Creationism

This article is about the Abrahamic belief; creationism can also refer to origin beliefs in general or, centuries earlier, to an alternative to traducianism.

Criticism of creationism

Scientific critique of creationism

Creationism was never based primarily upon scientific findings or upon a scientific approach to uncovering the origins of life. Many modern forms of creationism, particularly Young Earth Christian creationism, were created to defend the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation in genesis, when evolution started to become scientific orthodoxy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many modern creationists are widely regarded as 'anti evolutionists' rather than as people putting forward an honest alternative to explain the origins of life. Indeed, virtually all creationist arguments take the form of attacks on evolutionary theories.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Creationists sometimes minimize the explanatory power and validity of evolution theory by criticizing it as being "just a theory" implying that the word "theory" is synonymous with "conjecture" or "speculation", instead of the technical, scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and verified through empirical observation. In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory.

Related Topics:
Scientifically - Falsifiable - Hypotheses

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Critics charge that Creationism is not a theory that has come about through a similar systematic accumulation of evidence. It is based on a literal interpretation of religious scripture and the emphasis of scripture over other sources of knowledge. Young Earth Creationism also fails the criteria of falsifiability and parsimony. While the hypothesis that the Earth is only a few thousand years old allows many predictions, evidence which refutes these predictions cannot invalidate creationism, because creationism itself is a belief and not a scientific theory. The belief can persist in spite of evidence to the contrary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the approach used by creationist advocates. The scientific approach uses the scientific method as a means of discovering information about the natural world. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a meritocratic form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. Science does not seek answers that fit a certain pre-determined conclusion, but rather works to construct viable, testable, and provable theories based on a solid evidential foundation. Creationism works in the opposite direction: creating the conclusion first and working backwards to 'discover' corresponding evidence. This is fundamentally unscientific, and a hallmark of pseudoscience.

Related Topics:
Scientific method - Meritocratic - Pseudoscience

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Evolution is a theory that fits in with all known biological evidence, fits in with all known genetic evidence, and is backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Contrary to frequent claims by Christian and Islamic opponents of evolutionism, transitional fossils exist which show a gradual change from one species to another. Moreover, evolutionary selection has been observed in living species (for instance, "tuskless elephants"--see elephant). Because of this and other evidence, there is little debate within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not, and none of it suggests creationism as a viable alternative. It is worth pointing out that even if evolution as biologists currently understand it turned out to be false, this would not automatically mean that special creation was true (such a binary view being a logical fallacy). It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the US) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution rages.

Related Topics:
Theories - Fossil - Christian - Islam - Transitional fossils - Elephant - Logical fallacy - Young Earth creationists - World view

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In addition to that, no conclusive proof for Creationism or Intelligent Design has been ever brought forward. Because both styles of Creationism presume the actions of a supernatural being (God or the "Designer"), any person capable of proving either of the theories is eligible for the sum of $1,000,000 (see James Randi's offer).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Christian critique of creationism

Many professing Christians support evolutionary creationism rather than young earth creationism. This is because, in the view of many creationists, science has more or less explained the development of the universe. However, science could never explain the existence of the universe. In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," George Murphy argues against the common view that life on Earth in all its forms is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." This verse inspired Pascal to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."

Related Topics:
Isaiah - Pascal - Martin Luther

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Luther opposes his theology of the cross to what he called the "theology of glory":

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone . He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For Murphy, Creationists are modern-day theologians of glory. Following Luther, Murphy argues that a true Christian cannot discover God from clues in creation, but only from the crucified Christ. However, Luther also defended the notion of creation in six normal-length days about 6,000 years ago, and a global flood.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Murphy concludes that,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

According to Emil Brunner, "God does not wish to occupy the whole of space Himself, but that He wills to make room for other forms of existence ... In so doing, He limits Himself." It is where God has limited Himself that humans must use their own intelligence to understand the world — to understand the laws of gravity as well as evolution – without relying on God as an explanation. It is only through the cross and the resurrection that one may find God.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Plea to reject nonsense

In his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), Saint Augustine (354-430), embarrassed by Christians who would not accept this implication of the Doctrine of Creation, wrote against them. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Related Topics:
Saint Augustine - 354 - 430

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~