Ben Cartwright, January 31, 2001
If you�ve seen any news in the past few years, you have almost certainly heard the phrase �Creation vs. Evolution� thrown around. As someone who stood firmly on the �Creation� side of this debate for many years and changed his mind, I would like to make some comments about this issue.
First of all, you may have noticed that I put both �creation� and �evolution� in quotes in my title. This was intentional. The reason I did this is to show that there is no actual debate between a true definition of �creation� and a true definition of �evolution.� They do not lock horns the way they seem to, and I suspect this misnomer has been created intentionally to make people feel that they are mutually exclusive concepts. Such views can lead to drastic decisions, such as Kansas� decision to remove the teaching of evolution from schools. This is tantamount to removing the teaching of the law of gravity from schools, as we will see demonstrated in this article (hopefully).
Now, allow me to define for you what I feel are working definitions of these two terms, and then define them the way they are being used by those with a creationist (�it happened exactly as the Bible says�) agenda. To me, the word �creation� means simply that the world was created and did not arise spontaneously nor is in some infinite loop. In other words, a belief in �creation� would mean a belief that there was a certain point in time when someone or something decided to create the universe. It did not happen by accident. Next, I will define what I feel is a working definition of evolution. Listen closely. �Evolution� means that life adapts to its environment through genetic variations in successive generations. If some form of life has a variation in its genetic code, and that variation for some reason is more beneficial for that form of life, the altered form will have a better opportunity to pass on its genes, and will have a better chance for survival (for a much better explanation of evolution, click here). Note that evolution does not mean that a life form somehow �decides� to change, nor does it mean that one specific life form evolves into something different during its lifetime. It is born different, and is either better or less suited to its environment because of its differences. Sometimes, environments change, which often gives the altered life forms a better chance to survive than the unaltered ones. Evolution does not support the idea that when a new species is formed, the old one is necessarily wiped out (�If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?�). There is no reason to think that the monkeys (in this scenario) couldn�t keep living as their own species as well (however, we did not �evolve from monkeys,� although we do share a common ancestor, and also have 98% of the same DNA as chimpanzees� we are more closely related to chimpanzees than mice are to rats).
Notice that these two working definitions of �creation� and �evolution� are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have nothing to do with each other. �Creation� explains how it all began. �Evolution� explains how it all works. There is no reason to think that the universe could not have been created and set in motion by an outside, creative entity, then moved forward by a process of evolution.
Now I�d like to define the terms the way they are being used in the �Creation vs. Evolution� debate. And to me, this is one of the key problems in the entire debate. Since they are defined in a specific way, but these definitions are rarely (if ever) stated clearly, many of the relevant issues are obscured from the start.
To a creationist, �Creation� refers to the belief that the world was created according to a literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible, Genesis. This belief contains many assumptions, including the idea that the earth is �young,� to the tune of around 6,000 to 10,000 years (it is, in fact, about 4.5 billion years old). Defining �evolution� in this context is a bit more tricky, but I think I can get pretty close. �Evolution� here is taken to mean basically an anti-God agenda which goes against the Bible by asserting that the earth is old, and that species arose spontaneously without God�s help. People who hold this view of evolution typically have never had any interaction with the actual evolutionary theory, and instead are only exposed to creationist literature in which a weak, �straw man� caricature of evolution is depicted so as to make it seem like a foolish thing to believe (see the �straw man� fallacy at the Logical Fallacies web site).
Notice the key differences in these definitions, particularly in the definition of evolution. When evolution is seen as something which removes the need for God from the world, it is naturally going to be attacked by those who believe in God. But remember: evolution has nothing to do with a belief in God. It only contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, which was written along with many other creation myths at that time in history to help man explain how the world came about. Genesis was not written to be a science textbook (for more information on true science and �pseudoscience,� read Carl Sagan�s book, The Demon-Haunted World), although this is how it is now used in some circles. For some reason, some of us have a need to believe that the universe�s mysteries were figured out long before scientific inquiry began to be trusted, and that rather than look at the world for ourselves, we should trust words written thousands of years ago by a non-scientist. When I think about it now, I cannot understand why it is so necessary to take Genesis literally. I guess some feel that if Genesis cannot be accepted literally, then neither can the rest of the Bible (not that people take the rest of it literally anyway� the Bible says women are to be silent in churches and are to wear head coverings�).
I think now would also be a good time to discuss the terminology of the phrase �evolutionary theory.� I think that most people see the word �theory� and think, �Oh, that�s just something someone made up. It isn�t a fact.� However, in scientific inquiry, some things, by their very nature, are always called �theories.� They never move from �theory� to �fact.� The thing that many people don�t seem to understand is that the theory of evolution is the central discovery in the field of biology. It explains almost everything! It is as much a fact as it could ever be, and that�s why I think that for those who are not scientists, it is best to simply say that evolution is a fact. It is not up for debate. The only people who try to debate the evolutionary theory are those with an agenda. In science, it is necessary to come up with a hypothesis, and I have heard it said that it doesn�t matter where the hypothesis comes from as long as it works with the evidence. Well, the problem with the hypothesis that the world was created according to a literal interpretation of the Bible is that it is not set up in a way so as to be falsifiable. In science, the more disprovable a hypothesis is, the better it is. The evolutionary theory makes predictions about the fossil record, etc. which invariably come true. That doesn�t mean there aren�t disagreements in certain ways that the theory works itself out, but there is no doubt that the theory itself explains how different life forms arise and that it takes millions of years for this to happen. The creationist theory is rarely falsifiable. I won�t go on any further than this, since I am not at all an expert. I write this in the hope that it will trigger a desire in people to look into the matter further, and not as conclusive proof of anything. Go here to see a much more exhaustive explanation of these issues.
Before I finish, let me give you an example of this �horrible� thing called evolution. If you and I were born 10,000 years ago, we would have most likely lived in the midst of many predators. If I had been born with better-than-average eyesight, I would have had a better chance of avoiding getting eaten by these predators than you would have if you had been born with average eyesight. Therefore, I would probably pass those �good eyesight� genes on to my children, and you probably wouldn�t (because you would be in the stomach of a lion or some other woodland creature). That is evolution. The �survival of the fittest.� �Natural selection.� It gets much more complicated than that, but that is the basic idea behind evolution. When a life form is born with something that helps it survive longer, it has a better chance to pass its genes on and produce more life forms like itself. In this way, life is always getting better and more advanced (although there are times when a life form has a variation that benefits it along with a variation which is actually worse, but survives due to the good variation and therefore passes on genes which are better and worse at the same time�. in other words, species are not necessarily moving toward perfection). Oh, by the way� if someone tries to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain why evolution cannot be true, tell them they are taking that law completely out of context. That law does not apply to evolution.
Well, I hope you have benefited from this discussion. It is helpful to remember that those who support a literal view of Genesis are usually very well-meaning. Therefore, it is good not to argue against the people themselves (this is not a proper way to debate anyway, and is called ad hominem, which means �arguing against the man� and doesn�t prove anything), but against the beliefs they purport. I do recommend, though, that before you berate the evolutionary theory, read some literature on it which is not written by people who support your view. Whether or not they intend to, creationists do not portray an accurate picture of what evolution is, and much of the literature in fact seems intentionally deceptive.
Interestingly, religions have always relied greatly on the concept of �faith,� but faith has no place in a discussion about evolution. You don�t need to �believe� in evolution any more than you need to �believe� that 2 + 2 = 4. And to �believe� in something else is to ignore the central discovery of biology. The scientific method is responsible for virtually every modern convenience to which we have access� how can it be okay to dismiss that same method simply because it disagrees with the Bible? Hasn�t the scientific method proven itself thousands of times over to be a more accurate way of finding out things about the world than the Bible? Yes, it has. The Bible belongs in matters of the heart, not matters of science.
And remember: To say �Creation vs. Evolution� is to pit two concepts against each other which do not disagree with each other or even relate directly to each other. It is as if someone said, �I think couches are the best things to sit on in living rooms,� and you disagreed with them by saying, �No, I think cars are the best things to drive to work in.�
Don�t let anyone hand you your beliefs� think for yourself! It is your God-given right!!
Go to the message board!
