Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Two:
Application of the Basics
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Proof
by Presupposition and Characterization in the Origins Debate:
Is God an Obsolete, Primitive Concept?
In
our segment on equity, we talked about unfair attempts to
prematurely dismiss an opposing view without having to present
or examine the evidence for doing so. And we compared such
premature dismissals to convicting someone without a trial.
Often in the early stages of origins debates, attempts emerge
to disqualify or disprove creationism on the grounds that
the idea of a Creator is a left-over or obsolete explanation
developed by more primitive human cultures to explain natural
phenomena, which they did not understand. Then, as mankind
and culture evolved, scientific processes were developed,
which now allow humanity to actually understand the causes
of natural phenomena in terms of fields like physics and chemistry.
Such
an application of the evolutionary model to the cultural and
religious history of man is described in the following quote
from Britannica Encyclopedia.
“Religions,
Classification of, Principles of classification, Morphological
– Considerable progress toward more scientific classifications
of religions was marked by the emergence of morphological
schemes, which assume that religion in its history has passed
through a series of discernible stages of development,
each having readily identifiable characteristics and each
constituting an advance beyond the former stage. So essential is the notion of progressive development to morphological
schemes that they might also be called evolutionary classifications…The
pioneer of morphological classifications was E.B. Tylor,
a British anthropologist, whose Primitive
Culture (1871) is among the most influential books ever
written in its field…Of immediate interest is the classification
of religions drawn from Tylor's
animistic thesis. Ancestor worship, prevalent in preliterate
societies, is obeisance to the spirits of the dead. Fetishism,
the veneration of objects believed to have magical or supernatural
potency, springs from the association of spirits with particular
places or things and leads to idolatry, in which the image
is viewed as the symbol of a spiritual being or deity. Totemism,
the belief in an association between particular groups of
people and certain spirits that serve as guardians of those
people, arises when the entire world is conceived as peopled
by spiritual beings. At a still higher stage, polytheism,
the interest in particular deities or spirits disappears and
is replaced by concern for a “species” deity who
represents an entire class of similar spiritual realities.
By a variety of means,
polytheism may evolve into monotheism, a belief in a supreme
and unique deity. Tylor's theory
of the nature of religions and the resultant classification
were so logical, convincing, and comprehensive that for
a number of years they remained virtually unchallenged.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Likewise,
Worldbook Encyclopedia’s article
on “religion” has a segment entitled “The
origin of religion,” which simply begins with these
evolutionary assumptions. The article then goes on almost
immediately to cite the evolutionary models proposed by anthropologists
such as Tylor.
“Religion,
The origin of religion – The
earliest recorded evidence of religious activity dates from
only about 60,000 B.C. However, anthropologists and historians
of religion believe that some form of religion has been practiced
since people first appeared on the earth about 2 million years ago. Experts
think prehistoric religions arose out of fear and wonder about
natural events, such as the occurrence of storms and earthquakes
and the birth of babies and animals. To
explain why someone died, people credited supernatural powers
greater than themselves or greater than the world around them…Leading theories were developed by Edward Burnett Tylor, Friedrich Max Muller,
and Rudolf Otto.” – World Book 2005
This
perception that religion originates as part of the evolution
of human understanding and culture is expressed in the following
article by Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia as well. Like the
Britannica article above, Encarta’s article on mythology
refers to Tylor’s work Primitive
Culture. But more importantly, Encarta even states that
the evolutionary model applied to religion by Tylor
was borrowed from Charles Darwin himself. The article goes
on to describe further articulations of this theory by Sir
James George Frazer, who stated that these evolutionary processes,
which initially produced religion to explain “natural
phenomena” eventually took the next evolutionary step
forward into what we call “science.”
“Mythology
– Later in the
19th century the theory of evolution put forward by English
naturalist Charles Darwin heavily influenced the study of
mythology. Scholars excavated the history of mythology,
much as they would excavate fossil-bearing geological formations,
for relics from the distant past. This
approach can be seen in the work of British anthropologist
Edward Burnett Tylor. In Primitive Culture (1871), Tylor organized the religious and philosophical development
of humanity into separate and distinct evolutionary stages.
Similarly, British anthropologist Sir
James George Frazer proposed a three-stage evolutionary scheme
in The Golden Bough (3rd edition, 1912-1915). According
to Frazer's scheme, human beings first attributed natural
phenomena to arbitrary supernatural forces (magic), later
explaining them as the will of the gods (religion), and finally
subjecting them to rational investigation (science).”
– "Mythology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
In
the wake of such models in which religion is part of an evolution
from the more primitive to the scientifically enlightened,
creationism (and perhaps the idea of god, in general) is often
viewed as a throw-back or vestigial idea to which some people
still cling to for one reason or another. However, such conceptions
of religion as the product of evolutionary forces are far
from accepted. After discussing such evolutionary models such
as the morphological views of Tylor,
Britannica Encyclopedia goes on to state the following concerning
the dominant, current approach to religious study, known as
the phenomenological approach.
“Religions,
Classification of, Principles of classification, Phenomenological
– All the principles
thus far discussed have had reference to the classification
of religions in the sense of establishing groupings among
historical religious communities having certain elements in
common. While attempts have been made to classify entire religions
or religious communities, in recent times the interest in
classifying entire religions has markedly declined, partly
because of an emerging interest in the phenomenology
of religion. This new trend in studies, which has come to
dominate the field, claims its origin in the phenomenological
philosophy of Edmund Husserl, a German Jewish–Lutheran scholar, and has
found its greatest exponents in The Netherlands… Phenomenologists are especially vigorous in repudiating
the evolutionary schemes of past scholars, whom they accuse
of imposing arbitrary semiphilosophical
concepts in their interpretation of the history of religion.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As
we can see, the article above goes on to state that the phenomenological
approach is “vigorous in repudiating the evolutionary
schemes of past scholars.” In fact, this negative assessment
of the evolutionary models is articulated near the end of
Britannica’s own section on such morphological studies
of religion.
“Religions,
Classification of, Principles of classification, Morphological
– Trends in the comparative study of religions have
retained the interest in morphology but have decisively rejected
the almost universal 19th-century assumption of unitary evolution
in the history of religion. The crude expression of evolutionary categories such as the division
of religions into lower and higher or primitive and higher
religions has been subjected to especially severe criticism.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
And,
as the last 2 quotes attest, other theories of religion cite
anthropological evidence suggesting a non-evolutionary model.
“Religion, study of, Anthropological approaches
to the study of religion, Theories concerning the origins
of religion – These
and other evolutionary schemes came in for criticism, however,
in the light of certain facts about the religions of primitive
peoples. Thus, the Scottish folklorist Andrew
Lang (1844–1912) discovered
from anthropological reports that various primitive tribes
believed in a high god—a creator and often legislator
of the moral order. Marett and other anthropologists contended that
Lang's attempt to argue for an Urmonotheismus
(primordial monotheism) was contrary both to evolutionary
ideas and to the established view of the lack of sophistication
and half-animal status of the so-called savage. Since
Lang was more of a brilliant journalist than an anthropologist,
his view was not taken with as much seriousness as it should
have been. The German
Roman Catholic priest and ethnologist Wilhelm Schmidt (1868–1954),
however, brought anthropological expertise to bear in a series
of investigations of such primitive societies as those
of the Tierra del Fuegians (South
America), the Negrillos of Rwanda
(Africa), and the Andaman Islanders (Indian
Ocean). The results were assembled in his Der Ursprung der Gottesidee (“The Origin
of the Idea of God”), which appeared in 12 volumes from
1912 to 1955. Not surprisingly, Schmidt and his collaborators
saw in the high gods, for whose cultural existence they produced
ample evidence from a wide variety of unconnected societies,
a sign of a primordial monotheistic revelation that later
became overlaid with other elements (this was an echo of earlier
Christian theories invoking the Fall to similar effect). The
interpretation is controversial, but at least Lang and Schmidt
produced grounds for rejecting the earlier rather naïve theory
of evolutionism.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
While
the quote above qualifies the findings that monotheism was
present in the earliest societies as “controversial,”
it also states that there is “ample evidence”
for this conclusion “from a variety of unconnected societies.”
Furthermore, despite the description that early monotheism
is “controversial,” the article above clearly
qualifies the evolutionary classification of religions as
“naïve.” Lastly, concerning the quote above, we
note that Lang’s non-evolutionary model was rejected
on the grounds that it was “contrary both to evolutionary
ideas and to the established view of the lack of sophistication
and half-animal status of the so-called savage.” Or
in other words, Lang’s non-evolution model was rejected
on the grounds that sub-points of the larger evolutionary
interpretation were true. This is nothing less than a perfect
example of proof by presupposition, an attempt to disprove
an opposing interpretation of the evidence merely by appealing
to sub-points of one’s own interpretation. We’ll
comment more on this trend below, but before we do it is necessary
to look at one last quote concerning the origin of religious
views.
In
light of the ongoing disagreement about the origin of religious
views, Britannica summarizes the current status of the debate
in the following way.
“Religion,
Philosophy of, Religion as a fact in human experience, culture,
and history, The findings of the history of religions –
Conclusions in the history of religions have been largely determined
by the particular ideas of man or history with which the study
was approached. Some scholars have supposed that at the dawn
of human existence there was a belief in a single god and
that only later there occurred a development into a belief
in many gods as well as animism (a belief in souls or
spirits in man and other aspects of nature). Other
scholars have supposed an evolutionary development of religion,
which only reached monotheism—considered to be the highest
form of religious belief—after a long period of
purification. The two approaches sponsor, respectively, two contrasting myths about
primitive man. According to the one, there was once a golden
age of innocence and harmony; according to the other, the
life of the earliest man was nasty, brutish, and short.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Yet,
despite the fact that such evolutionary models of religion
are themselves unsettled and contested, this characterization
of creationism as the outdated trait of more primitive man
still somehow suffices as grounds to dismiss creationism from
consideration.
With
these facts in mind, we now return to the current issue: whether
or not creationism should be rejected on the grounds that
it is an obsolete artifact from a more primitive stage of
human evolution. Let’s consider for a moment the contents
of such a criticism.
As
stated above, creationism, the idea of a transcendent Designer, is a competing interpretation of the empirical
data. Evolution is another interpretation of that empirical
data. The criticism that creationism should be discarded because
it is an earlier step in the long evolution of human culture
requires the following assumptions. It assumes that humanity
was more primitive earlier in history. It assumes an evolutionary
model for not only human intellect but also human culture.
And it assumes a certain degree of long periods of time for
this evolution to occur. All of these concepts are components,
sub-points, or conclusions of an evolutionary interpretation
of the empirical data.
Dismissing
creationism on the grounds that the evolutionary interpretation
is correct is the same as dismissing evolutionary theory on
the grounds that the Bible cannot be questioned. The idea
that the Bible is a reliable source of truth is itself part
of the larger creationist worldview. As a sub-component of
that worldview, this idea is true only if the evidence favors
that worldview. But if the evidence has not yet been analyzed
or presented, then it is not correct to attack the opposing
interpretation simply on the grounds that it disagrees with
one’s own interpretation.
Similarly,
what happens if the empirical data doesn’t necessarily
point to long ages of history, the existence of more primitive
forms of humanity, or the process of evolution? If these interpretive
sub-points or byproducts have not yet been demonstrated to
be true by the evidence, then it is incorrect to dismiss creationism
on the mere grounds that creationism disagrees with components
of evolutionary theory. As stated earlier, discarding creationism
on these grounds is an attempt to disprove an opposing view
by citing, not the evidence itself, but one’s own interpretation.
You cannot disprove an opponent’s interpretation by
citing parts of your own interpretation as though they were
already proven. An opposing interpretation can only be disproved
by citing specific evidence, which contradicts it.
The
Origin of Theories in the Origins Debate:
Should
Creationism Be Considered a Scientific Theory?
In
our segment on “The Origin of Theories,” we established that all theories
start with observation. Above we discussed the criticism that
creationism is unscientific because it starts with presumption
and blind faith instead of objective evidence. We dismissed
that criticism, showing that creationism, and in fact the
very belief in a Creator, does originate by means of an evidentiary
approach rather than with a blind faith based upon presupposition
from an inward, subjective realization.
The
fact that creationism is derived from an evidentiary approach
is most important because it means that, when it comes to
origins debate, what we have are 2 competing scientific theories.
It is not a debate between an evidence-based scientific theory
and a religious presupposition.
And,
as we saw in the previous segment, evolutionary theory teaches
that the idea of a God or gods, including a creator god, originated
as primitive man’s explanation for things he observed
and experienced in the world around him. Consequently, even
the evolution view necessitates that creationism originated,
not as a blind, baseless assumption, but as a theory or explanation
derived from the empirical data.
Even
evolutionary theory admits that the belief in a Creator originated
as an explanation of things observed in the world around mankind.
Evolutionists admit this when they assert that the idea of
God is the result of primitive man’s attempt to explain
the natural world. Consequently, since it originates as an
explanation for observed phenomena, creationism must be regarded
as a theory, even for those who regard it as a primitive one.
Furthermore,
creationism is a theory that was put forward historically
by more ancient men and more ancient cultures. It is a theory
that was included in many of the ancient writings produced
by those cultures, including the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
Such cultures and writings regarded this theory as a fact.
But they believed it was a fact because they understood it
to be well-attested to by the observable world around them.
Thus, it was regarded as fact because it was not only the
dominant but in most cases the only available theory for the
explanation of the world. And so, there is nothing unscientific
about their regarding the theory of a Creator as a fact. This
is very much like the present case where evolutionary theory
is widely regarded as a fact. Believing a theory to be fact
on the grounds that it is the best theory, or perhaps historically
the only available theory, simply does not mean that theory
is based upon a presumption or blind faith or, consequently,
that it is unscientific. Regarding a theory as fact just means
you are convinced it is true. Now, you could be convinced
of something because you simply presupposed it blindly. But,
you can also be convinced of something because you perceive
it to be well-demonstrated by the observable evidence. The
degree of conviction simply does not prove presumption or
blind faith is in operation, not for either the evolutionist
or the creationist worldview.
Furthermore,
the question might be asked as to whether or not creationists
believe creationism simply because “the Bible says so.”
Unfortunately, this is the case for many creationists who
are not concerned with evidence or rational belief. And the
same can be said for a large majority of average people who
believe evolution is true simply because “their science
text books said so.”
However,
the fact of the matter is that many creationists believe the
theory of a Creator, not because the Bible is presupposed
to be true, but because, when considering the actual empirical
evidence, they perceive that the evidence is not
only compatible with the theory of a Creator, which they
have encountered in such sources as the Judeo-Christian scripture,
but that the evidence actually favors such a theory. In fact,
although it is not true of all Christians, many Christians
have come to accept the Bible, not because they blindly presuppose
it without regard for evidence, but because they see its descriptions
demonstrated empirically in a variety of ways in the world
around them.
Earlier,
we cited the words of Paul in Romans 1, who argued that from
the start of mankind, God’s existence has been evident
by the observable world. At the end of the same chapter, Paul
states that this knowledge about the things of God included
the central moral truths of Judeo-Christianity as well.
Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from
faith (4102) to
faith (4102): as it is written, The
just shall live by faith (4102). 18 For the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed
it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so
that they are without excuse…28 And
even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to
do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled
with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;
whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers,
without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things
are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure
in them that do them. 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art
that judgest: for wherein thou judgest
another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest
doest the same things.
In
fact, the Judeo-Christian scripture is filled with accounts
in which men observed things like the existence of the world,
death, and the unjust acts of others, considered these things,
and reached the belief in God’s existence and resurrection
as a conclusion to these observations. Using the same Greek
word for “faith” that Paul describes in Romans
1 as a conclusion to the observable world, Hebrews 11 describes
how Abraham, the patriarch of Judeo-Christian tradition, reached
belief that God raises the dead as a conclusion after considering
the death of his son Isaac.
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that
had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in
Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting
that God was able
to raise him up, even from the dead; from
whence also he received him in a figure.
Abraham
is the patriarch of the Judeo-Christian religion. And even
he is depicted in scripture as a righteous man because he
observed the world around him, considered it, and reasoned
from the observation to correct belief. Consequently, it is
impossible to separate the historical Judeo-Christian religion
from the essential scientific method of considering external
observations to construct a correct understanding.
However,
one of the main premises of this article is that, when allowed
to speak for itself, the evidence will favor one theory over
the other with clarity. But this premise raises an obvious
question. If the answer is so clear, then why do so many reject
it?
The
answer to that question is simple. Whenever someone even considers
the possibility that God might exist, there is one other question
that rises quickly to mind. As noted in a previous section,
scientific theory is essentially concerned with the predictions,
inferences, implications, and consequences that result if
a theory is true. Evolutionary biologist Dr. William Moore
noted this in his debate with Dr. Kent Hovind
at Wayne
State University.
“This
is one scientist’s statement as to what scientific method
is. He says, ‘In general, we look for a new law
by the following process. First, we guess…Don’t
laugh. It’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see if this law
that we guessed is right, what
it should imply.” – Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate:
Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William
Moore at Wayne State
University in Detroit,
Michigan, Creation Science
Evangelism, Pensacola, FL,
www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video
One
of the more immediate implications and consequences that come
to mind when people consider the theory of creationism is
this. If God exists, what implications and consequences does
that have for us as human beings? One of the obvious potential
implications is that we are accountable to the Creator who
made us, that having created the universe He has authority
over it and over us as parts of it. And one of the obvious
consequences is that we might need to consider our actions
and choices in light of this accountability because we may
have to answer for them.
In
other words, would the existence of God have any implications
concerning our actions and choices? If God exists, will he
judge immoral and unjust human behavior? It is the desire
to avoid this question that leads so many to reject the idea
of a Creator. They reject the idea of a Creator so readily
not because the evidence is unclear and not because the evidence
clearly disproves a Creator, but because they desire to do
things that they know from observation and deduction they
should not do or they desire to associate with other people
who do such things. This is the assessment reached by Paul
as well in Romans 1:32-2:1.
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things
are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure
in them that do them. 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man…
When
considering the evidence that the universe is young and was
created by God, creationists also find further confirmation
of scripture by observing the reactions that men have to these
important prospects. Scripture indicates that the evidence
for God’s existence and for correct morality are ample
and readily apparent, but that men reject that evidence out
of a desire to avoid accountability to God so that either
they can do what the evidence indicates is wrong or so they
can enjoy the company and associations of those who do so.
Consequently, even men’s reactions to the evidence provide
experiential observations confirming scripture’s assessments
about human psychology. But again, it all comes down to the
evidence. If the evidence for creationism is scant, then rejecting
the idea of a creator is a legitimate, rational conclusion
from the evidence rather than a psychological shortcoming.
So,
from start to finish, creationists believe the Bible’s
descriptions about such things as creation, God, and morality,
not because they presuppose them to be true by blind faith
regardless of evidence, but because after reading or hearing
those descriptions, they find them supported and proven in
a variety of ways by what they observe in the world around
us. From start to finish, from men like Abraham to Paul as
well as many modern creationists, the foundation for belief
is not presupposition or blind faith, but observations over
and over again supporting a particular explanation. This is
a very scientific process and it is one that is laid out in
the ancient records and from the very foundations of Judeo-Christianity.
This
brings us back to some issues raised earlier in the segments
on “The Origin of Theories” and “Evidence
and Interpretation.” The fact that creationism’s
assertion of a Creator is derived from observation of the
physical world has profound consequences for the origins debate.
This is important because it means that in evolution and creationism
we have, in fact, two competing theories that have resulted
from and attempted to explain the observed empirical evidence.
Creationists
don’t start by presupposing the Bible is true without
first weighing the evidence. While the Bible is the source
of the theory in the sense that its pages contain the description
of the model, the descriptions found in scripture should be
regarded as the conclusions reached by past observers. Some
of those past observers even report to have experienced God
himself. And their testimonies are believed by others who,
in turn, also find their descriptions fit convincingly with
the evidence in the observable world. Nor does the Bible itself
or any of the writers in it ask or expect its audience to
accept its veracity without first considering the evidence.
As we have seen, the opposite is true. The Bible offers evidence
of various kinds and expects its audience to consider those
evidences carefully. Thus, those who hold to the creationist
view don’t start by assuming that those conclusions
are true. They first look at the evidence to see if there
is any data contradicting that theory or if the available
evidence actually favors this historical theory over more
modern theories, such as evolution. The theory is accepted
because of the perception that the evidence overwhelmingly
supports it. And that is the purpose of this article. To let
the complete description of the competing theories as well
as the evidence be presented so that the reader can weigh
which direction the evidence is pointing and which theory
is the more rational explanation of that evidence.
In
general terms, after observing the world around him, one person
theorizes the existence of an intelligent creator who made
and arranged the phenomena that he observes. Another person,
after observing the same physical world, theorizes that those
phenomena resulted from unintelligent natural factors or forces.
Both are theories that arise from observation. Both are theories
intending to describe the most fitting explanation given the
properties of the evidence. And so long as the idea of an
intelligent Creator remains a conclusion that is derived from
the evidence, it is just as scientific as evolution. Whether
or not it fits the evidence as well as evolution is another
question, a question which can only be answered by looking
at the evidence.
So,
the question remains, which theory best fits the evidence,
evolution or intelligent creation? To answer that question,
two items remain: first, to define each theory and second,
to examine the evidence to see to what extent it favors or
contradicts either theory. These two items will be the subject
of the rest of this article.