Jesse Myers
A. Opening paragraph / Thesis statement
B. Background on Evolution
1. Definition
2. Darwinian Evolution
C. Theological questions raised by evolution
A. Background
1. What is scientific creationism?
2. Who are creation scientists?
3. Brief history of movement
B. Types of scientific creationists
1. Young earth
2. Old earth
3. Day-age
4. Gap theory
C. Arguments used by scientific creationists
1. 2nd law of thermodynamics
2. Lack of transitory fossils
3. Probability/Statistics argument
A. Evidence that indicates an "old" earth
B. The missuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
C. Flaws in the statistics argument
D. Evolution does not deny the existense of God
A. Why scientific creationism is not scientific
B. The debate about teaching scientific creationism in public schools
C. Conclusion
In 1859 Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species where
he proposed the theory of evolution for the first time. Since this radical
theory was first proposed, there has been a debate over its validity and
the theological implications that come with it. In order to understand the
reasons why Darwin's theory has caused so much debate over the past century
it is first necessary to examine evolution and Darwin's theories about the
origin of species.
Evolution is, strictly speaking, simply change over time. A biological definition
is, more specifically, "any change in the frequency of alleles within
a gene pool from one generation to the next (1)." Darwin's theory of
evolution is composed of many parts. These parts include the belief that
life is constantly changing and is not a static system. Also included in
The Origin of Species is the idea of common descent, which basically
states that all species are related because they have all evolved from a
common ancestor. A third contention of Darwin's theory of evolution is that
species change gradually over time by a process of inheriting very small
differences. The mechanism for evolution, according to Darwin, is a process
known as natural selection. Natural selection is based on the principle
that occasionally an organism will develop a mutation that will increase
its chances for survival. The progeny of this organism will inherit this
advantage and will eventually become prevalent among the population as a
result of this advantage. This will lead to a change in the gene pool of
the species. Finally, Darwin's theory states that the origin of species
is due in part to the process of natural selection, but he does not state
specifically how two species may arise from one (2). Over time, modifications
have been made to Darwin's theory. Since the 1940's it has generally been
accepted that species isolated by geography undergo natural selection which
acts upon the variation in the gene pool (3).
The Origin of Species created a debate that is still going today.
Before Darwin, science assumed that God was the direct origin of all species
on earth. God was no longer an integral part of science since Darwin's theory
of evolution did not require God in order for it to work. Darwinism suggested
that all living creatures evolved from a single ancestor and were not all
put on the earth by God in the manner described in Genesis. Darwin's theory
suggested the gradual development of life over a long period of time, not
six days as stated in Genesis. Darwin provided a mechanism for the development
of life that, for many, seemed to leave God out of the picture.
There are many people who believe that the theory of evolution is false
because it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. The creation
science movement began in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood.
(4). Since that time several organizations devoted to scientific creationism
have formed. These include the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation
Science Research Center, and the Creation Research Society. Scientific creationists,
or creation scientists, are typically people who work in scientific professions,
many of whom have obtained masters or doctorate degrees from universities
around the world. They believe that God is the creator of the universe and
all things in it as described in Genesis, and that creation events are not
still occurring today.5 The main purpose of scientific creationism is to
use scientific data that seems to conflict with evolution in order to point
out the flaws of evolutionary theory. Creation science is working on coming
up with theories that take into account the creation story found in the
Bible.
Scientific creationism has sparked a heated debate in the last ten years
about whether creation theory should be taught in schools along with the
theory of evolution. The fact that scientific creationism itself is not
a theory is a big reason why it should not be taught in public schools along
with evolution.
The arguments that scientific creationists use to discredit evolution vary
depending on the type of creation scientist. Most creation scientists are
"young earth" creationists (5). They believe that the universe
was created in a period of six twenty-four hour days. Thus, many of the
arguments made by young earth creationists are designed to prove that the
universe is only five or six thousand years old. They believe that the scientific
community has made many flawed assumptions that have mistakenly led them
to believe that the universe is billions of years old. Young earth creationists
believe that geologic strata were not deposited gradually over millions
of years, but were instead the result of a great flood which is described
in the book of Genesis. There are many different things that young earth
creationists believe prove that the earth could not be billions of years
old. A characteristic argument is that the ocean should contain much more
sediment than it actually does if the earth is billions of years old. Another
commonly held belief is that modern-day techniques used to measure the age
of the earth are inaccurate.
"Old earth" creationists believe in the Biblical creation story,
but do not assign a specific length of time to the six "days"
in which God created the universe. Arguments posed by old earth creationists
therefore focus less on the age of the universe and more on flaws that they
see in the theory of evolution.
Other types of scientific creationists include "day-age" creationists
who believe that each day in Genesis I refers to a specific time interval,
typically one thousand years. Finally, "gap theory" creationists
believe that there was a very long gap between the first and second days,
but the days were still twenty-four hours long.
There are far too many arguments which creation scientists use to point
out holes in evolution and many of these arguments are very detailed, so
I will only discuss some of the major arguments that are frequently made
by scientific creationists.
Creation scientists often refer to the second law of thermodynamics to support
their claims. This law states that "the entropy of a closed system
cannot decrease (6)." This simply means that in a closed system things
cannot move into a higher state of order. Creation scientists believe that
this law contradicts the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution
says that organisms will become more highly adapted and complex over time.
Another major argument used by scientific creationists is that there is
a lack of transitory fossils, known more commonly as missing links. According
to this argument, there should be many examples in the fossil record of
transitory species that illustrate the gradual change of one species into
another. Since, according to creation scientists, these species do not exist
in the fossil record, the theory of evolution must be false (7).
Another frequently used argument is that the process of natural selection
could not possibly bring about the diversity of organisms that we find today,
even over a period of billions of years. For example, it would be virtually
impossible for something as complex as the human eye to evolve by chance,
even over a very long period of time. Using probability, a scientific creationist
will say that since proteins are made up of twenty different amino acids,
the chance that a five hundred amino acid length protein essential for life
would evolve would be(1/20)^500, in other words too small to occur. A conference
held in 1965 by a group of mathematicians came to the conclusion that even
a period of five billion years would be insufficient to produce the complexity
of life on earth today by a process of random mutations (8).
Finally, creation scientists often say that the fact that the universe and
living organisms are so fantastically complex, it is much more likely that
the universe is the result of an intelligent creator rather than the product
of random chance.
One of the problems that arise with trying to argue that evolution is the
process by which life has evolved is the fact that evolution is only a theory
and cannot really be proven. It is possible, for example, that the universe
could have been created within the past ten thousand years with the appearance
of being billions of years old. Also, many methods that have been used to
determine the age of the earth are based on the assumption that processes
occurring today are occurring at the same rate that they did thousands or
millions of years ago. For instance, radioactive dating of the oldest rocks
on earth indicate that they are four billion years old. This assumes things
such as the fact that the speed of light and the half-life of various isotopes
have remained constant. There are many other factors which indicate that
the earth is at least older than ten thousand years, which is the oldest
age of the universe that young earth creationists believe can be supported
biblically. There are coral reefs that are thick enough to require a time
period of 130,000 years, assuming that the deposition rate has not changed
dramatically. Since there are so many factors that either indicate an old
earth, or at least an earth that is older than ten thousand years, it is
unlikely that in every case naturally occurring processes have behaved in
radically different fashions in the past (9).
There are also many misconceptions that creation scientists have about evolution
that have led them to make mistaken claims. The most notable example of
this is the second law of thermodynamics which was described earlier. The
second law of thermodynamics cannot be used to disprove the theory of evolution
because the earth is not a closed system. Perceiving the earth as a closed
system does not take into account the fact that the earth is constantly
being bombarded by energy from an outside source (the sun) which enables
life to remain in a state of high order. While the entropy (chaos) of the
earth may be decreasing, the universe is becoming more chaotic, thus fulfilling
the second law of thermodynamics.
The use of statistics is one of the more convincing arguments used by creation
scientists to disprove evolution. The major flaw of this argument is that
natural selection is not a random process. While it is chance that mutations
will occur, natural selection states that only the beneficial mutations
will be retained (10). The conference held in 1965 about the mathematical
possibility of evolution failed to take into account the many ways in which
new genes may result in an organism. For example, a rearrangement of existing
genes may result in a gene with a drastically different function (11). Due
to the complexity of the methods by which new genes can arise, a mathematical
approach to the possibility of evolution cannot be used to disprove the
theory of evolution.
One of the most pervasive misconceptions about the theory of evolution seems
to be that a belief in the theory of evolution goes along with the idea
that God does not play a part in the world today and probably does not exist
anyway since we are the product of unguided naturalistic processes. Too
often, evolution is pitted against a literal interpretation of Genesis in
terms of either there was a creator, or there was not. The theory of evolution
is simply a mechanism which explains how life has originated, it does not
deny the fact that God created the heavens and the earth, and life along
with it. The simplicity of evolution combined with its ability to create
vast complexity indicate to me that it is a tool of God.
The term scientific creationism can be misleading because it is not scientific
in the true sense of the word. A scientific theory is the best possible
explanation that can be used to fit the existing data. New information that
conflicts with the theory causes the theory to be adjusted. Scientific creationism
offers no scientific explanation for the origin and development of life,
it simply states that God created the universe as described in Genesis I.
No amount of evidence will cause a revision of this theory.
Many people believe that scientific creationism should be taught in school
along with evolution. Recently, there have been several court cases about
the teaching of creation science in public schools. For example, in 1981
Act 590 was signed into law in Arkansas. The purpose of the law was to allow
balanced treatment of creation science and the theory of evolution.4 On
January 5, 1982 Act 590 was overturned by the US supreme court on the basis
that it was a violation of the separation between church and state (4 ).
Creation science should not be taught in public schools because it does
not offer an alternative explanation to evolution that can be supported
by scientific evidence. The scientific creationist method simply assumes
that any evidence contrary to evolutionary theory is scientific evidence
that supports creation science.4 The theory of evolution has some problems
and does not explain everything perfectly, yet it answers many more questions
than it raises. Scientific creationism simply cannot be supported by science.
Any theory involving a literal interpretation of Genesis would have many,
many more flaws in it scientifically than the theory of evolution. Public
schools should not be the place to teach Christian beliefs such as scientific
creationism, whose sole basis comes from the Bible. If the Christian creation
story is to be taught in public schools it should be taught along with those
of other religions in a literary, not scientific context.
Darwin's theory of evolution was a revolution not only in terms of its significance
to the scientific community, but in its theological impact as well. Darwinism
presented evidence that contradicted a literal interpretation of Genesis
and challenged the belief systems of many. This has resulted in a debate
that continues today, now in the form of scientific creationism, the belief
that scientific evidence can be used to prove that the theory of evolution
is false and the Genesis story is the true creation story. It is a debate
that is tightly linked to deeply held personal beliefs and world views and
for this reason may never be fully resolved.
1. Curtis, Helena, Barnes, N. Sue, Biology 5th ed. Worth Publishers
1989, p.974.
2. Wright, Richard T. Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, Harper Collins,
San Francisco 1989, pp. 114-117.
3. Wright, 125-126.
4. Dorman, Clark (1996, January 30) McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
[Online]. Available: earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
[1996, November 23].
5.Creation vs. Evolution: Opposing World Views [Online]. Available:
web.canlink.com/ocrt/ev_world.htm [1996, November 20].
6. Atkins, Peter W. The Second Law 1984, p.25.
7. Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms [Online].
Available: emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm [1996, November 22].
8. Wright, 129.
9. Proving Evolution or Creation Science [Online]. Available: web.canlink.com/ocrt/ev_proof.htm
[1996 November 24].
10. Issak, Mark Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution [Online].
Available: earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html [1996, November
20].
11. Wright, 129.