First we need to understand exactly what is meant by some important terms. Because different people use them different ways, I’m going to give the definitions, as I understand them to be commonly used, and then address the problems with each as I define it.
People who believe the world was created in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago normally use the term “creationism.” Creationists insist their way of interpreting the Bible is a strict literal interpretation.
“Intelligent design (ID)” is a scientific argument that the structures seen in the world are too complex to have been created by chance. Basically intelligent design supporters say that a very complex thing such as a bird’s wing or an eye requires too many separate pieces to have evolved by chance and therefore indicate a designer. Unfortunately intelligent design has been used as a “scientific” explanation of how God created the world in six days. That idea is not actually part of intelligent design but the use of it in such a way has discredited ID.
The term “evolution” refers to the idea that the universe and all life is the result of random chance operating continuously over some 15 billion years with the earth existing for the last 4 billion years.
The Problems:
The concept defined above as “creationism” is not actually in the Bible. The idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago was a calculation made by a German monk in the 1400’s.
For anyone who actually knows two languages, it quickly becomes obvious that a strict literal translation from one language to another is literally impossible. Ancient Hebrew has very few words compared to English and no vowels. Many words in Hebrew have multiple meanings. Translators do their best to translate these words given the context and their understanding of the Bible. However, sometimes translators miss the mark that may have been intended in the original text. In the case of Genesis, science has actually shed light on some words, in my opinion. Examples, the Hebrew word “evening” and the word for “disorder” are the same. The Hebrew word for “morning” and the word for “order” are the same. In addition the word for “day” and the word for “era” are the same. So the phrase normally translated as, “...evening and morning, the first day” could also be translated “...disorder to order, the first era.” So which translation is correct?
First we can look to history. The Pharisees were an extremely legalistic group who knew the Old Testament intimately in the original Hebrew. In spite of all their calculations and interpretations, they never came up with an age for the world. That alone is a good indication that the calculations of a German Monk 1400 years later are not Gospel and should not be blindly accepted. In addition, it must be recognized that the Word of God as revealed in the Bible and the Word of God as revealed in nature are both true. And they should agree. If the Word of God and the evidence in nature don’t seem to agree then understanding of one of them is in error. The error could be in either one’s understanding of the Bible (some Christians cannot conceive that their own understanding of the Bible might be in error) or in one’s understanding of nature (some scientists cannot conceive that their understanding of nature might be in error). So let’s examine some evidence from nature.
The Grand Canyon is extremely difficult to explain in terms of 6000 years. But even more difficult are the series of islands culminating in the Hawaiian Islands. This group of islands and seamounts extends for several hundred miles to the northwest from Hawaii. They are rather clearly the result of a series of volcanoes forming each in turn as they have passed over a hot spot in the Earth’s crust. Even now a new island is forming but will not break the surface of the sea for perhaps another 1000 years. There is simply no way to explain these islands in terms of 6000 years of creation. Some would argue that the explanation is simply “God made it that way.” If God “made it that way,” then God would be presenting false evidence in nature. This assertion “God made it that way” denies the validity of the evidence found in nature and by extension (without intention of doing so) implies God is a liar. This is not biblically acceptable. A foundational principle of Christianity is God cannot lie.
In conclusion, I cannot accept creationism, as defined above, because I do not believe it is correct either scientifically or biblically.
Intelligent Design is an entirely different thing. There are numerous evidences of intelligent design. One good book on this topic is The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder. Another is Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe.
Essentially, intelligent design says complex things are useless (perhaps even fatal to the organism) in a partial, half completed form. Therefore nothing living could have been formed by a series of small incremental improvements. Darwin himself admitted that if such irreducible complexities existed his theory of evolution would break down. The flagellum, which is useless without any of its 30 plus complex proteins, is an example. Another is the cascade of events allowing blood to clot. Numerous cellular events defy all efforts to explain how they could have evolved without guidance. Other examples can be discovered in the above mentioned books.
The response from evolutionists has been to insist that even though they have no explanation, they have faith that there must be one. Serious science is based on actual evidence. An accurate, elegant scientific theory is the one that best explains what we know, not what we have faith we will someday figure out. If the proponents of intelligent design would stop with simply saying that the best explanation for the things we know is that there must have been some source of intelligent design, the theory is virtually unassailable. The problem comes when people try to add more into the theory then they actually have evidence to support.
Classical Darwinian evolution is scientifically dead. Darwin theorized a continuing series of tiny changes that over vast periods of time produced all the variety of life. At that time archeological development of the fossil record was in its infancy. There simply was no evidence one way or the other.
Over the last 150 years enormous amounts of research has been done on innumerable fossil strata throughout the world. In all of this research no definite transitional forms have been found much less a continuous series of transitional forms. Species spring into the fossil record fully formed and continue essentially unchanged until they eventually disappear. If classical Darwinian evolution had any validity at all, transitional forms should dominate not only the fossil record but also the living animals that surround us. In actual fact, the fossil evidence shows little change except for the dramatic sudden appearance of numerous new forms at certain key points that are defined as new ages in paleontology. These species appear fully formed and in much too short a period of time to be explained by traditional evolutionary theory.
Francis Crick wrote: “Given the weaknesses of all theories of terrestrial genesis (the origin of life on earth), directed panspermia (the deliberate planting of life on earth) should still be considered a serious possibility,” page 86, The Science of God.
Francis Crick was a committed atheist who realized that evolution simply could not explain the evidence discovered in the fossil record. He sought to explain it by attributing the sudden appearance of life to space aliens. Other scientists have come up with concepts like “guided evolution” or “punctuated evolution” (with no idea of what caused the punctuation) to explain the sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record. These ideas have possibilities, but the classic Darwinian theory is now no more then a pseudo-scientific religion based on faith in spite of evidence.
The conflict between creationism and evolution is often presented as a choice in which you must agree either with me, or you must agree with my opponent. This is what is called a false dichotomy. Both sides try to justify their own position by pointing out the errors in the other side’s position. I believe both sides are fundamentally wrong and cannot be defended on their own terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment