 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
Home | Feedback | Links | Books
A Theory of Creation
© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 14 October 2002]
A popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.” They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.
Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives. There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”[2] Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.
Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism. Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts. Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone. These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.
Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature. They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying. Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration. Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.
What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.
The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree. Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.
It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]
Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]
The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.
So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:
The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
HypothesisEvolution
Hypothesis
Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Predominant religious/philosophical
belief systemBiblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism
Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical supportCitation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data
Primary means of criticizing
counterpart systemCitation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences
Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.
The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:
“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”
These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories. As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture. But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:
“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
HypothesisEvolution
Hypothesis
Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex”; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.
Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.
While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.
Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]
Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists. The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.
Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)
Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
A slightly more descriptive list appears at http://trueorigin.org/books.asp, while two much more extensive bibliographies are http://trueorigin.org/booklist.asp and http://trueorigin.org/imp-269a.asp.
Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.
Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.
The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/Technical.asp
The Question of “How?”
Some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation. The argument goes something like: “It’s not a valid theory unless you can explain exactly how the so-called act of creation took place!” But the speaker has failed to recognize at least two things as he seeks to impose this demand:
- The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator’s ways or means. It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place). The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal.
- By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose. Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.
Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.
Conclusion