Creationism has a logic to it that is compelling.
As a philosopher and on who can see both sides of an issue, I am pausing here to present the other side—presenting
the other side because there is something missing in the debate, the first premise.
The creationist begins with baggage: 1). There is a god named Yahweh. 2). Yahweh is the creator of the universe. 3).
Knowledge concerning Yahweh is obtained through study of the Bible. 4). Experience of the divine presence is obtained through an inner feeling in the heart,
and an assortment of signs including answered prayers, miraculous events, and the testimony of fellow Christians. This is the baggage that the Creationist brings to the table. The
agnostic lacks this baggage.
There are many signs that the Bible was
inspired by Yahweh, such as Bible prophecies, record of miracles, and the wisdom found in the work. Moreover, their god is not a deceiver; ergo, their Bible, when study with the guidance of the inner light,
reveals many marvelous things including that Yahweh* created the universe and all the life therein. However, for the sake of answering the agnostic scientists they will put aside the bible evidence and argue
the issue of creation. The creationist does not expect to win over the agnostic,
but rather to show to his fellow Christians that the Bible was correct when it stated that Yahweh created the universe.
The arguments, consisting of various examples
of problems with evolution are more like propaganda to strengthen the beliefs of Christians than to be arguments in the arena
of science. One series of arguments are philosophical by raising questions of
falsifiability, fulfilling the meaning of theory, observability, and like. A second line distorts the nature and amount
of disagreement among biologist over evolution. Then the third raise such questions
1) If humans descended from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?
2) Evolution doesn’t explain how
life first appeared on earth
3) Mathematically, it is inconceivable
that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
4) The Second Law of Thermodynamics states
that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could
not evolve (without divine intervention).
5) Mutations, an essential part of the
theory, only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
6) Natural selection might explain microevolution,
but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
7) There are no transitional fossils—such
as half bird and half reptile.
8) There are complex systems—such
as the eye—which do not function in a less complex transitional form.
9) The molecular basis of life is too complex
to have evolved.
are, patently bad, are not designed to convince agnostic biologists that evolution is false, but rather to give an air of
respectability to their belief in Yahweh the creator. Their demands to have evolution
eliminated from text books and to teach creationism are self-serving promotion of their cause and a desire for their children
to get a Christian education—as well as all other children.
their set of beliefs, minus the creation story of their Bible: that they see
god’s workings in life; it fits in with their belief structure—just as the lack of such workings fits in with
the Agnostic’s belief structure. On top of this they believe that Yahweh
through the Bible admits that He has created the world and all the life thereon. But
for the sake or argument, they are presenting the biological evidence that the existence of life on earth must not have happened
important of their arguments centers on the complexity of life. This could, they
argue no more happen that the parts of a Boeing 747 self-assembling into a 747. This
is a variation of the watch argument. If one found a watch on the beach, given
its complexity and usefulness, one would assume that there was a watchmaker.
argument is from beauty. The balance of Yahweh’s creations into such a
functional whole is proof that there was an Artist. There are the edible plants
and animals, the rain, the fertile soil, and the very beauty of nature: all this
stands as a grand monument of the Creator.
the set of beliefs of the Christian, these two arguments naturally follow—a watchmaker and an artist. Is there not a god named Yahweh, whom today’s Christians believe Him to be omniscient, omnipotent,
and perfectly beneficent. Is not life miraculous and beautify? End of argument.
Creationism is just
a portion of the belief structure of the Christians. Should it be taught in schools? Yes, but without the bad arguments: Their
criticisms of biological science all fail. A couple
of paragraphs would suffice. Simply state that a majority of Americans believe
there is a universal god named Yahweh who created life.
To present more of
creationism has two problems, one that the bad examples (1-9 above) would have to be refuted for to teach also evolution. To let these examples stand without rebuttal would entail that the subsequent instruction
(or prior lessons) were of an absurd theory, such as of the elements are sun-center universe.
The second problem with teaching creationism is of content. There is significant
disagreement among them as to when and how much. A significant percentage of
Christians believe that Yahweh the creator started life and then permitted it to evolve.
Some, however, believe that he made all the forms of life. Some even believe
that Yahweh is in some mysterious way involved in the creation of all living things.
There are positions between these extremes. The official position of the Catholic Church is to accept both evolution and divine involvement. To teach about Yahweh’s involvement in creation would be muddled if all these position and variations
are included. Thus, as I have proposed, special creation ought only to have a
Creationism is a
religious one, and Biology is a science. The best evidence supports evolution;
that is why it is taught in public schools. Even if Yahweh created all forms
of life, the very relationship of these forms as to competition for survival and reproduction supports the theory of evolution. Moreover, the fossil record and the relatedness of the molecules of life further support
the theory of evolution. A conclusion consistent with these three types of evidence
is for those Christians to assume that Yahweh created all things in a way that supports the theory of evolution. Thus public school biology books ought to mention the possibility of Yahweh the creator and briefly mention
how this can be consistent with the theory of evolution.
I use Yahweh to name the god. Their Bible states that there are other gods and spirit beings, including the gods of the Egyptians, Leviathans,
etc. It simply states that the God of the Jews is more powerful then them, and
that he will make the Jews the greatest nation of all. The New Testament never
denied that there were other gods. The message was one of salvation through the
worship of Yahweh and that Yahweh would before the last of the apostles died destroy life on the world, again. Early Christians didn’t deny the gods of the Romans and Greeks; they called them demons. Given this insult to the state gods, what is surprising is not that the Roman’s executed a few of
them, but rather that they didn’t wipe them out—like the Christians did to various heresies.