Evolution vs. Creationism: Is it really a fair fight?

Question

I'd like to characterize the opposing sides.

Evolution is an explanation that scientists have arrived at through measurement, experiment and hypothesis. First came the observations, and then came the theory, which was then revised as new information came to light.

Creationism, began with a conclusion ("God did it.") and worked backwards, looking for physical evidence that supports it. It accepts as a given the claim that the bible is completely accurate, and it refuses to probe deeper into a glaring question: "If God did it, who created God?"

Regardless of one's spiritual views it seems to me that the first process I described is vastly more reliable than the second.

I can't think of any other example of a widely held theory that was arrived at backwards. In this sense it seems apparent that creationism is fundamentally tainted, and that an unbiased judge (unfamiliar with both Darwin and Deuteronomy) would have to side with science.

Thoughts?

To Questioner, below, I'd like to add the following:

The only way to investigate facts without bias is to take into account only that which can be measured. Saying that scientists need to find an explanation that doesn't involve a creator is disingenuous - it assumes that the concept of a creator is obvious and should be taken into account. But this is like saying that scientists have a vested interest in disproving the existence of Santa, and that theory of evolution is therefore biased because they started with the idea that Santa doesn't exist.

Nowhere in the fossile record, DNA, organic chemistry, or any other of the many disciplines used to arrive at the theory is there any mention or suggestion of a creator. Scientists work with the evidence at hand.

You are begging the question when you suggest that there is a political agenda at work, that scientists don't want to be held accountable by god. Your (probably honest) mistake is the entire creation fallacy, writ large.

Answer 1

That's a curious thought. In the end, it all really does boil down to the Scientific Method. Religious folklore has no place in scientific research. To me, it's clear cut and there's no decision to make.

Religious folklore cannot explain the dawn of man since the dawn of man is the beginning. And you're right - you can't start at the conclusion to explain the galaxy's mysteries.

Answer 2

You're right in that it's not a fair fight, and it's not really a fight I chose to take up very often. Science teaches us to be open and to constantly test ideas, even ideas which you hold to be true. That being said, many scientists become wedded to their hypotheses and will interpret results in favor of their pet hypothesis.

On the other hand, creationists know they are right without any proof needed. After all, their preacher and the bible told them that's how it is. No amount of research will ever be enough to chenge their minds, and many churches believe it's their duty to push their beliefs onto others. They'll do this through word of mouth mostly, but will resort to legal action when they need to.

This act of trying to force their view onto the scientific world may be why many evolutionary scientists become athiests. When someone tries to force their views upon someone else, that someone generally takes the most polar opposite view.

At the moment, I see no reason to join the arguement. I see no reason why evolution and religion would need to be mutually exclusive (for example, evolution occurs because that's the way God intended it to be), but the two sides are too polarized for rational discourse at the moment.

In the meantime, evolution should be taught in science classes and creationism in churches and religious classes. Requiring that creationism, which has no scientific basis, be taught in science classes is as wrong as requiring that physical education be taught in math classes or that evolution be taught in religious classes.

Answer 3

You are absolutely correct.

However, the main problem comes from the fact that, in its essence, such religious beliefs are irrational.
I'm not saying that religious people are mad or misguided, and I'm not saying they are not capable of rational thought (after all, they couldn't pose arguements against evolution, using hand-picked evidence, if they were). However, ultimately religion is based on Faith. Faith is considered a great virtue, and it is also held to be the peak of Faith to continue to believe, *no matter what* the arguements to the contrary. Therefore, a person with strong enough faith *cannot* be rationally argued away from their viewpoint, because it is based on an irrational premise.

In counterpoint to this, however, it is important to remember that evolution, and science of any sort, cannot say *anything* about the existance or non-existance of God. Since God is supernatural, He is (by definition) above any laws of science.
Many (40% in the US, I think) scientists actually hold to a belief in Theistic Evolution. This is the idea that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, could easily have "kicked off" the universe with the design of acheiving humanity in it. Humanity, capable of rational thought, capable of free will, and also capable of salvation.
_______________________________________________
Edit (in response to Questioner's answer below):

Science is based on *evidence*; as I mentioned previously (and as you state as well) - religion is based on *Faith*. The "Time Machine" for Christians is the Bible (received knowledge), while the "Time Machine" for scientists is the world around us (perceived knowledge).

I have never gone out into the field and actually performed the studies that other scientists have in order to satisfy themselves of the liklihood or non-liklihood of evolution.
BUT - and this is *very* important - I *could*!

I could repeat the experiments in radio-dating strata of rock, determining what fossils are found therein, and constructing a chronological timeline for the evolution of modern organisms and the extinction of ancient ones.
I could perform genetic analysis on a variety of organisms to determine how similar or dissimilar their genomes were, and thereby form a tree of how closely- or distantly-related they were relative to each other.
I could perform biodiversity studies on what organisms are found where, look at their comparative anatomy relative to their environments, and draw conclusions about their interrelatedness (of course, this is the Darwin's Finches study). Combining this with the above genetic analysis would be a particularly powerful study method.

You are correct that we were not present when life arose (abiogenesis: an area outside the purview of evolution, btw), and we were not present when dinosaurs became extinct. However, we know that there are fossil remains of dinosaurs from 230 million years ago until 65 million years ago. None before, and none since. Additionally, though we did not see the first dinosaur evolve, we *do* see evolution occurring today; we did not see the dinosaurs become extinct, but we see extinction occurring today: so it is only reasonable to assume that the dinosaurs also underwent evolution and extinction.

I *could* repeat these studies, but no-one can go back and see God creating the world in 6 days!

PS - have you heard of Theistic Evolution?
This is the idea, supported by 40% of US scientists, that God created the universe with evolution in mind. Basically, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he could have kicked it all off with the designed end-point of acheiving humans, with sentience, free will, and the capability for salvation.
So, why do you suggest that evolutionists begin with the premise that God doesn't exist?

Answer 4

No it is not a fair fight when a person used to arguments of faith enters into a discussion with a person used to arguments of evidence and reason ... over a question of *evidence and reason* (a scientific question)!

I liken it to Michael Jordan challenging Tiger Woods ... to a round of golf!

I say that knowing that Michael Jordan is a fantastic athlete, and (as I understand it) a pretty good golfer. A religious fundamentalist may be to scripture what Michael Jordan is to basketball. But if they're going to challenge the scientists (someone for whom arguments of evidence and reason are as familiar as a nine-iron and a putter to Tiger Woods) *on matters of science* you are inviting an unfair contest.

Your question hit the nail on the head (nicely written).

The practice of faith is to put *belief before understanding*. You have to be able to believe things that you do not, or cannot, understand fully. To appeal to 'mysteries' when asked certain questions ("Where did God come from? What is his energy source? Why did God do what he did?" Ans: "God works in mysterious ways.")

The practice of science is to put *understanding before belief*. A true scientist *never* "believes" something ... they care only about a satisfactory model that *explains* something to their understanding. But even for a science *student*, understanding must come before belief ... you have to understand what a theory says before you accept or reject it.

Too many religious kids are taught to do the exact opposite ... to decide *first* whether to accept or reject a theory, and then mold your understanding to support that conclusion. (I include many kids who *accept* evolution as well as those who *reject* it ... often, if you probe at all deeply, some kids will appear to have accepted evolution without any real understanding of it, based on nothing but the authority of their science book or teacher ... this is just as misguided as rejecting evolution based on nothing but the authority of their Bible or religion teacher (parent, preacher, Sunday-school teacher).

{edit ... for Questioner}

Here is why Ken Ham is wrong, wrong, wrong. He wrote:
>"So why do so many people believe in evolution? It’s simple, I think most people believe what they want to believe and they don’t want there to be a God."

He has absolutely NO basis for that claim ... that people believe evolution because they "don't want there to be a God." It is laughably, demonstrably false.

* 40% of scientists who accept evolution *also* believe there is a God.

* The Catholic Church, which has no problem with evolution, and home to over half the world's Christians, are certainly believers in God.

* The 11,000+ Christian Clergymen who have signed the Clergy Letter Project supporting evolution, certainly believe in God.

So Ken Ham's *entire* claim about why people accept evolution is *demonstrably* false!

Answer 5

I am pretty close to thinking brainwashing children into a religious belief is child abuse. Children are biologically programmed to accept what adults tell them as the TRUTH. It is their protection as babies and toddlers against bad things that could happen to them if they didn't listen to the adults.

Once children have been indoctrinated, it is very difficult for them to discard those beliefs as is evidenced by the rarity of people discarding the religion of their parents.

Answer 6

They are both belief systems about the past.

As Ken Ham has said:
"Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present."


So why do so many people believe in evolution? It’s simple, I think most people believe what they want to believe and they don’t want there to be a God. You see, if God created us, then He also owns us. If He owns us, then He has a right to set the rules by which we must live. If He has set the rules by which we must live, then we are accountable to Him. They don’t want to be accountable to God; they don’t want to be controlled. And so, it is their desire to explain the origin of everything without a Creator at all costs; they MUST believe in evolution. Evolutionism then, is intrinsically an atheistic religion—the religion of secular humanism. They don't want there to be a God, so they work backwards from that. Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).

And the question is, are we the ones with blind faith? Where you there when something popped into existence from nothing and exploded? No, well do you see something pop into existence from nothing today? Were you there when non-living matter gave rise to life? No, well do you see non-living matter giving rise to life today? Where you there when single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, when invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, when ape-like creatures gave rise to man? No, well do you see it happening today? You have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems by blind chance (natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information). That is what goes against real science.