By Paul McDorman
Creation and evolution have been in the news a lot lately, often with emotional charges and countercharges, and sometimes blatant obfuscation. Unfortunately, much of what is said doesn”t help one figure out the issues.
Part of the confusion is because many people do not understand the specialized vocabulary involved. Even the media do not seem to comprehend what is going on.
Contributing to this are the subgroups within the two opposing worldviews of creationism and evolutionism, such as “young-earth creationism” and “old-earth creationism,” as well as “theistic evolution” and “naturalistic evolution.” This sometimes goes unrecognized and adds to the misunderstanding.
We can”t control the vocabulary of writers, and even less their misunderstandings or spin on the issues. But we can learn the terms and become better informed of the subject matter and the underlying assumptions. As in any debate, however, it is recommended that one learn about a position from the “horse”s mouth” rather than from a cynic, or even someone who claims to be objective. Bias is involved regardless of who does the talking; but to learn about a position, an explanation from an advocate is preferred over an antagonist.
UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
There are four major models of how science and religion can coexist. When discussing origins, agreement about how life came about cannot happen until agreement is reached on this. Which of these a person assumes to be true will form a basis for what he or she believes about biblical creation and evolution:
“¢ The scientific method is the primary way to determine truth. Religion is based on untestable assumptions and generally has been shown to be a hindrance to the progress of knowledge, and therefore religion should not interfere with science.
“¢ Science and matters of faith (religion) are two legitimate, but separate, areas of study, but one should not interfere with the other.
“¢ True science and true religion agree with each other, but when there are conflicts, the Bible should be interpreted in the light of science.
“¢ True science and true religion agree with each other, but when there are conflicts, science should be interpreted in the light of the Bible.
Other assumptions can also play an important role in a person”s understanding of origins. For example: How are science, religion, and faith defined? How is scientific theory defined? How is truth defined? What is a fact and what is the interpretation of a fact in science? And, how does verification of findings in the historical sciences (e.g., archaeology, paleontology, geology) differ from the operational sciences (e.g., chemistry, physics, biology).
If a person”s view on any of the above questions differs significantly from the person he is debating, there is not much hope on reaching an agreement about anything else.
— USEFUL DEFINITIONS
Here are definitions that sometimes cause problems:
“¢ Creationism: Usually this refers to the idea that God created the universe as described in the Bible. But the media sometimes has in mind a literal six-day, 24-hour creation. Creationists who believe the universe is old think that the word has been unjustly appropriated by the media and “young-earth” creationists.
Since the time frame God used to create everything is what is sometimes debated, this word can cause confusion. Therefore, subcategories of creationism exist to avoid the confusion (see below).
Most creationists today are fond of using science to help support their beliefs. But evolutionists often portray creationists as people who are devoid of any scientific understanding, and that their arguments are always based on faith rather than real scientific evidence. Polls indicate about half the people in the United States believe in some form of biblical creation.
“¢ Young-Earth Creationism (YEC): The belief that God created the universe about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, based on the genealogies in the Bible, historical records of various civilizations, and the interpretation of scientific data. They also believe that the six creation days were normal 24-hour days, with land animals (including dinosaurs) created on day six.
Additionally, YECs believe most of the geologic strata were deposited during Noah”s flood.
The term is used primarily to distinguish it from Old-Earth Creationism. YECs believe scientific understanding is always changing and that Scripture alone is unchanging and authoritative.
Proponents include people such as Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and the late Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research.
YECs make up the bulk of people in evangelical churches, but they usually are not represented significantly in the staffs of most evangelical colleges and universities. Old-earth creationists think YEC is naïve, an embarrassment to Christianity, and unnecessarily divisive to Christianity.
“¢ Old-Earth Creationism (OEC): The belief that God created the universe about 15 billion years ago. Most OECs believe the “days” of Creation were not literal 24-hour days, but long periods of time (Age-Day theory). Others believe there is a large time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (Gap Theory).
Like most scientists, OECs believe the stars, galaxies, and planets evolved from a big bang explosion at the beginning of the universe, although life itself did not evolve. They believe the geological column was deposited over millions of years and that Noah”s flood was limited to a relatively small area in the Middle East. Many also believe that soulless creatures similar to man existed prior to Adam and Eve”s creation.
The “dual-revelation” of Scripture and nature is often emphasized, making nature and Scriptures equally authoritative.
Hugh Ross is the most visible proponent of Old-Earth Creationism. Other leading old-earth creationists include Pattle Pun and Davis A. Young.
The staffs of most evangelical colleges and universities are made up of old-earth creationists. YECs and evolutionists think old-earth creationists inconsistently interpret the creation account figuratively without any valid reason, yet treat nearly everything else in the Bible as literal history.
“¢ Intelligent Design (ID): The belief that life was created by higher intelligence, based primarily on the observation that biological structures are too complex to have originated by naturalistic origins. ID calls attention to the design in nonliving systems as well. It does not get involved with the age issue, or who the Creator is. This fact, they claim, should make ID a legitimate area of scientific study and permissible in public schools. Additionally, some ID proponents point out that since the disciplines of archaeology and the forensic sciences recognize human involvement and design, then the study of the apparent design in nature should not be excluded simply on the basis that it might imply the existence of a highly intelligent designer.
Leading proponents of ID include Philip Johnson, Michael Denton, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells. Evolutionists think ID is a slippery slope to creationism, if not an outright Trojan horse. YECs feel one can”t separate creation from the God of the Bible, but both OEC and YEC are glad for the help that ID gives to their respective causes.
“¢ Evolution: In popular usage, it generally refers to both the process that resulted in the origin of life, as well as life”s diversification into different species of plants and animals over time. However, evolutionists often leave out the “origin of life” part and say it is a separate issue.
In a broader sense, evolution can also be used to describe any natural process of becoming, growing, or diversifying (i.e., cosmological evolution; chemical evolution; human evolution; evolution of religion; evolution of music; evolution of thought; etc.).
“¢ Materialistic Evolution: The belief that matter and energy are all there are in the universe (or, all that can legitimately be known) and that natural laws and chance processes are responsible for the origin of the universe and life, as well as its diversity. For the most part, materialistic evolutionists are atheists or agnostics. However, a few believe in an impersonal god. Materialistic evolutionists essentially believe all religion should be marginalized.
Most of the staffs of secular colleges and universities are materialistic evolutionists, as are the members of the tax-supported National Science Foundation. Richard Dawkins is one of the most outspoken proponents of materialistic evolution and a vitriolic opponent of all types of creationism and religion in general. The late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov were (and still are) two popular and highly influential materialistic evolutionists.
“¢ Theistic Evolution: The belief that God used evolutionary processes to create the universe and life. Proponents may have a deistic view where God set physical laws and matter into motion at the beginning of creation (e.g., big bang), and then stepped back. A few believe God personally directed the evolution of each animal species as well as man.
Theistic evolutionists may or may not believe in a personal God who is concerned with man”s salvation. If a theistic evolutionist claims to be a Christian, then creation and the Genesis flood are always interpreted figuratively. Some proponents may have a pantheistic view of nature and some are supportive of ID. Theistic evolutionists believe science and religion are two legitimate but separate areas of study.
A leading proponent of theistic evolution is Howard Van Till. Theistic evolutionists make up the bulk of individuals in mainline churches and the staffs of their colleges and universities.
Paul McDorman is director of creation education and evangelism and president of Creation Research, Science Education Foundation in Cincinnati, Ohio.
0 Comments