It’s going to happen, so I might as well get it over with sooner rather than later.

The Great American Dilemma: Creation, Evolution, or Something Else?

There has been a huge unnecessary amount of drama over this subject in the news and on people’s blogs – all over the place. It’s not exactly the prime tenet of Christianity (nor Judaism, nor Islam, so far as I know) and it’s not even really all that important. One can be a perfectly fine Christian (or Jew, or Muslim) without believing in Creation as accounted by the book of Genesis.

With that said, I don’t believe in either one, but not on the basis that you might think. Evolution (and by that I mean Neo-Darwinian Evolution) has its serious flaws that aren’t exactly publicized, and its devotees also have their flaws. Creationism also has its serious flaws, and its devotees their imperfections.

Humans, I have observed, have this tendency to identify “position” with “person” – ie, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, Sanford’s Biolistics Process. When people can’t, for whatever reason, attack or deconstruct a person’s position anymore, they begin attacking the person: “Well, you must be a moron,” or, “Your credentials are bogus,” etc. The movie “Thank You For Smoking” was a wonderful example of this – distracting people from discussing the position to something entirely different.

Evolutionists do this. So do Creationists.

It isn’t, obviously, very loving. And in the case of the Creationists, it certainly is the farthest thing from Christ-like. As Biblical Christians (for the most part) in the public spotlight lately, Creationists should be doubly aware and doubly on guard to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing. (Romans 12)

I am more familiar with the inner workings of the Creationist research facilities than I am with the Evolutionist ones, and have met many of the big names in person, and talked with them. (I live very close to the Institute for Creation Research) They are, at the very least, sincere in their work, and go strictly by the scientific method. In terms of scientific integrity, they are no worse and slightly better than the majority of Evolutionists out there.

True Science doesn’t care where you got your starting observations and hypothesis, so claiming that Creationism isn’t real science is about as legitimate as claiming that Einstein wasn’t a real scientist (Creationists get theirs from the natural world and the Bible, Einstein got his from “thought experiments”). All True Science cares about is repeatability and falsifiability. You can apply the method to anything, regardless of it’s starting philosophical assumptions.

The fact that Creationist papers aren’t in “standard” academic, peer-reviewed journals says more about the prejudices of the editors of those journals rather than the standard of Creationist work, I would say. If you can’t get anyone to read your work, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is bunk, just that no one will read it (which is the other person’s problem, not the Creationists’). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it really make a sound? Physics tell us yes.

On the other hand, a great many Creationist organization list in their mission statements that part of their goal is to deconstruct Evolution (with the goal, one would imagine, of leaving Creationism the only viable alternative). This is not Biblical. They quote verses like 2 Corinthians 10:5 : “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

As a corporate policy (ie, more than an individual basis) this is not helpful in the current ideals of the culture. If you want to deconstruct evolution on an individual basis, fine, go ahead – That is living love, and that is Biblical. But as a corporate policy, all it serves to do is to allow the Evolutionists one more reason to dismiss them. (“Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called “scientific” creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution.” -TalkOrigins.org) If you take away Evolutionists’ ability to dismiss you on the basis of your approach, they must look deeper in your work to find some reason to dismiss you.

I’ve heard some say that we must fight Evolution because it is Satan’s influence on the world to turn people from God. Even if that’s true, they miss several important Biblical facts: Satan is still God’s Devil – he’s on a very short leash. And, we know that words alone will never convince someone anyways, it takes An Act of God (quite literally) to do so. 1 Corinthians 2: 1-5

“1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.”

There are also huge differences in kind of science that Creationists and Evolutionists do versus, say, the kind of science that an Engineer does. Operational Science provides us with nifty tools like laptops, phones, fiber optics, electric scalpels, vaccines, etc. Historical Science doesn’t provide us with anything but theories, because it cannot be replicated (Big-Bang Cosmology is Historical Science.) It is still falsifiable, but completely non-repeatable. Its predictions, however, can be tested.

For the most part, both Creationists and Evolutionists deal in Historical Science, which has far more subjectivity than Operational, and is more open to varying starting philosophical assumptions. (ie, Positivism, which in its most simplistic form basically says that so long as a new theory fits all available data and doesn’t impact any other theory, it has to be considered.)

Practically, however, Science can’t be divorced from the worldview of the scientist, or that of the peer-reviewers, or academic climate. Just as no man is an island, neither is anything he creates or develops. They’re all interconnected and influence each other.

In conclusion, I suppose, I personally don’t believe fully in either, based on the imperfections of Man’s wisdom. I take the entirety of the body of evidence, and leave it at that, without attempting to wring meaning out of it. That is, I suppose, the only truly honest thing to do, and that is what I would encourage the rest of you to do.

Zhai’helleva,

Raeliyah