IN THE BEGINNING
In the beginning, before you or I or even this universe existed, an event occurred that made our presence possible. Exactly what that special something was— the Big Bang, divine intervention—nobody knows. For centuries human beings have pondered the question of life’s origins. But today we aren’t any closer to discovering the answer than we were when we started searching.
Yet science and religion seem to be in a never-ending squabble. The creation-versus-evolution debate has received more than its fair share of sensationalist press, with the flashiest stories garnering widespread attention. But beneath the melodrama lies a passionate debate, one riddled with misinterpretations of creationism, intelligent design, and biological evolution. All three have a different take on how life started, as well as where its headed.
Creationism
Creationism is the belief that the universe, and everything it contains, was created by a presupposed God. This term, often employed in the creation-versus-evolution debate, refers most often to someone whose refutation of the theory of evolution is religion-based. Yet biological evolution is not the only point of contention between science and creationism. Creationists also dispute common descent, the idea that a group of organisms have a shared ancestor. The age of the Earth is another hot-button topic. Old Earth creationists do not contradict current estimates of the Earth’s age. Young Earth creationists, by contrast, believe that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. They derive this figure from a literal interpretation of the creation events outlined in the Book of Genesis.
One of the most famous Young Earth creationists was Christian apologist Henry Madison Morris, cofounder of the Institute of Creation Science and the Creation Research Society. Creation science attempts to use scientific means to explain how God created the universe. Morris, who held a PhD in hydraulic engineering, was a professor of the subject for many years. He believed that he could explain the great flood using the knowledge of water he had gained throughout his academic career. Morris and fellow Young Earth creationist John C. Whitcomb outlined this belief in their Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. The book has been widely criticized for misquoting sources and taking quotes out of context.
Using science to prove creationist beliefs is not unusual. Neither is using these beliefs to disprove scientific conclusions. Earlier this year, Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics ministry with a focus on Young Earth creationism, unveiled the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum—a 60,000-square-foot, $27-million facility—showcases Young Earth creationist beliefs. Some of the exhibits, including Noah’s Ark and the great flood, a 6,000-year-old Earth, and the simultaneous existence of human beings and dinosaurs, directly oppose evolutionary theory. According to this museum, if you believe in evolution, you’re abandoning a religious doctrine and are on a slippery slope to complete ruin. One museum display depicts the road to ruin as a young man viewing pornography on his computer.
However, not all creationists reject biological evolution. Some, in fact, hold the belief that evolution is one of God’s creations. As well, creationists who follow theistic evolution do not feel there is a contradiction between evolution and religious teachings. They often believe that human beings were created specially by God.
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design (or ID), in its current form, started in the late 20th century, and has continued to gain followers. Unlike creationism, intelligent design does need the universe to be created by an almighty deity. Instead, the theory holds that random processes, like biological evolution, are not enough to explain complicated aspects of the universe—as a sophisticated cause is a better explanation for the phenomena we experience. One of the better-known arguments was put forth in 1802 by William Paley in Natural Theology. He compares the phenomenon of finding a watch to that of observing complex organisms. The existence of a watchmaker is made manifest by looking at a watch. It is difficult to imagine such a complex and refined artifact arising by natural forces without the aid of a designer. So, too, argued Paley, one can observe a complex organism and infer it must have a designer as well. Some proponents of intelligent design believe that the designer is God—but not necessarily.
“I always think it’s best not to drag God in too quickly,” says Denyse O’Leary, a Toronto-based journalist, Roman Catholic, and advocate of intelligent-design theory. “The basic idea [of intelligent design] is that information does not arise from a combination of chance and luck. That, in fact, there is another element. Now, one thing that confuses a lot of people is the other element is not necessarily the hand of God. Design doesn’t need to be the hand of God, but it isn’t either chance or luck. It’s something else that’s working in the universe, something we may not know much about. But don’t forget, the last 150 years people have been simply trying to prove that [this other element] exists. So it’s no use asking what is it, if you’ve only just now decided that it actually exists.” She is currently teaching a course titled By Design or By Chance? for the Continuing Education program at St. Mike’s. The course examines the controversy through analyzing the disagreement between materialists and non-materialists on the origin of life. Materialist theory states that matter is the only thing that truly exists in the universe. The theory can also be extended to include a doubt of spiritual existence. Followers of creationism and intelligent design are non-materialists. They believe there is existence beyond what we define as matter.
Intelligent design advocates employ three major concepts to promote their viewpoint. The first is irreducible complexity. Introduced by Michael Behe in 1996, it is defined as “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” The second is specified complexity, which refers to an organism so complex that it could not have been created through random evolution— the only option, then, is that it was created by an intelligent designer. Fine tuning of the universe is the third concept. It holds that too many physical constants have had to work in conjunction with one another for life on Earth to have arisen by mere chance.
Evolution
Evolution is a contextual term. It is used throughout science, but not always in the same way. In relation to the creationversus- evolution debate, the implied term is “biological evolution.” But what does this term actually mean? Douglas J. Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist at Stony Brook University in New York, defines it as “[heritable] change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations.” The two major points of this definition remain that biological evolution works at the population level, not at the individual, and that change must be inherited by the next generation. These points provide a framework for distinguishing between evolution and non-evolution.
Darwinism is what leads to biological evolution. It occurs through natural selection, the interaction between the environment and heritable variability that already exists in a population of organisms. Some traits, those “selected for,” help an organism survive. The traits that are selected for occur at a higher rate in a population, and traits that are not selected for occur less frequently. It is different from biological evolution because it describes how evolution might happen.
British author Richard Dawkins, often referred to as Darwin’s Rottweiler, believes that religion and the theory of evolution are irreconcilable. He has no reservations about stating his disdain for creationism and intelligent design. His 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker—the title being a spin on Paley’s 1802 argument—argues for evolution by natural selection. “I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence,” Dawkins writes. “A good case can be made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe, wherever life may be found.” However, not all scientists agree with his ferocious attitude towards evolution’s skeptics. Many feel that it leads the public to believe that all Darwinists are like Dawkins, which is not the case.
In the end
In the End, perhaps a more pertinent question after considering all of these perspectives is “What is real?” The true heart of the creation-versus-evolution debate lies in the fact that proponents of all three viewpoints—creationism, intelligent design, and evolution—experience a unique individual reality. For creationists, God is real. For many Darwinists, He is not. These realities do not seem to be reconcilable. They aren’t even reproducible—just ask one side to try to experience the other reality.
But is that even necessary? By definition, theories are falsifiable. Arguably, it is the debate that a theory engenders that makes it useful. The act of each viewpoint trying to falsify others encourages skepticism. This is how new theories are born. If we all agreed upon one theory, there would be immense intellectual laziness—the danger of taking things for granted. A little friendly competition isn’t a bad thing. But let’s keep it friendly. If history is anything to judge by, we still have quite a few centuries left with each other.
