4d) Creation vs Evolution
Patricia Kelley is chair of the Department of Earth Sciences at the
She says, "Some would ask, "How can you be a Christian and believe in
evolution?". "How does all this stuff you're telling us about human
ancestors relate to Adam and Eve?" In light of such questions, I set a
goal to teach evolution with integrity and meet the challenges posed by
creationism, while remaining sensitive to the beliefs of individual
students."
Here are some excerpts from her publication presented by Geotimes on this website, http://www.geotimes.org/dec00/faith_feature.html, “Many students who assume evolution is incompatible with their faith have little understanding of what evolution actually means, how it occurs and what evidence supports it. Teachers must therefore present the evidence for evolution and explain the processes involved with great clarity. But no matter how clearly a teacher communicates this information, students who perceive that evolution opposes their religious beliefs will not find these arguments convincing. Much of their resistance to evolution stems from a misunderstanding of science and how it differs from religion.”
It is important to distinguish science from religion, so that students can realize that these alternate ways of understanding the world need not conflict. I explain to my students that science is not just a collection of facts about the natural world, but a tightly integrated set of facts and theories - well supported explanations derived by testing hypotheses. The conclusions of science, I emphasize, are tentative and open to falsification. There must be some line of evidence conceivable that, if discovered, would disprove a scientific theory. Because explanations involving the supernatural cannot be tested or falsified, science cannot employ supernatural explanations. Science cannot confirm or deny the existence of the supernatural, or a Creator. Such questions are simply beyond the realm of science. Given this background, students generally recognize that science and religion provide different approaches to understanding the world, and find science less threatening to their faith. They recognize that evolution meets the definition of science and does not represent an alternative to religion that one can "believe in." They also recognize that creationism does not meet the definition of science, and therefore should not be given "equal time" in science classes. Creationist ideas are based on faith and not on the scientific method; creationist explanations are supernatural and therefore not testable.
Creationism (including so-called "creation science" or "scientific creationism") is therefore religion rather than science. But not all who are religious are creationists. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion. I stress this point in my classes, because I have found that students feel less threatened by discussions of evolution when they realize that diverse faiths see no conflict with evolution.
Most mainline religions support evolution. For example, in an address to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1981, Pope John Paul II stated that,
"The Bible … does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one
goes to heaven." In 1984, the Central Conference of American Rabbis
recognized that "the principles and concepts of biological evolution are
basic to understanding science." Likewise, the United Church of Christ in
1992 stated, "We acknowledge modern evolutionary theory as the best
present-day scientific explanation of the existence of life on Earth; such a
conviction is in no way at odds with our belief in a Creator God. Most mainline
religions also oppose the teaching of "scientific creationism" in the
public schools. The American Jewish Congress, the General Convention of the
Episcopal Church, the Unitarian-Universalist Association, United Presbyterian
Church in the U.S.A and the
Ms Kelly contends that, “evolution meets the definition of science and does not represent an alternative to religion that one can "believe in." and that, “creationism does not meet the definition of science, and therefore should not be given "equal time" in science classes.” She needs to examine these statements more carefully. For example, where is the evidence that elevates the hypothesis of vertical evolution to the status of a theory (see section 4f). There has never been any evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. There has never been shown a process that creates new genes. The evidence required is simply not there, so as you test this hypothesis as demanded by the scientific method, it consistently fails. Conversely, the opposite is true for the theory that living forms have always been as they are now with the evidence merely indicating adaptation within species, without the formation of new genes. Here the evidence abounds and in fact every so-called evidence of such things as “apes turning into men” has been shown to be mistaken. All the fossils found to date are either man or ape, fake or mistake. This is a fact – a scientifically observable and reproducible fact. Furthermore, once the “question mark” at the beginning of the chain of observable events is identified, it is clear that a creation event does meet the required conditions to explain the current observations.
Yes, it is difficult to deal with a supernatural event, but explaining the origin of this universe will force us to consider the supernatural explanations. For example, something has to have been around forever, without a beginning and without an outside. That alone requires this first cause to be eternal and that is a supernatural explanation in itself. It is beyond our nature for anything to be eternal, but it must be the case.
A scientist friend of mine from NASA as well offered this peculiar explanation to the origin of the universe in an attempt to preclude the dilemma of a God, Who waited an infinitely long time to do whatever He’s doing now. He suggested that the notion of Time itself was the problem. He feels that there was a time when there was no time, and then at some point the timeline we now have started. This seems illogical, but he is forced to such if he cannot accept a supernatural first cause. Now, if God is indeed creating in His mind, then logically, when He first starts to imagine us, our timeline begins. Prior to that there is no time for us. So, this explanation fits logically with the literal Bible interpretation and the scientific explanation.
Getting back to Ms Kelly, she contends that the
Bible must not be taken literally. She may have some guidelines for who can
determine when any given text is to be taken literally and whose interpretation
would be correct, but she did not present any guidelines for this. Instead, as
an example, she states this about the accounts in Genesis 1 & 2: "The
Hebrew authors and editors who juxtaposed the biblical creation accounts did
not view these inconsistencies as problems. This fact is evidence that the
creation stories were not meant to be taken as literal scientific accounts.
Indeed, viewing them as historical narratives divests these passages of some of
their power and meaning. Instead, I regard the biblical creation accounts as
statements of faith by the Hebrew people, faith in one true Creator God. Many
scientists share this faith and find no incompatibility between their religious
beliefs and the evidence for evolution."
Ms Kelly has a problem with Genesis 1 and 2 appearing to be two different
accounts of the creation story. She defines that problem this way, "In fact,
Genesis 1 has many parallels with, and appears to be a direct response to, the
Mesopotamian Enuma elish, in which creation occurs via procreation of various
gods and goddesses. Genesis 1 and 2 differ in many details, including their
context and language - they each use a different name for God - and their mode
of creation. In Genesis 1, the all-powerful God commands and it is so. In
Genesis 2, God is more hands-on, molding the man from dust and laboring to
plant a garden. God forms the beasts and birds from the ground and the woman
from the man's rib.
The two passages also have completely different sequences of creation. In Genesis 1, water and formless earth exist before God begins to command. God first brings into existence light, followed by the firmament; earth and vegetation; sun, moon and stars; fish and birds; "cattle and creeping things and beasts"; and finally humans (male and female together). In Genesis 2, heaven and earth pre-exist and God waters the earth with a mist. God then makes man, plants a garden, forms animals from the ground, and finally makes woman."
In the next section we'll explore this apparent confusion between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Following that we’ll use Ms Kelly's definition of science to evaluate just how scientific her theory of evolution by mutations and time is. We also ask how a Christian can believe in a Creator who only created the inanimate things and then left it up to time and accidents to create all life.
22 August 2001, updated 11 May 2003, 20 Oct 2006
For more on this and a response to any questions, please email any comments to nasamike