Evolution Versus Creation Science
The purpose of this essay is to shed light upon the war between proponents of evolutionary theory on the one hand, and traditional Christians on the other. For perspective, we will begin with a brief review of history. We will also define in broad terms the opposing positions in this war, identify some of the combatants and discuss a few of the tactics they employ. In an effort to maintain our focus, we will intentionally avoid, insofar as possible, delving into the merits of scientific arguments on either side of the controversy. That task will remain for other essays. We will conclude with thoughts on the significance of the conflict between evolutionists and Christianity and what ordinary Christians can and should do about it.
The theory of evolution has been taught in U.S. schools for such a long time that Americans generally take it for granted. Evolutionary theory so overshadows the biblical view of creation today that even many Christians are unaware of the ongoing battle between creationists, who believe God created all things from nothing, and evolutionists, who believe that all things came into being by natural processes. What’s worse, Christians often fail to recognize how threatening the theory of evolution is to historic Christianity.
Evolutionists and creationists hold radically different and fundamentally incompatible worldviews. The two have been at odds for more than a century and a half and although it seldom makes the news, the war between them is still being waged. This war shows no sign of ending any time soon.
Although the name Charles Darwin has become nearly synonymous with the theory of evolution, Darwin’s work in the 19th century was based upon earlier theories. The roots of Darwinian evolution extend at least as far back as the Age of Enlightenment in 17th and 18th century Europe. Some argue that they go all the way back to the time of Aristotle. Darwin’s great contribution was the concept of natural selection.
Not all creationists are Christians (Muslims and Jews also believe in creation by God), but most leading creationist organizations in the US are Christian. Evolutionists are generally atheistic or at least agnostic, rejecting the Creator God and believing in natural processes instead of special creation to explain origins. Creationists, on the other hand, believe that the theory of evolution, at least macroevolution, is invalid and plays no role in the creation at all. Traditional, six-day creationists specifically and adamantly reject the traditional evolutionist position that life came into being all by itself and then developed into increasingly complex forms over extended periods of time, as described by Charles Darwin in his book, Origin of Species (1859).
Central to the conflict is belief (or lack of it) in the supernatural. Evolutionists deny the existence of the supernatural, while for creationists, the supernatural God is central to a proper understanding of how the universe and everything in it came to be.
THE SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL
The war of ideas concerning origins came to a head in 1925, when a Tennessee schoolteacher, John Scopes, was prosecuted for violating that states law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. The trial, popularly known as the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” attracted a great deal of attention. Scopes was convicted, but he appealed and his conviction was overturned on the basis of a technicality. The Tennessee law banning evolution from public school classrooms remained on the books for another forty years.
Creationism as a movement declined after the notoriety of the Scopes trial subsided, but gained strength again by the late 1950s and early 1960s. By then several important books on creationism had been published and legislation favorable to the teaching of creationist theory in public schools had been proposed by various creationist organizations.
THE RISE OF CREATION SCIENCE
1961 saw the publication of a landmark book by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb: Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. Morris and Whitcomb were well qualified to address their subject. Their position was not only that science and scripture are compatible, but also that scientific evidence supports a literal reading of the Creation account found in the Bible. Genesis Flood, along with previous archeological work and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, demonstrated that Christians have more than faith to support their beliefs. Creation science is not the source of Christian faith but it is a confirmation showing the rationality of that faith.
Henry M. Morris was a Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. He earned his B.S. degree (Bachelor of Science) “with distinction” at Rice University in 1939. His M.S. (Master of Science) and Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) degrees from the University of Minnesota followed in 1948 and 1950, respectively. His was a very distinguished career with more than one biographical listing in “Who’s Who.”
No less distinguished in his field was John C. Whitcomb, Jr., who was a Professor of Old Testament at Grace Theological Seminary in Indiana. He earned his A.B. degree (Artium Baccalaureus) cum laude from Princeton University in 1948. He went on to earn his B.D. degree (Bachelor of Divinity) in 1951, his Th.M. degree (Master of Theology) in 1953 and his Th.D. (Doctor of Theology) degree in 1957, all from Grace Theological Seminary.
Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications, weighing in at 500 pages and heavily footnoted, is considered to have been foundational to the field of study known today as creation science. Genesis Flood, which is still in print, was followed by Evolution: The Fossils Say No! by Duane Gish. Gish was an associate of Morris and Evolutionwas also very influential in creationist circles.
Today, creation scientists believe that the earth is relatively young, only 6,000 years or so old. They believe that Noah’s flood took place about 4,000 years ago, that it lasted a little more than a year and that it dramatically (catastrophically) changed the face of the earth. The flood is central to the debate between evolutionists, who deny it, and creation scientists, who believe it took place as recorded in the Bible.
CREATION SCIENCE BANNED FROM THE CLASSROOM
Creation science continued to gain momentum until 1981, when the state of Arkansas passed a law that provided for the teaching of creationism in Arkansas public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately sued the state, claiming that the law was unconstitutional on the basis of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The First Amendment, of course, says nothing about evolutionism or creationism, but it does, among several other things, prohibit the establishment by the state of a state religion. The entire First Amendment is a mere 44 words long, only sixteen of which pertain to religion:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
The creationist position, of course, is that although creation science does complement Genesis, it is perfectly good science that can stand alone and on its own merits. The court disagreed and ruled that creation science is not science, but a religion instead. Accordingly, the Arkansas law went down in flames. In 1987 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled likewise in a case appealed from the state of Louisiana.
Evolution had its victories in the courtroom, but those victories in no way spelled the end of creationism and creation science in the US. Today, although evolution still enjoys its preeminent and legally protected place in public school classrooms, there are dozens of creationist organizations in the United States, as well as museums, books and video productions teaching creationist thought.
DEBATES AMONG CHRISTIANS
In addition to the ongoing conflict between evolutionists and creationists, there are debates within each camp. Among creationists, most of the discussion centers on the time element of creation. There are at least four main theories to explain time in Genesis 1-2. These are the gap theory, the day-age theory, the so-called framework theory and six-day creation.
THE GAP THEORY OF CREATION
This theory essentially holds that there were two distinct creation events. The first of these was described in Genesis 1:1, where we read from the King James Version:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
According to Gap Theory, Genesis 1:2 then describes a long period of darkness and chaos (the “gap”) spanning billions of years:
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”
Proponents of Gap Theory hold that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 may be correctly translated to read, “And the earth became without form…” It is by means of this translation that gap theorists inject an indeterminate amount of time into the creation account, after which Genesis goes on to describe a second creation event, essentially a re-creation of God’s original work. This second creation event is the one with which we are familiar, the one circumscribed by six days of creation culminating in the creation of Adam and Eve.
The gap between the original creation and its subsequent re-creation allows for long ages of uniformitarian processes, such as gradual sedimentary deposition and the rock formations geologists have described in the geological column. Gap theory was popularized in the early part of the last century by the Scofield Reference Bible (1909).
Traditionalist Christians disagree with gap theorists, especially their reading of Genesis 1:2, pointing out that nowhere in scripture is there any explicit teaching of two creation events separated by long ages of chaos. They also charge that the broad context of the Bible provides no support for gap theory.
THE DAY-AGE THEORY OF CREATION
This explanation of time in Genesis proposes that each of the days referred to in Genesis 1 actually represents an age. Day-age creationists cite 2 Peter 3:8, in which we learn that in the sight of the Lord, one day is as a thousand years. They also cite expressions like “in Abraham’s day,” which refers to a period of time instead of a single day, to support the day-age concept.
According to traditional creationists, the day-age theory ignores the fact that each of the six days of creation is described in Genesis as having an evening and a morning. In order to fit day-age theory, the terms “evening” and “morning” would have to take on metaphorical meaning or constitute poetic language in the midst of what otherwise is clear historical narrative. Traditional creationists say this is too much of a stretch.
Like gap theory, day-age theory allows for long periods of time and consequently, biological evolution. Traditionalists generally find this incompatible with historic Christianity.
THE FRAMEWORK THEORY OF CREATION
Framework theory holds that the early chapters of Genesis consist of historical narrative punctuated by poetic (symbolic or metaphorical) language. The poetic parts, according to the framework hypothesis, include the reference in Genesis 1:5 to “…the evening and the morning were the first day,” which is repeated for each of the days of Creation. Framework theory thus dispenses with the problem of evenings and mornings by treating them as metaphorical instead of literal.
Framework theory concludes that the essence of Genesis is not historical narrative, but drama, a play in seven acts. Framework theory allows time for the integration of concepts like The Big Bang Theory and Darwinian Evolution into the creation story. The days in the framework hypothesis are nothing more than literary devices to create a framework for lengthy periods of development of the type proposed by conventional science, such as the spontaneous generation of life (superceded by abiogenesis) and the evolution of new species from earlier forms, all kicked off by the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe.
SIX-DAY CREATION
Six-day Creation, which is the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis, takes the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2 to be the actual meaning of Genesis 1-2. Traditionalists believe that the first option in understanding a text is to follow its plain meaning and they find no compelling argument to treat the Genesis account of Creation as anything but literal. According to six-day creationists, one need not jump through hoops to understand these chapters. They believe that by describing each of the six days of creation as having a morning and an evening, God makes it unmistakably clear that these were literal days. The six-day position is that there was only one creation event, there were no gaps in Creation and that God created everything in six contiguous, twenty-four hour time periods. There is no room or justification for lengthy periods of development by natural processes. According to this doctrine, God completed the entire process of Creation in the space of six conventional days, a total of 144 hours in the modern, literal sense of the word. Six-day creationists generally believe in a young earth, as supported by the genealogies found in the Bible.
DEBATES AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS
Among evolutionary thinkers there are ongoing differences of opinion about exactly how evolution took place. Consequently, evolutionary theory has changed over time. For example, evolutionists have backed away from the linear view of the evolution of man. This was the idea that humans evolved in an unbroken chain of evolutionary development from ape-like creatures to modern man. This concept was still being taught in U.S. public schools as recently as forty or fifty years ago. Since then, the linear evolution of man has been discarded and replaced by a branching theory. According to this school of thought, mankind is not a direct descendent of apes, but does share a common ancestor with them. The pattern of evolutionary development is now seen by most evolutionists to be more like a tree with branches than a straight, unbroken line.
This is not the only change in evolutionary thinking in relatively recent times. Evolutionists have shifted emphasis from the fossil record to genetics in their arguments supporting evolutionary claims. Another development is the relatively new assertion that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
The idea that birds may have evolved from dinosaurs is based largely upon the fossil remains of a creature called the archaeopteryx, which had both bird and dinosaur-like features. Although classified as a bird, similarities between its fossil remains and those of therapod dinosaurs fueled speculation that the two were related. Since the 1970’s more and more evolutionists have subscribed to the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs and today, it is the consensus among evolutionary scientists.
Another significant change in evolutionary thought centers on how life came to be in the first place. For a very long time, evolutionary scientists subscribed to a concept of origins known as spontaneous generation. During the latter half of the 19th century, they junked that idea and replaced it with an updated theory called abiogenesis.
EVOLUTION, SPONTANEOUS GENERATION AND ABIOGENESIS
Spontaneous generation is a very old idea that life arises from non-living matter by spontaneous means. This is notion goes back to the time of Aristotle and is consistent with the observable appearance of maggots in rotting flesh and the appearance of tadpoles in mud puddles. Spontaneous generation was historically linked to evolutionary theories. Experiments by Pasteur and others, however, provided powerful evidence refuting the idea of spontaneous generation. This led to a separation of the theories of spontaneous generation and evolution by the second half of the 19th century.
Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species focused primarily on the development of life, not the origin of life. Consequently, Darwin did nothing to replace spontaneous generation theory. Not long after Darwin, others advanced a hypothesis called abiogenesis. This theory eventually replaced spontaneous generation as the accepted explanation of origins.
Like spontaneous generation, abiogenesis holds that life arose by itself from non-living matter. Abiogenesis involves complex and very gradual biological and chemical processes. Abiogenesis is a kind of “chemical evolution” involving random combinations of substances, energy inputs and other conditions that produce more and more complex molecules, eventually culminating in the appearance of living cells. Abiogenesis boils down to creation by chance.
There are several significant differences between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation did not attempt to explain how life emerged from non-living matter, while abiogenesis does. Spontaneous generation held that life came forth more or less suddenly, while abiogenesis says it emerged over extended periods of time. Finally, spontaneous generation said that life was complex when it appeared. Abiogenesis claims that it was very simple at first, gradually evolving in to complex forms over long periods of time.
Even though modern evolutionists no longer believe in simple spontaneous generation, what they do believe in (abiogenesis) amounts to gradual spontaneous generation. Creationists see abiogenesis as the impossible taking place over long periods of time instead of all at once. The basic idea behind the evolutionist theory of origins, which is that life arose by itself from non-living matter, remains the same as it has always been.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
Evolutionists have enjoyed great success and gained widespread acceptance of their theories. They have been so successful that many modern Christians, struggling to reconcile evolution with the Bible, are no longer committed to the plain truth claims of Genesis. Many of these Christians are not convinced by the findings of creation scientists. Christians who subscribe to the gap, day-age or framework theory, for example, generally incorporate at least some part of modern scientific (evolutionary) thought into their view of creation. Many are on a fool’s errand, trying to harmonize evolution and Genesis, two fundamentally incompatible points of view.
Some evolutionists have proposed working with liberal Christians, those who reject a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, in a collaboration against conservative Christian (fundamentalist) ideas. This amounts to a divide and conquer strategy. The well-known evolutionary philosopher Michael Ruse (1940 – 1924) was among those who favor this strategy. Although adamantly opposed to creationist positions, Ruse, like others of his persuasion, was less vociferous than some of his fellow evolutionists. This latter, more aggressive group of evolutionary thinkers includes Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist and British evolutionary biologist, and the late Daniel Dennett (1942 – 2024), another atheist and American philosopher.
The school of thought shared by Dawkins and Dennett is openly hostile to religion and anyone, including liberal Christians and even other evolutionists, who do not share their open hatred of the fundamentalist Christian worldview. Ruse, Dawkins and Dennett are all highly respected by evolutionists and have a number of books to their credit.
PRESENT DAY ATTACKS ON CREATION SCIENCE
Those who support evolutionary theory and oppose creation science generally dismiss the work of creation scientists as unscientific. The aforementioned Michael Ruse, for example, wrote this in a piece called Creationism in Stanford University’s Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (August 30, 2003 and September 21, 2018):
“Scientifically, Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair.”
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, has a series of articles on creationism. Although frequently an unreliable source of information, Wikipedia voices typical mainstream views on the subject of creationism. The Wikipedia article Creation Science has this to say:
“Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid.”
Wikipedia uses the term pseudoscientific repeatedly to describe flood geology, intelligent design theory, what it calls neo-creationism and other aspects of creationist thought. It also dismisses the Creation account found in Genesis as mythical.
Part two of this essay will go a little deeper into evolutionist attacks on creation science and discuss several organizations on both sides of the argument. Part three will conclude with why all this matters and what everyday Christians can and should be doing about it.