of evolutionary humanism" (Tyler, 1995). It is easy to see why this topic is so important to people. If one believes that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive, as many people do, then it is natural for Christians to want to disprove evolution and eliminate what they perceive as a threat (Wright, 1989). However, the debate is also meaningful to evolutionists. Many evolutionists feel that to try and discredit evolution is to ignore facts and scientific reasoning (Tyler, 1995). Some evolutionists who are dominant in universities and scientific societies believe that they are the most informed and educated on the topic and that others defer to them on the matter. If the general public always believes the scientists about what to eat or how the human body works, why is it any different with evolution? Considering these viewpoints, it is now easier to understand why there is such a controversy surrounding creation and evolution.
Creation is not simply defined. There is a broad spectrum of views held by those who consider themselves to be creationists. The views may vary from believing that some sort of higher power was involved in the origination of life and the universe as we know them, to believing that the God of the Israelites created the universe exactly as Genesis dictates (Wright, 1989). There is an immense difference between the extreme viewpoints of the creationists that must be recognized. Each person may have their own ideas and convictions that cause them to believe or accept different things. For this reason, it is important not to simply label someone and put them into a box marked evolutionist or creationist.
Obviously there are Christians in science who believe in the creation of the universe by God. This is a necessary premise if any validity is given to the Bible. Most of the Christians in the scientific community subscribe to what is known as theistic evolution (Wager, 1997). They believe in the scientific theory of evolution as well as God the creator. They believe that God exists and is in control of all nature, including evolution. Most think that evolution is a tool that God chose to implement in his creation. However, one must believe that parts of the Genesis story are symbolic rather than literal to hold to this ground. An important aspect of this belief system is that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, but must be considered separately on their own merits, one by data the other by faith (Wright, 1989). A viewpoint along these lines eliminates the need to choose between believing science or in a supernatural creator.
Most evolutionists arenít as concerned about proving creation wrong as they are about maintaining the validity of the theory of evolution (Scott, 1996). According to the theory proposed by Charles Darwin, there are three main principles which play a role in the evolutionary process: the occurrence of random variation, the mechanism of heredity, and a struggle for existence (Nelkin, 1982). These are the principles that are the basis of evolutionary theory. They are scientific, fairly simple, and have been tested and found to be consistent with data. Evolutionists maintain that as long as evolution is representative of the data found, or is revised so that it can be, it will remain the working theory on which Biological science is based (Miller, 1997).
When considering creation and its relationship with science, it is important that we know exactly what science is. Science is defined as knowledge acquired by careful observation, by deduction of the laws which govern changes and conditions, and by testing these deductions by experiment (Campbell, 1994). This understanding of what science actually is and how it is practiced and studied becomes extremely important in the evolution/creation debate.
Most people who have grown up and been educated in the United States have at some point been introduced to the Scientific Method. The methodís key ingredients are observations, questions, hypotheses, predictions, and tests (Campbell, 1994). Although most people are familiar with the Scientific Method, few understand its actual importance to scientists. It is the law that dictates how science is practiced. If research is done in accordance with the Scientific Method it can be validated and is useful, otherwise it will probably never be taken seriously as science (Campbell, 1994). This is what brings us to the origination of the universe debate. When considering evolution as a possible means for world origins, we can use the Scientific Method. We can observe, question, hypothesize, predict, and test. This is not to say that the results of this process are always accurate. They may be way off, but these theories are scientific and can be worked with in a scientific manner (tested and re-tested, compared to new findings, revised, etc.). Now consider the possibility that God, or some intelligent force, created the universe as it is. How can the Scientific Method be incorporated into this idea? Observing, questioning, and hypothesizing are possible, but what can you predict and test? Short of preparing a large number of "fleeces" for God to perform specific supernatural interventions on immediately upon request, I see no way in which the Scientific Method would be useful for testing and comparing creation theory. This is what makes creation unscientific. That does not necessarily mean that science is right and creation is wrong. It simply means that the two possibilities can not be measured against each other.
The scientific importance given to a theory is another common misconception that often springs up in the creation/evolution debate. Most of the general public thinks of a theory as a vague notion, or at best an intelligent guess. When a scientist refers to the term theory he means something else entirely. In science a theory is a logical construction of facts that explains a natural phenomenon (Scott, 1996). Some people not having a clear grasp on this concept may ask, "If scientists are pretty sure about evolution, then why is it still just a theory?" When considering the scientific definition of theory, we come to realize that a theory is about as sure as you can get of something, other than a few concepts that have reached the status of scientific laws. With a better understanding of the scientific method and scientific theories it becomes a little bit easier to understand why many evolutionists are adamant that the theory of evolution is scientific whereas the concept of creation is not.
There are several things that have been responsible for the lack of respect given to the creationist movement. One cause for embarrassment has been the fact that many of the spokesmen have false or misleading credentials. Of those claiming to have degrees in biology or geology (areas which are relevant in assessing the scientific evidence for the evolution model), some seem to have degrees that are somewhat questionable. Dr. Harold Slusher, one of the co-founders of the Creation Research Society, got a doctorate degree in geophysics from something called the Columbia Pacific University in California. Dr. Slusher was forced by the CRS to drop the Dr. title from his name when it was discovered that this university is nothing more than a non- accredited correspondence school (Flank, 1995). Similarly, Dr. Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society flunked out of two separate programs before obtaining a doctorate in geology from the Arizona University of Physical Sciences, which consists solely of a post office box at a non-accredited diploma mill (Flank, 1995). There are also a number of examples of false studies done by creationists that were proclaimed to prove evolution wrong. Among these are Henry Morrisís River Inflow Study, Barry Setterfieldís C Decay Study, and Thomas Barnesís Magnetic-Field Decay Study (Flank, 1995).
Besides misleading credentials and studies, there are many who argue that creation is scientific without having the proper scientific training to make such judgments. These are the theologians and philosophers who make good logical arguments for creation, but that are not scientific in nature (Nelkin, 1982). Although they give some convincing arguments, they function on the premise that an all-powerful God has always existed, and such a premise cannot be scientific.
The attacking style of many creationists is also partly responsible for the lack of respect given to them. This constant, and often malicious, attack on evolution has provoked many in the scientific community to counterattack with a vengeance (Wright, 1989). The animosity that builds between the two groups makes them much less likely to consider the otherís opinion openly. There is distrust of everyone and skepticism of everything. These are a few of the difficulties that creationists have helped to bring upon themselves.
There are also difficult circumstances encountered by the creationists that they have had no control over. First of all, the number of people in the scientific community who donít believe in creation is substantially greater than the number that do (Behe, 1996). This community dynamic is present in many situations in our world. If you are the only republican in a group with six democrats, it is natural to feel uneasy and timid when sharing your political views with that group. This does not mean that being a republican is a weaker or less substantial position. It means that you are intimidated by the majority of the group holding an opinion different from your own. I think this is the case with many Christians in science. It is hard to take a stance that is in opposition to that of respected colleagues. It is also difficult to subscribe to creation when it is admittedly unscientific, rather than evolution, which is scientific. I believe that these are the main dilemmas that are responsible for many Christians in the scientific community wanting to keep a low profile on this issue.
Although I have mentioned several reasons why it is difficult to be labeled a creationist in the scientific community, I do not believe that creation is an inadequate or unintelligent position. It is the attitude and lack of knowledge of some creationists, the self-conscious feeling of peer opposition, and having to accept something unscientific that make it embarrassing to be a creationist in science. How can this embarrassment be avoided or minimized without abandoning the belief in creation? I think one solution is to avoid debating the issue on scientific grounds; it canít be done (Tyler, 1995). It is also important to discuss freely what you believe and why you believe it, even if it consists of personal experiences and emotions. Do not attack other ideas and possibilities. We donít know everything about God and how he works, and we probably never will. Richard Wright gives three principles in his book Biology: Through the Eyes of Faith that are helpful when considering the beliefs of others. He suggests that we should take into account: our best judgment, the ability to change our opinion, and a slowness to condemn others who hold differing beliefs than ourselves (Wright, 1989).
Sometimes it is hard to be a Christian creationist in the modern day scientific community. Often it is tempting to lash out at others because their viewpoint is different from what you believe. We must remember that God is great enough that he doesnít need us to protect Him. However, I think it is our duty to be willing to share what we believe, and why, without shame.
Religious beliefs, including creationism, are on a different level from science. They are completely different things that are approached in different ways. Creationism is a worldview belief that is influenced by individual values (Wright, 1989). It is very uncommon to have a worldview that includes creationism if God (not necessarily the Christian God) is nowhere to be found in your value system. I believe that if Christians really want to convince others that there is a Creator, the best way is to introduce them to God. It doesnít take scientific evidence to believe in a Creator if you have a personal relationship with Him.
Evolution should not be considered the enemy of Christianity. It is a theory that is used as a scientific tool to interpret and compare findings (Miller, 1997). It is definitely not a certainty, but it is the only scientifically useful theory in existence (Wright, 1989). Many peopleís beliefs concerning origins come from their own specific values and worldviews and that is a completely rational and acceptable position. The fact that a belief isnít scientific doesnít make it invalid or inadequate. It simply makes it unuseful as a scientific theory. Creationists need to accept this fact and move on. Iím not suggesting that anyone stop believing in creation or stop trying to convince others. I am suggesting that Christian creationists support their beliefs as a worldview rather than as science, and focus on why we believe in God the Creator rather than why others shouldnít believe evolution.
Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution.New York, Free Press/Simon & Schuster.
Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
New York, Free Press/Simon & Schuster.
Campbell, Neil A. (1994). Biology: Concepts and Connections. New York. The
Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.
Flank, Lenny. (1995). "Creation Science Debunked." (10/22/98)
Miller, Lana. (1997). Biology Senior Seminar Student Papers: "Must Christians
Choose Between Evolution and Creationism?"
https://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/Biol410SrSemPapers97/millerl.html
Myers, Jesse. (1996). Biology Senior Seminar Student Papers: "A Look At Scientific
Nelkin, Dorothy. (1982). The Creation Controversy. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon
Press.
Scott, Eugenie C. (1996). "Dealing With Anti-evolutionism." (10/25/98)
Tyler, David J. (1995). Review of: "Creation Based Science By Phillip Johnson."
(10/22/98) http://www.pages.org/bcs/Bcs057.html
Wager, Michael. (1997) "Evolution: The Lie." (10/25/98)
Wright, Richard T. (1989). Biology: Through the Eyes of Faith. New York, New York.
HarperSanFrancisco.
Zook, Marc E. (1987). Biology Senior Seminar Student Papers: "Origins: A Collection
Of Thoughts."