After reading three books on each side of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, what are my conclusions? In short, there is no clear winner. There are some points on which the evidence for Darwinian evolution is strong and this evidence has not been effectively countered by the creationists. There are also strong points on the creationist (or intelligent design) side, which have not been effectively addressed by the evolutionists.
Points for Evolution
- Biogeography. Jerry Coyne, who specializes in this field, makes a good case. It is difficult to reconcile instantaneous creation with the evidence of how living things are, and have been according to the fossil record, distributed across the earth. In my reading I did not find anything in the creationist or ID books that address this evidence.
- Pseudogenes (or fossil genes per Carroll).I think this is not so much evidence for evolution as simply a good fit. The characteristics of these DNA sequences correspond well with Darwinian evolution, and do not make sense in an instantaneous creation scenario.
- Vestigial organs. Similar to pseudogenes, many instances of vestigial characteristics do not make much sense in a creation scenario, but can be explained reasonably in terms of Darwinian evolution.
Points for Creation (or Intelligent Design)
- Complex biochemical structures and processes. These are the “irreducibly complex” features, described by Behe in “Darwin’s BlackBox,” for which there are no known explanations in Darwinian terms.
- Preponderance of evidence of stasis in the fossil record. The fossil record overwhelmingly shows species appearing, staying mostly the same or undergoing directionless changes, then disappearing from the record. This situation is the reason behind the famous and not-believed-by-anyone “monster” theory (bird hatching from reptile egg) and the more recent “punctuated equilibrium” theory, which is virtually the same.
- Lack of any known genetic mechanism for development of major changes. Micro-evolution is all around us and there is plenty of evidence for it. The genetic mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection that cause it are well known and understood. The mechanisms for macro-evolution are unknown; random mutations and natural selection have not been shown to be responsible for the development of vastly different organisms from a common ancestor.
Young earth and Noah’s flood
The evidence provided by biogeography combined with the fossil record indicating the vast numbers of species make the Noah’s flood scenario as described in Genesis a tough sell. On the other hand, why is folkloric reference to a worldwide flood in which a few people were saved in a boat so widespread?
Creationists cite such things as the gradually increasing distance between the moon and the earth, gradual shrinking in the size of the sun, gradual decrease in the rotation (spin) rate of the earth, change in the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, and other astronomical observations as proof that the world cannot be billions of years old. One of the foundations for Darwinian evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism, which states that the processes we observe in the present are the same processes that have always occurred, and they have always occurred at the same rate that we observe. The observed astronomical changes and this concept seem to be in conflict. In my limited reading I did not find any evolutionist arguments that countered these points.
There is abundant evidence in various forms that contradicts the 6,000-year-old earth scenario. Some arguments can be made that radioactive dating techniques are not as accurate as we are led to believe. And it is easy to believe that fossil finds that contradict what Darwinian evolution would predict are downplayed and possibly even suppressed. However, the preponderance of evidence seems to point to an older earth, and creationist arguments against this evidence are, in my unscientific opinion, vague and inadequate.
Evolution and Atheism
Though the vocal proponents of evolution claim there is nothing about evolution which precludes religious belief, the philosophical viewpoints and derogatory statements in their writings indicates their true opinions on this matter: that people who believe in religion are simply superstitious. Phillip E. Johnson provides an excellent treatment of the interplay between atheism and the creation-vs-evolution argument in his book Darwin on Trial. See my review of that book for a summary of his explanation.
Now what?
My view is that it is reasonable to believe in evolution, as it is reasonable to believe in creation. There are good arguments on both sides. In the current cultural environment, people who question evolution are considered at least possessing inferior intelligence, or at worst dangerous religious fanatics. Darwinian evolution is enshrined in such a way that rational debate is not permitted. In my opinion when anything is not open to rational debate, it becomes dogma. Evolutionists who criticize dogmatic religious creationists might want to take a good look at themselves and their fellow evolutionists, and see how open they are to debating points on which current knowledge is inadequate to explain certain phenomena in terms of Darwinism. On the other hand, there are plenty of dogmatic creationists, and some of them I would classify as dangerous religious fanatics, not because they believe in creation, but because they believe in lots of other crazy things. The evolution-vs-creation debate has become highly politicized along with other religion-related issues, which is another factor that makes rational debate difficult if not impossible.
What are my personal beliefs after this study? First of all, I still firmly believe, as I have always believed even in the most anti-religious and anti-Christianity periods of my life, that God created the universe. As to whether it happened in six days about 6000 years ago, on that I’m not so firm. My current state of belief is that I don’t have enough information to decide how much of Darwinism is fact, and how much of Genesis is literal. Does this shake my Christian faith? No. Christianity is neither theology nor just a religion for me; it is an experience which I have lived, deeply and intimately, for many years.
