Log In | Register
Creationists of varying stripes (including Intelligent Design Creationism) insist that evolution is "just a theory", and that equal time should be given to Creationism. The common strategy employed is a form of negative argumentation in which, if the certainties of evolutionary theory can be dethroned, creationism must be taken seriously as the only "reasonable" alternative.
It would be instructive to look at exactly what is meant by the term "creationism."
This is the classic position which most people call to mind when they hear the word "creationism." Young Earth Creationists (YECs) hold that the planet is roughly 6,000 to10,000 years old; that God created Heaven, Hell, and the Universe; that God further created the Earth in six 24-hour days; and that existing evidence in the natural world supports a strictly literal view of the Biblical creation story.
This puts YECs at odds with more than just evolutionary theory. If YEC were valid, everything we've come to know through science would have to be rewritten—physics, chemistry, geology, archaeology, biology, et cetera. YECs hold that the pre-eminence of their views as science is prevented by discrimination and censorship.
Some key issues of YEC are that the continents moved into their present positions as a result of the Noachian Flood, that dinosaurs roamed the earth with men, and that each creature was created "according to its kind."
The Young Earth view is promoted by a veritable army of activist groups such as the Institute for Creation Research, headquartered in Santee, California. ICR describes itself as engaging in a wide variety of "activities and ministries, all promoting the truths of scientific creationism and inerrant biblical authority in all fields of study and in all areas of life." It's catalog includes over a hundred and fifty titles, and its periodical publications "Acts and Facts" and "Days of Praise" are sent to hundreds of thousands of recipients on their mailing list.
Another such group is Answers in Genesis, headquartered in Florence, Kentucky, and founded by Ken Ham and Dr. Gary Parker. AIG holds seminars and publishes the Creation Technical Journal containing papers by "leading creation scientists", and Creation ex nihilo, a family oriented, full-color magazine. Then there are smaller and more recently formed creationist groups such as the Bible Science Association, the Creation Research Society, the Biblical Creation Society, and the Center for Scientific Creation, each with its own publications and staff.
The latter organization, the Center for Scientific Creation, is typical in, for instance, wanting to explain all major terrestrial features of the earth by reference to the Noachian flood. It's founder, Air Force colonel Dr. Walt Brown, wrote a book titled In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. In it, he lays out his "hydroplate theory," which he claims explains how the continental plates move:
Perhaps the most perplexing question in the earth sciences today is barely verbalized in classrooms and textbooks: "What force moves plates over the globe and by what mechanism?" What is the energy source? The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and water—lots of it.
Aside from the fact that geologists would be astonished to hear that they are perplexed by this question, Brown's approach highlights the grand canyon that divides the approach of creationists from that of scientists. It also reveals a significant rift between creationists who, on one side, want to claim that continental drift shows the predictive ability of "Biblical science" (by referencing Genesis 10:25) and those on the other side who insist that creationists must reject continental drift, as it undermines recent chronology. As noted by creationists Wayne Frair and Percival Davis:
If the usual geological time scale is accepted, continental drift would have occurred at a rate of inches per year, which is reasonable. But if the much shorter chronology consistent with biblical relevation [sic] is accepted, the rate would have had to be many miles per year to produce the present location of the continents.
This sort of disagreement is common among creationists, and highlights the schisms which exist between the various groups.
Mature Earth Creationism
Also known as the Omphalos hypothesis, MECs hold that the Lord necessarily created life, the universe and everything much as science sees it, with the appearance of great age, 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, in six 24-hour days. This includes fossils of creatures that never actually lived, light from supernovae that never actually happened, and an Adam and Eve complete with belly buttons.
This does not necessarily put MECs at odds with science, as a difference which makes no difference is no difference. MEC is not claiming that it is a science. However, it does present a number of problems with regard to theology, including questions as to God's motivations, and the impact of deception on the notion of a benevolent God, as well as a negative philosophical impact on the possibility of knowledge. The latter is put best by the concept of Last Thursdayism, which holds that if God created the universe with the appearance of age, he could as easily have created it five minutes ago, or last Thursday. The assertion is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, as any empirical evidence to support the notion is rendered useless by the fact that it was created arbitrarily to look the way it does at every level of detail.
There is also a modified MEC position, which I won't give a separate heading to, which holds that the Universe was created 6-10,000 years ago in six 24-hour days, but that time itself was compressed at some point such that the development of everything we see could occur in within the allotted time. Naturally, it suffers from similar drawbacks.
As a result, MEC necessarily must be looked at as a theological or philosophical position, but is no challenge to the scientific position, since it suggests that God wants us to see exactly the evidence that science reveals..
This form of creationism subsumes a number of different positions, among them Gap Creationism, Progressive Creationism, and Day-Age Creationism, which are, even among themselves, somewhat exclusionary of the other positions. OEC accepts as valid that the Earth is billions of years old. It still generally adheres to a literalist interpretation of Genesis, although the degree of literality varies by "flavor" of OEC. Gap Creationism accepts the age of the earth, but contends the days of creation were intended as literal 24-hour days (with gaps between). It holds that the Noachian Flood is responsible for visible geological formations, and that individual species were independently and specially created by God. Day-Age Creationism is an attempt to reconcile Biblical accounts of the creation with modern day science, where the "days" of the creation are taken to be representative of "ages" during which much of the development of the world that is supported by scientific evidence occurred. DAC appears to support microevolution, but holds that God created the individual "kinds" of animals (perhaps the genera, i.e. "proto-species") and man. Progressive Creationism holds to the scientifically accepted age of the Universe and the Earth, denies a global Noachian Flood, and believes in a variation of evolution that allows for the special creation of man and the direct creation of proto-species which underwent subsequent microevolution, along with the direct creation of subsequent species as supported by the fossil remains of "new types" of organisms. It generally rejects "macroevolution" and descent from a common ancestor.
Here, also, are a variety of groups actively promoting "the" creationist view: Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe ministry, journalist Fred Heeren, the American Scientific Affiliation, et al. And the schisms among these groups does not abate. The Creation Research Society was founded by YECs who split from the ASA, believing that it had abandoned the doctrines upon which it had been founded—"to promote and encourage the study of the relationship between the facts of science and the Holy Scriptures." YECs Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor, who are directors of the young earth creationist company Films for Christ, wrote a book with a title identical to a Hugh Ross book-- Creation and Time-- in which they attack Ross's version of creationism point for point. They state that his old earth teachings
are leading people down a wrong and dangerous path—a trail trod by many in the past that has repeatedly led ultimately to even more serious theological problems and loss of faith in God's word.
If you can't trust the literal word of the Bible, what can you trust?
Intelligent Design Creationism
Intelligent Design Creationism is primarily a watered-down version of Progressive Creationism. Its proponents largely hold to accepted science as to the age of the Universe and the Earth, and even agree to some of the basics of evolutionary theory. However, IDC posits that the "designer" intervenes directly in evolution and that evidence of such interaction is available to us in the form of "specified irreducible complexity" which cannot be accounted for by modern evolutionary theory.
IDC is also split into variants. The majority of proponents, although eschewing to name the "designer" directly, hold that the "designer" is none other than the Christian God, and seek to provide a scientific basis for Christian faith (or the broadening of "science" to include theistic principles). Another significant group of proponents are the Raelians, who hold that the "designer" is comprised of a race of aliens who created human beings and life on earth for their own purposes. These two IDC groups do not see themselves as compatible.
Theistic Evolution generally holds merely that God was the prime mover resulting in the Universe we see around us. By this view, man was created by God through the process of evolution. It sees the Biblical accounts of Genesis as allegorical and not in conflict with science. Some groups or individuals which are included under the Theistic Evolution umbrella, however, may reject key parts of accepted science, depending on their theology. In its most diluted form, Theistic Evolution would be synonymous with Deism.
Non-Christian Creationism
Although creationism is largely an American phenomenon, it should be noted that, if creationists have their way and insert supernaturalism into science, the number of potentially valid versions of creationism are not restricted by adherence to Christianity. If the supernaturalism and special revelation suffice as valid imprimatur for the forwarding of an "explanation" of the Universe, from soup to nuts, then all religions (past and present) or versions of spirituality (from aboriginal to fictitious original) are equally as valid. By that measure, the creationism of the Navajos, the Babylonians or the Scientologists are equally "scientific."
The Problem for Creationists—Too Many Creations
Roughly 47% of Americans believe that God created the Universe and man pretty much as we see them sometime within the last 10,000 years. A further 36% believe that evolution was guided by God. And while many of these people do not seek to confuse or conflate science and religion, it has to be considered that such beliefs underlie the idea that science and creationism should be given "equal time" in the science classroom.
But creationism is not a single conceptual species. It has distinguishable varieties which are at odds with each other, and which cannot or will not be reconciled with one another. From the point of view of the various creationist groups, holding to the proper theology, the "true" interpretation of Christianity, is essential; and even the sometimes minor differences in belief may be the points upon which hinge the difference between right and wrong, salvation and a slow slide into atheism. These theological commitments are the fuel upon which "creation science" runs. Even though each creationist group strives to present its "science" stripped of biblical references, these views are primarily motivated by a literalist reading of the book of Genesis.
An important point that should not be lost amongst all the differing views is the fact that even though these groups strive to present a reasonable face to the public by referring to "scientific" rationales for their beliefs, amongst themselves they quickly return to theological arguments. For creationists, empirical evidence must always pass theological muster. In this can be seen the true seeds of what they intend "theistic science" to flower into.
A key problem with the strategy of arguing against evolution is the essentially fallacious nature of the argument. It excludes any middle positions—indeed, it ignores the fact that the term "creationism" encompasses a variety of positions which are incompatible with each other. If Creationism isn't a singular position, negative argumentation against evolutionary theory cannot be adequate to force acceptance of Creationism as a "reasonable" position.
The truth is that although nearly all of these movements claim that the "truth" regarding how the universe came to be in the shape it is today can be discerned by a careful analysis of the revelations of Biblical accounts, there are wide rifts between and within the groups themselves. YECs do not agree with OECs do not agree with IDCs, and so on. This is problematic for an assertion that scripture can act as a substitute for science in expanding the body of human knowledge. Assuming (for the moment) that negative argumentation about evolution can be taken as positive support for creationism, and further assuming that any of these groups eventually managed to succeed to a degree that none currently have at disproving any key portion of modern evolutionary theory, the question then arises—which Creationism (if any) has the "disproof" of evolution proved?
Of course, relying solely on negative argumentation about current evolutionary theory says nothing about the truth of any of these versions of creationism. Such a supposition rests on the fallacy of a false dilemma. Either "evolution" is true, or "creationism" is true. Once it is revealed that "creationism" is no one position, it becomes apparent that the strategy of disproving evolution in order to "prove" creationism is doomed from the start.
At some point, "creation scientists" are going to either have to give up the idea of inserting the supernatural into the environs of scientific investigation, explain how reference to the supernatural can be included in the scientific enterprise without absolutely destroying the explanatory power of methodological naturalism, or provide positive arguments for concluding that creationism is a legitimate and investigable scientific hypothesis.
In the meantime, I won't hold my breath.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking