The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (3 page)

Evolutionists are quick to point out that Darwin's theory of
natural selection cannot be criticized simply because it has been
perverted by some.46 While this point may have some merit, the
fact remains that evolution and the naturalism that undergirds
it serve as a philosophical platform that enables such abuses to
easily emerge.

Racism. Evolutionary theory has certainly played a role in
fostering racism. At one time in United States history, Congress
passed a bill that authorized the U.S. Census Bureau to count
each slave as three-fifths of a person. This Congressional compromise resulted in what one African American writer of the 1890s called "the `Inferior Race Theory,' the placing of the Negro somewhere between the barnyard animals and human beings. "47 This
racist outrage took place just two decades after Darwin published
On the Origin of Species.

Some whites in those days tried to argue that blacks were
less than human. Buckner H. Payne, in his book The Negro:
What Is His Ethnological Status? (published in the decade following The Origin of Species), argued that "since blacks are present with us today, they must have been in the ark. There were
only eight souls saved in the ark, however, and they are fully
accounted for by Noah's family. As one of the beasts in the ark,
the black has no soul to be saved."48

This same racist attitude has been manifest by a number of
well-known evolutionists, such as Thomas Huxley. Even Charles
Darwin believed a time was coming in the not-too-distant future
when the lower races of man would be eliminated by the higher
civilized races.49

Sexism. Darwin must not have been too popular among the
women of his day, for his evolutionary views certainly contained
a sexist element. Darwin argued that men had substantially
greater mental powers than do women, and therefore men are
more prone to attain a higher eminence in whatever undertaking
they attempt.5° Of course, Darwin's statement has proved to be
incorrect in the real world in which women have attained
eminence equal to that of their male counterparts.

Yet another reason the creation-evolution debate is important is that it has called attention to the fact that both Christianity
and evolution are faith systems. Too often the creation-evolution
debate has been portrayed as a faith-based system (creation) in
opposition to a fact-based system (evolution). But both systems
are, in reality, faith-based.

Duane T Gish, a well-known creationist, has pointed out that
the introduction to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species,
written by a British biologist and evolutionist, includes a statement that "belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. "5` If a system is incapable of proof, then its believers must exercise faith.

The fact is that no living scientists have empirically observed
simple life-forms evolving into complex life-forms over billions
of years of time. If positive mutations and natural selection have
never been empirically observed, then the basic evidence for
evolution rests on faith and not observed fact.52 This means that
evolutionism is every bit as much a faith system as is creationism. The pivotal question becomes, Which faith system has the
better evidence to back it up? That is the question I seek to
answer throughout this book.

Before I address arguments in favor of creationism in subsequent chapters in this book, I must briefly touch on the stereotypes and caricatures of creationists that evolutionists often set
forth. My goal is simply to let you know what to expect if you
choose to engage an evolutionist in debate.

1. Creationism is religious in nature and is therefore to be
excluded from serious consideration. This stereotype effectively
marginalizes creationism without even refuting it. Marginalizing
an idea has become effective in our times because of the prevalence of the mind-set that religion does not belong in schools
and other public institutions.53

Evolutionists, of course, are not being consistent. For
instance, a few of the Ten Commandments-those prohibiting murder, false witness, and stealing-are identical to laws in the law code of our country. The fact that these commandments
are in the Bible (and are therefore "religious" in nature) is no
reason to marginalize them and exclude them from serious attention in public institutions. In keeping with this, no public school
would eliminate behavioral rules such as "no stealing" and "no
cheating" simply because of similar commandments in the
Bible." More than one Christian apologist has noted the inconsistency in excluding creationism from serious consideration
because it is "religious" when in fact evolutionism favors the religious position of secular humanism. If creationism is excluded
for religious considerations, evolutionism should likewise be
excluded.

2. Creationism is a view held only by religious extremists and
is therefore to be excluded from serious consideration. Most
people in this country have seen the movie Inherit the Wind.
In this movie, evolutionists are portrayed as enlightened intellects while creationists are portrayed as religious extremists. One
walks away from the movie with the feeling that creationists
are pitifully and sadly misled individuals and that creationism
is something no respectable person with an ounce of brains
should have anything to do with. The movie ignores the fact
that some of the greatest scientists the world has ever known
have been creationists, including the likes of Robert Boyle, Isaac
Newton, and Louis Pasteur.

By portraying creationists as religious nuts, evolutionists have
been extremely successful in spinning their viewpoint in a favorable light, especially in the media. Evolutionists use the same
technique that some politicians use when their embarrassing failures become public. Politicians are experts at drawing attention
away from their embarrassments and presenting themselves in
a favorable light. Evolutionists likewise seek to draw attention
away from their embarrassment-that is, their lack of evidence
for evolutionary theory (no intermediate fossils, no evidence for an ongoing series of positive mutations, no effective argument
against intelligent design)-by making creationists look like
extremists."

3. Creationism is unscientific and is therefore to be excluded
from serious consideration. Evolutionists Dylan Evans and
Howard Selina argue that "there is nothing scientific about
`creation science.' It is not supported by the evidence or by good
argument."" Creationist (and scientist) Hugh Ross has pointed
out that the National Center for Science Education has long
taught that science is "empirically based and necessarily materialist," that "miracles cannot be allowed," and that "any theory
with a supernatural foundation is not scientific."57 Since creationism obviously involves the miracle of God creating the universe
by the power of His Word, creationism is stamped "unscientific"
and excluded from serious consideration. (I present evidence for
the possibility of miracles in chapter 2 of this book.)

4. Creationism is an enemy of education and is therefore to
be excluded from serious consideration. Because creationists want
creationism taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution, creationists are caricatured as enemies of education because
they want myth to be taught alongside fact. Creationists are therefore portrayed as enemies of education .51 (The folly of this ridiculous claim will become clear in subsequent chapters.)

5. Creationism involves fairy tales believed by stupid people
and is therefore to be excluded from serious consideration. Wellknown evolutionist Richard Dawkins is not shy about making
his feelings known: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet
somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person
is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not
consider that) ."59 This brazen ad hominem argument shows the
disdain that many evolutionists have for creationists and ignores
many intelligent arguments for creationism.

Such caricatures are unfortunate, but they are a very real part
of the creation-evolution debate. I suggest that the best policy
is to focus objective attention on the primary issues of the
debate-issues such as the fossil evidence, evidence that mutations are generally harmful, evidence related to the second law
of thermodynamics, evidence for intelligent design, and the like.
This approach effectively keeps the debate out of the arena of
subjective emotionalism and seeks to generate more light than
heat.

Of course, people will ultimately believe what they want to
believe. Nevertheless, because debates involve the exchange of
arguments, and because arguments can alter an open-minded
person's worldview, the creation-evolution debate is a worthy
one. In each chapter of this book, I will seek to deal with one
primary issue in the debate.

As a teenage boy, I remember being taught in school that
evolution was a proven scientific fact. I was taught the doctrine
of the "survival of the fittest"-the idea that the fittest members
of each individual species would survive and mature to adulthood, and that these "fit members" would, by positive genetic
mutations, pass on this "fitness" to their descendants. I was
taught that this process had been going on for billions of years
and through this process, not only did individual species
improve, but entirely new species emerged as well. I was taught
that the theory of evolution proved that human beings and
modern apes evolved from a common ancestor, the clear implication being that the Genesis account of creation was nothing
but mere myth.

As I continued my education throughout high school, evolution was never presented as an optional belief but was always
assumed to be true. At age 17, however, I became a Christianand started to challenge some of the basic assumptions I had
uncritically accepted. Among these assumptions were the various proofs for evolution and the naturalistic philosophy that
undergirded it.

One thing that became very clear to me early on was that
a great deal of confusion exists regarding what the term evolution means. A common dictionary definition of the word is "a
process of developing" or "gradual development." In this broad
sense, creationists can agree with evolution. For example, I might
speak about the evolution (the gradual development) of the book
I am writing. Certainly it took some time to develop. Or I might
read about the evolution (the gradual development) of the
airplane by the Wright brothers. Nothing is wrong or offensive
about this use of the word evolution.

Of course, Darwinian evolutionists use the term much more
specifically. They view evolution as the theory that "millions of
years ago lifeless matter, acted upon by natural forces, gave origin
to one or more minute living organisms which have since evolved
into all living and extinct plants and animals including man."'
In other words, evolution is a naturalistic theory that proposes
that simple life-forms evolved into complex life-forms by chance
and random variation, with species giving rise to new species
over billions of years. Ultimately, this means that all living
things-including human beings and apes-are related to each
other in that they have a common ancestor.' As evolutionists
Dylan Evans and Howard Selina put it, "Ultimately, every species
on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, just as
the branches on a tree all spring from a single trunk."'

In evolutionary theory, natural selection, mutations, and long
periods of time play a significant role. Natural selection may
be defined as "preferential survival of individuals having advantageous variations relative to other members of their population or species."4 That may sound complicated, but evolutionist
Michael Benton suggests four basic propositions that bring clarity to the issue:

1. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive and
reproduce.

2. The organisms that survive tend to be better adapted to
local environments.

3. The characters of the parent appear in the offspring.

4. So generation by generation, hundreds of thousands of
times over, the better-adapted lines will survive to pass
on the features that give them advantage in local environ-
ments.5

What all this means is that nature produces far more
offspring in any given species than can possibly survive. Because
of limited resources, these offspring must compete with each
other to survive. This competition has winners and losers. The
winners are those who are best fit to survive in that environment, and the losers are the least fit. As time passes, the winners
pass on their superior traits (survival traits) to their offspring
so they too can survive. As this process continues over many
generations-with losers continually weeded out and the superior traits of the winners passed down to offspring through positive mutations-evolution occurs.' "Over the course of many
generations the advantageous gene (and its corresponding trait)
will be found in a higher proportion of individuals."'