Acceptable Future: Questioned

Creationism addresses evolutionary theory on levels beyond the purely technical scope of science. Evolution leads to several moral and ethical problems, creationists say. These problems do not arise simply from questions about our ancestry and current place in the world. There are problems with the future, as well.

Take for example an article recently published by BBC News. Scientifically speaking, it would seem only logical that through the process of natural selection, humanity could experience at least one species split. To almost anyone brought up in the past century in Western society, many of the suggested consequences seem abhorrent. A human sub-species? Where have we heard that before?

Two terrible ideas in particular seem to dominate the article: the creation of two unequal human classes and mankind's genetic deterioration due to reliance on technology. Technological dependence causing genetic devolution is a cruelly ironic concept. We are supposedly a superior species due to our intellectual propensities, our ability to think and create. Our use of such abilities makes us weaker because as a whole we compensate for human biological weakness using technology. We then become an inferior species? In the evolutionary concept, improvement is attained through hardship weeding out the weak. If we excel at protecting "the weak" and incorporating them into our society, we suffer as a species. This leads us to the second problem.

According to Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics whose ideas are featured in the article, it is feasible that mankind could split into a superior and an inferior sub-category. This concept should really come as no surprise; Darwin's theories were based on the concept of 'favoured races.' It is, however, an unpleasant reminder of atrocities committed by extremists using evolution-based rational (see Nazi eugenics, bodysnatchers, etc.).

What are the possible consequences of such speciational separation? Will humanity see a widespread return of Nazi-fashioned biopolicy? Arguments using the words of both supporters and opponents of evolution can give evidence of such policies stemming from various ideological sources. We like to think we are past racist thought and separation. Regardless of the past, it is inconceivable that with two separate species of human, the "upper class...tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative," and the "'underclass'...dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures" could live in equality. The article points out that racism as we know it will have vanished due to extensive interracial mingling leading to a single race... until evolution provides another.

Evolution is a worldview. Like any worldview, it can be used to fuel warped thinking and practices. Religious interpretation can be used, and often has been used, to discriminate. The foundation of evolution, however, is a scientific basis for "superior" and "inferior." Has racism (or sexism) ever been justified? Will it be in the future?

The real issue: which lens are you using?

"The real debate is not 'science' versus 'religion,' but evolutionary science versus creation science and evolutionary philosophy versus creationist philosophy." -- State Press columnist Brandon Hendrickson

One of the best and clearest explanations of the creation/evolution debate is from a source... well, I can't tell if he is on one side or the other, so that tells you how good a job he did. The article was in the State Press last Monday. It is extremely effective at analyzing and defining the issue.

As seen in articles on the Answers in Genesis (one of the most prominent creationist organizations) Web site, the issue is about interpretation.

"It’s not until...people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs," said Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham in the article "Creation: 'where's the proof?'"

Ham uses the analogy of lenses, or glasses. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. We all do. But like most topics, even (especially?) within science, there are disagreements that arise from interpretation of the evidence and the conclusions that follow.

For every piece of evidence from the past, there have arisen at least two different hypotheses for the existence and nature of the way things are now. My last blog post included a link to a video about an alternative explanation for astronomical evidence, such as starlight. For every evolutionary theory, there is an alternative explanation. Sedimentary layers and fossil records are an excellent example, but there are differences in the ways they are presented.

Evolutionary, old-earth ideas are almost always shown as scientific fact. Here is an example that has the typical language and reasoning used in evolution-based discussions:

"Long before scientists had developed the technology necessary to assign ages in terms of number of years before the present, they were able to develop a 'relative' geologic time scale. They had no way of knowing the ages of individual rock layers in years (radiometric dates), but they could often tell the correct sequence of their formation by using relative dating principles and fossils. Geologists studied the rates of processes they could observe first hand, such as filling of lakes and ponds by sediment, to estimate the time it took to deposit sedimentary rock layers. They quickly realized that millions of years were necessary to accumulate the rock layers we see today. As the amount of evidence grew, scientists were able to push the age of the Earth farther and farther back in time. Piece by piece, geologists constructed a geologic time scale, using increasingly more sophisticated methods for dating rock formations."

How do they know how old stuff is? By measuring it according to the present, without considering that the conditions of the process may have been different at some other point in time. They also looked at the fossils in the layers. How did they know how old the fossils were? Because of the age of the layer of rock it was found in. Now, of course, we have radiometric dating, which the author is implying is so much more reliable.

I can only generalize from personal experience, but I have definitely noticed that, while some creationists may state their conclusions as facts, they also say up front that it is based on admitted, faith-based presuppositions. For the most part, creationists present the facts and show how they do not prove (or sometimes "disprove") evolution as is claimed and supply an alternative explanation that fits with their openly announced presuppositions.

Regardless of the view you choose to take, believing in a concept that is claimed as fact without looking at the foundational presuppositions (or denying their existence entirely) can only lead to self-deception. Acknowledgment of different starting points from which evidence can be analyzed is essential to any honest endeavor. From that point on, it is a matter of agreeing to disagree rather than striving to "prove" that one side has more evidence or is more reasonable. Better to admit bias than ignore its glaring presence.

Clarification [no grading :P]

I just wanted to clear up one thing here. I said in my first post, "There is a reason the theory of evolution is still a theory after all this time." I think that is misleading and deserves clarification.

As one description of the scientific method so aptly states:
"Keep in mind that when a lay person says 'theory', he or she typically means 'an unproven and untested guess.' This is very different from what a scientist means when he or she says 'theory', and is actually synonymous with what a scientist means when he or she says 'hypothesis'.

This distinction is very important and has caused no end of problems. (Think of the creationism debate about the 'Theory' of Evolution.) Keep in mind that, to a scientist, a theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and found correct numerous times; to a lay person, a theory is just a guess."

Of course I knew this and it wasn't the best of judgement to say it the way I did. I really think evolution does not deserve to be a scientific theory because it has not been tested. You cannot test the past, only a continuing situation or phenomenon. We have not observed drastic evolution (haven't been around long enough, I suppose :P), only slight genetic variation. Every evidence given to support evolution, from fossils to rock layers, is easily challenged and has a history of being proven wrong. Regardless of old evidence, unless it can be tested and reproduced, it should not be given scientific "theory" status. Of course saying all that would have seriously distrupted the flow of my original post. It would have digressed from there.

The same scientific theory website mentioned above said, "The division between hypothesis and theory is a bit fuzzy, but is sort of when there's no more 'reasonable doubt' of the hypothesis' truth. More or less, 'enough' different people have tested the theory experimentally in 'enough' different ways that we can be reasonably sure that the theory is correct." (don't you love all the quote marks they use?) Um, evolution has not been successfully tested experimentally. Kind of contradicting themselves here.

Anyway, I have what I would consider reasonable doubt. I am not "enough" people, I suppose...

Does it really matter how old everything is?

There is so much science to prove the universe is billions of years old! Or, wait... was it that there is so much science based on the idea that the universe is billions of years old? (aka Hooray, the blog is finally getting controversial!)


When the results of scientific research or discoveries claim "millions" and "billions" of years, do you think twice about what they are basing those figures on? Probably carbon dating and the like pop into your head. Scientists know what they're doing. They know how to make the correct scientific judgments better than the average person. But what if those judgments are based on faulty assumptions?

Society has determined that millions and billions of years is, indeed, correct. It is the basis for a great deal of government-funded research. It is taught as fact in schools. And it is reported as fact in the media. Take the recent gold star on ASU's prestige. Many news sources, from the Arizona Republic to National Geographic, reported on this story and, without question, reported that the fossil was 3.3 million years old. The fact that there was no mention about how this conclusion was made speaks volumes about our overall faith in long ages.

There is evidence to counter all the dating methods and other "proof" that evolution-believing scientists use to support the old age of Earth and the universe. There are even those who offer extensive scientific reasoning for a young universe (interesting, but as an "average person" I can't really verify much of this video's time/space hypotheses without a lot more research... I can barely comprehend gravity right now, let alone gravity wells). Most people do not get that far, though. Because, really, why is it even important? Why fight a battle of little or no consequence to us in the present? Well, take a moment to think about the implications of origins (purpose? inherent nature? the future?).

The debate over the age of the Earth and the universe is important to both creationists and evolutionists. Belief in evolution requires belief in millions and billions of years for the slow process of genetic improvement to be even remotely possible (unless you believe that something helped it along, as some intelligent design proponents believe). On the flip side, literally believing in the Bible requires belief that everything was created in six days and that humanity has only been around for about 6,000 years (following the genealogy of the people of the Bible from Adam to Jesus). Perhaps the most compelling conundrum comes from trying to merge the two beliefs, as old-earth creationists do. It is impossible because the messages and implications of the two views contradict each other.

With belief in God, one is forced to ask: why would the perfect God create using death and destruction, which is required for the theory of evolution? When God said everything was "very good" after he created it, did he mean the death and disease (shown in the fossil record) that had shaped it and continued to exist? Further, isn't it a fundamental part of Christianity that death came as a consequence of sin, which was chosen by the first humans and the reason we need a savior? If death was a part of creation instead of the result of human choice, the foundation of Christianity is destroyed. Reinterpreting the word "day" in Genesis 1 (and ONLY there) ignores the nature of the Hebrew language in which it was written. It leaves the rest of the Bible open to all kinds of interpretations that deny the language with which it was written, undermines the inspirational source and provides a weak, fluid foundation for any faith.

It is clear that age does matter and has seriously implications for any origin theory. Although stated daily as scientific fact, universal old age cannot be scientifically proven (given the definition of the scientific method, the past cannot be proven). Conjecture and interpretation of the same evidence (with obviously drastically different results) is the only thing anyone can offer regarding origins. Unless, of course, you have a source who was there.

Explanations of Origins

Who came first, God or man? Fully making an argument for an origin theory would take a great deal of time and explanation, especially looking at it in a comparative sense. I find it very difficult to summarize so much material accurately. I realize, however, that some basics need to be understood in order to put all of the following concepts into perspective. I am interested not only in the theories themselves, but also their histories, their implications for our lives and the current controversies regarding the origin debates.

Those are the kinds of topics I hope to cover in this blog, but I will start with a brief summary of some of the most popular theories. I will try to be as unbiased as possible and will give links to organizations that support each of these theories and offer longer, in-depth explanations. I would just like to note that I found the wikipedia articles on these topics quite unreliable and very biased.

Each of the origin theories has its own interpretation of the evidence we see in current times with relation to origins and implications for what that origin implies about us humans and life. The theories I will cover are:

• Biblical creation


• Intelligent design


• Old-Earth creation, including-
  -Gap theory
  -Progressive creation
  -Framework hypothesis
  -Theistic evolution


• Complete, molecules-to-man evolution

Biblical creation (creation science) is the literal interpretation of the Bible's account of the beginning of life, the universe and everything. Wow. A popular argument for this is that no human was there, so people have to take God's word for it, since he was the only eyewitness. This is definitely faith-based, but the main point of the creationist movement is to prove that science reinforces, rather than contradicts, the biblical account. This theory holds that God created the world as we know it in six regular days, including lifeforms which have changed and varied according to their "kind" but not outside of that (i.e. various kinds of dogs have developed, but they will never "evolve" into a cat).

Intelligent design stands on the basic principle that life could not have happened by chance. There is too much complexity involved in a living organism for it to have happened without a designer. Because so many parts and functions in living organisms are dependent on many other parts and functions for life to actually happen, they could not have evolved separately (this is the concept of irreducible complexity). Who or what the designer is, how it exactly happened (evolution aided and tweaked by some being so that is came out right or a designer creating several lifeforms to begin with) and when or over what time period life developed is open to the interpretation of the individual supporters of intelligent design. I guess it is sort of a multi-faith theory?

There are several theories that deal with old-Earth creationism, all of which attempt to work the modern concept of evolution and an old Earth into compliance with the biblical account of creation.

1. According to most accounts of the gap theory, God created life millions of years ago, then wiped it out between the first and second verses of chapter one of Genesis. From there on, it holds to a literal interpretation of the creation account according to the Bible.
2. There are a few sub-theories in progressive creation but the general ideal is that God created life in spurts (therefore accounting for the geological layers and eras). When one set of lifeforms became extinct, the next set was created.
3. The old-Earth creation theory I find the most difficult to understand and find supporters for is the framework hypothesis. While I could not find a definitive pro-framework Web site for this view, I gathered a general idea from several sources. In the framework hypothesis, the six biblical days of creation are not interpreted literally, but rather they are viewed as a literary device of God's to help us understand creation. Followers of this belief usually hold to either a progressive creation model or a theistic evolution view.
4. Theistic evolution is easy enough to understand: God created life using the popular idea of evolution, starting with a single-celled organism that eventually evolved into mankind. In other words, evolution is the method God chose to create life. The Bible's account of creation is not believed to be literal.

Molecules-to-man evolution should be known to anyone who has had some kind of scientific education, so I am assuming you know what it is. If not, follow the handy link!

Now that a few basic ideas have been explained, I hope to be able to address these topics in more detail in future blog posts without having to reintroduce each concept. We're on the same page now, right? I plan on covering a variety of topics regarding the creation/evolution debate, but if anyone has any questions or particular issues he or she would like me to address, I will try to write about it. So leave a comment!

Inform yourself before attacking

Today is a wonderful day to start discussing creationism. An op-ed column published in today's State Press is a perfect example of the ignorance most people have regarding the principles behind the creation movement. I will go over many of these principles during the course of this blog and look forward to hearing what other people have to say about it. I do not, however, want to see someone ranting before they get their facts straight. Openmindedness would be appreciated as well.

Macy Hanson, who wrote the column "Evangelicals should follow Catholic example on evolution," attacks concepts he obviously does not have a firm grasp on, using generalizations and bitter words without offering a substantial argument. As a journalist, I find this sad. Opinion without logical argument and vicious attacks without understanding should not have a place in a reputable publication, in my opinion (perhaps I am elitist).

Hanson calls creationist ideas "absurd" and "irrational," saying it is "as illogical as religious fundamentalism." This is, quite frankly, the reaction I expect from someone who has never done a lick of research. I am aware that that is the case for most people, but it is pretty bold to publish such an abrasive article when the writer does not even get the most basic fact right.

Hanson implies that creationists claim "that all life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time." This is false. To clarify: most creationists agree that genetic mutation occurs. I have never met a creationist who does not accept a scientific fact proven through the scientific method. There is a reason the theory of evolution is still a theory after all this time. What creationist disagree with, especially given the complete lack of proof of any "link" or intermediary stage between kinds of life, is that there has never been an example of a genetic change in which new genetic information was gained. On the contrary, there has been a steady loss of genetic information.

But regardless of his error, the main problem I have with Hanson's article is that it is merely a rant. He obviously is not trying to engage in intelligent conversation. Ironically, he states that "there is no reaching these people." Not only has he not informed himself, by shutting himself off from open dialogue he is basically saying he does not WANT to be informed. I found it sadly funny that most of what he found wrong with the thinking and methods of "fundamentalists" and people who are too "convinced of their own correctness" applied to his own writing.

In the end, Hanson's presentation is weak due to faulty assumptions ("the field of evolutionary biology"--?! biology is the field, evolution the interpretation), over generalization, and aggression towards that which he does not attempt to understand. If you want to "debate the merits of evolution," that requires a look at both sides of the argument. If he isn't willing to do it, how can he accuse others of the same? Smells like hypocrisy to me.

I am overjoyed to look at all sides of the issue. The last thing I want to do is cling to something false because I did not honestly consider the alternative. I hope everyone who reads this blog will try to follow this principle as well.

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little." --John Stuart Mill