Rejection of evolution by religious groups

This article is explicitly about the debate between advocates of "creationism" and the advocates of "evolution" in attempting to explain the origins of life.

• For an exposition of the tenets of "creationism," see Creationism.
• For an exposition of the theory of "evolution," see Evolution.
• For details of the political and judicial tussles over what topics can be taught in United States public schools, see Creationism in public education.

The Creation vs. evolution debate is a controversy regarding the origins of life on Earth. In some areas, such as Europe, evolution has achieved near-universality. In other areas, such as the Middle East, creationism is nearly universal. Finally, in places such as the United States, opinions are widely mixed, and the debate rages in educational, political, and some scientific circles.

It is important to note that there are many different views on the origin of life, as held by the adherents to many different religions and non-religions.

Introduction to the arguments

Pitting "Creationism" against "Evolution" creates something of a false dichotomy. Strictly speaking, Creationism refers only to the belief that the universe in general and life in particular were created by some divine agency, while evolution refers only to the belief that species differentiate over time through the process of mechanism of mutation and natural selection. The two are therefore not mutually exclusive: Theistic Evolutionists, for example, believe that God created life, and that species differentiated by means of the mechanism of evolution.

The debate, therefore, centers on two issues:

• First, the issue of Abiogenesis: that is, the origin of life, and whether it was brought about by purely naturalistic processes, or a divine, creative act;
• Second, the issue of differentiation: that is, whether or not families, genera, and species developed naturally through the mechanism of mutation and natural selection.

People hold a variety of opinions regarding these two issues.

• "Atheistic evolutionists" believe that both life originated and differentiated through purely naturalistic means;
• "Theistic evolutionists" or "Evolutionary creationists" believe that life originated through Divine creative act, and differentiated through mutation and natural selection;
• "Special creationists" believe both that a supreme being created the basic "kinds" of life through divine creative act, and not through abiogenesis nor evolution. Of these, there are many subtypes. For example, some believe the Earth to be about 6,000 years years old while others believe the Earth to be billions of years old. Some are Christian and some are of another Religion.

Abiogenesis

Main article: Abiogenesis

The origin of life remains elusive to science, and is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of our world. Progress in this field is slow and sporadic, but it still draws the attention of many. A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are elusive. The issue revolves around the means by which the chemical ingredients of life, primarily carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, could have become arranged in such a way that they became a single, "living" entity, able to reproduce itself. The defining research in this field is known as the Miller-Urey experiment, which demonstrated that, under certain conditions, many of the organic components of life may arise spontaneously. However, no experiment has yet managed to produce self-replicating "living" compounds from these organic ingredients.

Naturalistic abiogenesis hypotheses

In this absence of conclusive research to support either side, several theories have arisen:

• "Genes first" models, the the RNA world hypothesis, suggests that short RNA molecules could have spontaneously formed that would then catalyze their own continuing replication. Early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids, protein-like molecules that are produced when amino acid solutions are heated. Other possibilities include systems of chemical reactions taking place within clay substrates or on the surface of pyrite rocks. None of these various hypotheses have strong experimental evidence behind them at this time, however. Many of them can be simulated and tested in the lab, but a lack of undisturbed sedimentary rock from that early in Earth's history leaves few opportunities to determine what may have actually happened in practice.

• "Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world hypothesis and others reject the idea of the self-replication of a "naked-gene" and postulate the emergence of a primitive metabolism which could provide an environment for the later emergence of RNA replication. One of the earliest incarnations of this idea was put forward in 1924 with Alexander Oparin's notion of primitive self-replicating vesicles which predated the discovery of the structure of DNA. More recent variants in the 1980s and 1990s include Günter Wächtershäuser's iron-sulfur world theory and models introduced by Christian de Duve based on the chemistry of thioesters. More abstract and theoretical arguments for the plausibility of the emergence of metabolism without the presence of genes include a mathematical model introduced by Freeman Dyson in the early 1980s, and Stuart Kauffman's notion of collectively autocatalytic sets discussed later in that decade.

• Hybrid models incorporate aspects of each.

Creationist abiogenesis hypothesis

Creationists propose no verifiable mechanism for abiogenesis. They assert the hypothesis that Life was created by God, and, by its very nature, could only have been created by God. They note that the creationist hypothesis, although not provable, is falsifiable, as a single demonstration of life arising from non-life would disprove the hypothesis. Creationists note that there has been no such demonstration, or even a fully coherent theory to explain it.

Creationists note that while science has synthesized some organic ingredients of life, the organic components of life are different than life itself, because they are not self-replicating. They further note that despite a number of efforts, neither the Miller-Urey experiment nor any subsequent research, nor any theory have conclusively demonstrated how the organic buildings blocks of life could have become arranged into a self-replicating "protocell".

Creationists argue that in the absence of a demonstrable, verifiable mechanism for the origin of life, dogmatic belief in atheistic abiogenesis is just as dependent on assumption as dogmatic belief in creationistic abiogenesis, and is therefore equally "unscientific." Thus they conclude that creationism is an intellectually justifiable position as to the origin of life.

Species Differentiation

Main articles: Mutation, Natural selection

The issue of mutation and natural selection is the primary source of debate between the different schools of thought.

• The theory of evolution asserts that speciation occurs by the process of mutation and natual selection. As such, it predicts a naturalistic mechanism for speciation, and evidence that speciation took place naturalistically.

• Creationism asserts that the species were created, already differentiated into "kinds" in their original form, by God. As such, it predicts no naturalistic mechanism for speciation, and evidence that speciation could not possibly have taken place naturalistically.

It is important to note, however, that the debate is not between those that "believe in evolution" and those that "do not believe in evolution". In fact, most special-creationists do not assert that no evolution ever takes place. Instead, evolutionists and special-creationists agree regarding Microevolution, while disagreeing on the issues of macroevolution and irreducible complexity.

Microevolution

Microevolution refers to small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection.

For example, moths may randomly develop white and black variants, and as a city becomes covered in soot, black moths are better camoflaged than white moths, so black moths grow in population, while white moths die off. There is a great deal of evidence for such changes, and special-creationists acknowledge that microevolution is a scientifically verifiable phenomenon.

Macroevolution

Macroevolution is the theory that speciation, or the development of species, occurs by means of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time. Evolutionists assert that all life on Earth has a common ancestor, and that more closely related species have more closely related common ancestors. Evolutionists assert, for instance, that humans and apes have a common ancestor; that dogs and whales have a common ancestor; and that penguins and ostriches have a common ancestor.

Special-creationists and evolutionists disagree regarding macroevolution. Evolutionists assert that the only substantial difference between microevolution and macroevolution is one of scale. Creationists assert that while research overwhelmingly supports microevolution, there is neither a coherent mechanism nor empirical evidence for macroevolution.

The debate over the relationship between macroevolution and microevolution has been going on since the 1860s, when evolution first became a widely accepted idea. Gregor Mendel, a Christian monk and creationist, is popularly known as the "father of modern genetics" for his discovery of the laws of genetic variation in his study of natural variation in plants. In a lecture on March 8, 1865, Mendel noted that his research described the mechanism of microevolution, but gave no grounds for belief in macroevolution, saying "No one will seriously maintain that in the open country the development of plants is ruled by other laws than in the garden bed. Here, as there, changes of type must take place if the conditions of life be altered, and the species possesses the capacity of fitting itself to its new environment. [However,] nothing justifies the assumption that the tendency to form varieties increases so extraordinarily that the species speedily lose all stability, and their offspring diverge into an endless series of extremely variable forms." To the contrary, he said, the tendency is toward stability, with variation being the exception, not the rule. Henig, "The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics," p. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, p. 141.

Darwin, on the other hand, saw no fundamental difference between microevolution and macroevolution. He asserted that "Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species -- that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species: or, again, between subspecies and well-marked varieties, or betwen lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage." Darwin, "Origin of Species," New York: Modern Library, 1998, p. 77.

Although Mendel's laws of inheritance were made public in 1866, his theory was not widely accepted until the early twentieth century. Darwin himself never read of Mendel's work, nor did Darwin propose any genetic mechanism for evolution. Darwin had discovered a variation ratio of 2.4:1 in a study of snapdragons which he published in 1868, similar to the 3:1 ratio that led Mendel to discover the laws of genetic variation. However, Darwin had no idea what it meant. Henig, "The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics," Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. Id., p. 143.

In the early 20th century, evolutionists fused Mendel's laws of inheritence into Darwin's theory of evolution, leading to the Modern evolutionary synthesis. Creationists, however, assert that the laws of genetic variation discovered by Mendel are incompatible with macroevolution, and that the modern evolutionary synthesis is therefore untenable.

Therefore, while creationists and evolutionists agree as to the existence of microevolution, they disagree as to the existence of macroevolution. While evolutionists see the difference between microevolution and macroevolution to be one of scale, special creationists embrace the empirical evidence for microevolution, but assert that belief in macroevolution is a scientifically unjustifiable position.

Evolutionists have proposed two theories for the mechanism of macroevolution, and both are disputed by creationists.:

• Gradualism is the theory that evolution takes place slowly, step by step and mutation by mutation, with life diverging into its present forms over enormous periods of time. Gradualism predicts that the fossil record should contain transitional forms between species, as well as fossils of the common ancestors of the species of today. Darwin noted the lack of the transitional forms predicted by his theory in the fossil record, and explained that "But, as by this theory inumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ... I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time." Darwin, "Origin of Species," New York: Modern Library, 1998, p. 213. Evolutionists today assert that the fossil record contains such transitional forms in adequate numbers to justify the theory. Creationists assert that, after almost 150 years of collecting evidence, the fossil record still contains no transitional forms, or at least not nearly as many as gradualism would predict.

• Punctuated Equilibrium is the theory that evolution takes place in short periods of rapid development by isolated gene pools, followed by long periods of equilibrium. Proponents to this theory believe it explains the lack of transitional forms that a gradualist theory would predict, because the transition took place very quickly (in geological terms), leaving few traces. Creationists assert that evolutionist support for Punctuated equilibrium discredits the gradualist approach, because it shows that even evolutionists recognize the lack of transitional forms. Creationists then challenge the theory of punctuated equilibrium, by arguing that breeding in isolated gene pools is otherwise known as inbreeding, and is known to lead to deterioration of a species, and not beneficial development.

Irreducible complexity

Main article: Irreducible complexity

Evolutionists and creationists disagree on the issue of irreducible complexity. Special creationists assert that it exists, while evolutionists deny that it exists. "Irreducible complexity" is defined as: "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). Those ascribing to irreducible complexity assert that systems that demonstrate irreducible complexity cannot be explained naturalistically, because each component of the system would be useless, or even disadvantageous, without the others. They conclude that "irreducible" systems must have been assembled simultaneously, by an Intelligent Designer. For evidence, they point to phenomena such as the eye, the four chambered heart, blood clotting, cilia, and mammary glands as being "irreducibly complex," in that they require an enormous number of parts which would not function on their own in order to function at all. See "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe for a more complete discussion. Evolutionists consider "Irreducible complexity" to be pseudoscience, and point to means by which supposedly "irreducible systems" could have developed naturally. See, for example, http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html, discussing recent research regarding the origin of the eye from "light sensitive cells in the brain."

Biblically Literal Creationist theory

Evolutionary theory is, without question, the dominant point of view among the scientific community. In 1987, Newsweek reported: “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism. However, although only a tiny minority of scientists ascribe to biblically literal creation, they have proposed a number of alternative interpretations of empirical evidence, in support of their belief.

Biblically literal creationists believe that God created the world from nothing approximately 6,000 years ago (although some will allow for up to 10,000 years ago), that the world was destroyed by a global flood approximately 2,000 years later, with only a single boat of people, and two of each kind of animal, surviving, and spreading after that. The hypothesis therefore makes several predictions:

• Evidence that current geological formations were formed catastrophically, by means of global flood and rapid continential motion;
• Evidence that rock strata were laid down by means of liquefaction;
• Evidence of an ice age following the flood approximately 4,000 years ago;
• Evidence of catastrophic climate change and mass extinction;
• Evidence of some means by which humans could have lived 800 years or longer prior to the flood;
• Evidence that all life descended from a set of "kinds" within the past 4,000 years;
• Evidence of microevolution leading to subsequent variation of life;
• No evidence or mechanism for macroevolution or transitional forms between "kinds;"
• Evidence that civilization originated in the Middle East approximately 4,000 years ago.
• Evidence of irreducible complexity.

For a sampling of some creationist hypotheses, see www.creationscience.com.

The Great Flood

The Flood and mythology

A great number of cultures at all times and places had, or still have, a story of a worldwide flood. American Indian, Chinese, African, Aboriginal Australian, European, and Middle Eastern Cultures all have some ancient report of a worldwide flood. For a partial catalog, see [[1]].

• Creationists typically assert that the fact that nearly all cultures have a flood story makes it very likely that the myth originated in some historical event: namely, an actual, historical, global flood. They argue that the variation and mythological nature of the stories is a consequence of its being passed down through oral tradition by ancient cultures spreading across the globe after the flood; but that the universality of the story indicates that it has a basis in fact. They point in particular to the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains an account of the flood very similar to the Genesis account, but with a significantly stronger mythological character. They note that, while the vast majority of ancient accounts of the flood have a strongly mythological character, the Genesis account is unique in that it speaks in very concrete terms of the events it purports to describe: of names and periods of time and types of wood used to construct the Ark. They conclude that, among all the ancient accounts of a global flood, Genesis is the most historically reliable.

• Evolutionists typically assert that no worldwide flood occurred, although they support views of large local floods, such as the flooding of the previously mostly dry black sea (which is where linguists postulate indo-europeans originate from), when the bosphorus was breached by geological factors. Evolutionists postulate that the widespread myths reflect a deep cultural memory of these catastrophic events, and that those myths likely influenced the author of Genesis. Those with knowledge of ancient civilisations also point out that there are remarkable similarities between the account of Noah in Genesis, and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, for which much earlier written forms have been found than for the Torah.

Dating fossils and geological structures

Accelerated radiometric decay hypothesis

In 2002 creationists in the US and Australia proposed a new dating method based on helium diffusion through rock. Helium is a by-product of radioactive decay and the amount of trapped helium is, in principle, as good a measure of time as the heavier decay products such as potassium or lead. However, helium is a gas and diffuses through the rock. The team of creationists arranged for the diffusion rate of helium to be measured for the first time. The diffusion rate enables an independent dating method to be established. On rocks dated to be one billion years old (by radiometric means) the creationists found that much of the helium had not diffused out and obtained a rock date of only 5700 years. The creationists argue that this indicates that nuclear decay rates must have been accelerated in the past by some mechanism. Mainstream scientists argue that the diffusion calculations are flawed. The debate is on-going.

Creationists claim that the speed of light may have changed over time, thus providing a mechanism for the changing rate of radioactive decay. Only a few supported this proposal in the past but the recent helium diffusion dating method has spurred interest, although the speed of light is only one of the fundamental constants that are being considered. While there is some recent, controversial evidence that the speed of light might have changed in the very early universe, physicists say that the possible change is too small to create the claimed effects.

Relativity and time measurement

The theory of relativity implies that the passage of time on Earth may have been different from the passage of time in the wider universe. Creationists state that while a few thousand years elapsed on earth, millions of years may have elapsed in the wider universe. In particular, the physicist Russell Humphreys has proposed a creationist 'Big Bang'-like cosmology with an expanding universe that is bounded, unlike the conventional Big-Bang.

The field equations of General Relativity dictate that time transpires millions of times faster at the edges of a bounded universe as compared to the centre early during expansion. Late in expansion time transpires at an approximately uniform rate. This cosmology, which allows for billion-year old galaxies initiated from an only thousands of years old centre, appears to be the natural consquence of an expanding non-bounded universe.

Physicists have said that for time to be warped on Earth enough to cause such an effect would cause a gravitational distortion large enough to destroy the planet although it is unclear whether this arguement applies to Humphrey's creationist cosmology.

The debate and the scientific community

Support for evolution is the dominant point of view among the scientific community to an almost exclusive extent. No other theory has been advanced which matches with existing scientific knowledge and makes predictions for future research and experiment.

Supporters of evolution assert that the widespread acceptance of it among those with sophisticated scientific educations, backgrounds, and experiences, coupled with the fact that creationism is relegated largely to parts of the religious community and a few fringe movements among academics who are often widely accused of pseudoscience, gives evolution significantly more credibility.

Creationists assert that the size of a movement is not necessarily associated with its credibility; that just as Darwin started a "fringe movement," looked down upon by the general scientific community until its merits became popularly accepted, creationism has developed a number of valid critiques of evolution which should be addressed on their merits, and not merely brushed aside.

Perspectives on the debate

Thomas Huxley was one of the first advocates of evolutionary theory. In 1885, in an essay to William Gladstone [2] Huxley argued that the conflict between religion and science was misunderstood. True religion, according to Huxley, is embodied in the words of Micah: "What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God?" Huxley argued that religion benefits from science insofar as science strips it of the things that burden that "obscure" or "mutilate" that "perfect ideal of religion."

"A faculty of wrath lay in those ancient Israelites, and surely the prophet's staff would have made swift acquaintance with the head of the scholar who had asked Micah whether, peradventure, the Lord further required of him an implicit belief in the accuracy of the cosmogony of Genesis!"

Pope John Paul II in 1996 made the official position of the Catholic Church partial acceptance of evolution: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge." [3] The Pope excluded, however, evolutionary adjuncts that relied on materialist assumptions: "Theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

Carl Sagan wrote, "I meet may people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. Evidence has little to dow ith it: What they wish to be true, they believe is true ... The clearest evidence of our evolution can be found in our genes. But evolution is still being fought, ironically by those whose own DNA proclaims it -- in the schools, in the courts, in textbook publishing houses, and on the question of just how much pain we can inflect on other animals without crossing some ethical threshold." (Sagan 1996, p. 325)

Phillip Johnson, creationist author, wrote "One way or another, Darwinists meet the question "Is Darwinism true?" with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: 'Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.' Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity." [4].

David Hull, reviewing Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial for Nature magazine, wrote: "What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror.... The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray."

Samuel Butler, a famous 19th century author and critic of both religion and Darwinism wrote, "I attacked the foundations of morality in 'Erewhon,' and nobody cared two straws, I tore open the wounds of my Redeemer as he hung upon the Cross in 'The Fair Haven,' and people rather liked it. But when I attacked Mr. Darwin they were up in arms in a moment." (Butler, p 54).

Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 his concluding chapter of The Origin of Species: "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled." [5]

The National Academy of Sciences stated: "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion. Conservative Christians who are strongly literalist in their views fear that if their children learn evolution, they will cease to believe in God. Without God to guide them, children will grow up to be bad people. In the words of prominent creationist Henry R Morris, 'Evolution is at the foundation of communism, fascism, Freudianism, social darwinism, behaviorism, Kinseyism, materialism, atheism, and in the religious world, modernism and neo-orthodoxy' (Morris 1963, p. 24). Conservative Christians also believe that the child who loses faith in God also is lost to salvation. Clearly, antievolutionists' motives for opposing the teaching of evolution to their children are strong. As shown below, however, the strict literalist view is not universally held by even the majority of Christians in the United States." Read full article.

Henry Morris wrote: " "No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." [6]

Conrad Hyers wrote in The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science: "It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism ... Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it." [7]

Paul of Tarsus wrote, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:18-22.

Stephen Jay Gould, a vocal evolutionist and scientist, compared the scientific acceptance of evolution to the acceptance of gravity: "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" [8]

References

• Carl Sagan. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
• Samuel Butler, Evolution Old and New, 1879, p. 54.
• Morris, H.R. 1963. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.