Evolution versus creation "science"

It seems to happen every few years. A school board somewhere deals with the question of whether to teach Evolution as a theory and Creationism as science. This brings out every possible type of respondent, from Bible quoting, well intentioned Christians who see the Bible as a science book to die hard atheists for whom Darwin is practically a God. It shouldn’t be that way.

My father, Carl, was raised in a home in which science held sway. Religious practice and belief, such as it was, was primarily humanistic, with a dollop of theism thrown. Their church, appropriately enough, was Unitarian, which pretty much accepts just about everything. He was ruled by logic and facts. He saw the shortcomings of evolution in explaining origins and adopted Creationism as world view later in life. I always respected his thoughtful approach to the big questions of life and have tried to apply it to my life.

The controversy about evolution has always driven me crazy. The arguments inevitably miss the point and are specious. Evolution clearly occurs. The peppered moths in England and the finches in the Galapagos clearly demonstrate evolution and its corollary, survival of the fittest. What they do not show, nor is there any example in nature, is the change from one species into an entirely different species- an amphibian into a fish, or a lizard into a mammal. Neither is there any plausible explanation for how a wing might evolve into a hand, how the human eye came to be, or even how it is that we have such a sophisticated and effective clotting system. In these situations, evolution fails miserably. It can show changes in the gene pool but is silent on how the gene pool came to be in the first place.

Evolution is not about origins. Even Darwin himself, in his book, for those who actually take time to look at what it says, declared that his theory could not explain the human eye. Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity in nature has been dismissed by many but I have not seen it plausibly refuted.

I think that a very strong argument can be made that there are only two opposing beliefs about how the universe we live in came to be; I have never heard another. Either it is the product of undirected time and energy working on physical matter, without any plan or purpose or it is the product of an intelligent designer, a “first cause” if you will, that is not constrained by time or space as we know them. If anyone can come up with an alternative to these, please let me know.

Science cannot answer some of the most momentous questions that men have asked since time immemorial. How did the universe begin? What came before that? Does the universe have a limit? If so, what lies beyond? More and more, science seems to be trending to the idea of a “big bang”, also known as the “singularity” for the origins of the universe, but what started that? To answer that things have always been, going back infinitely, simply does not satisfy logic, at least not to me. Science clearly points to a moment when the universe will experience a “heat death” as it winds down and the Law (not theory) of Entropy, one of the inviolable truths of science, wins. This obviously presupposes a moment when the universe began, just like a clock that is winding down must, at some time, have been wound up. To argue that everything has simply “been there” all the time is a bit like the discussion between two people about what supports the earth:

“The earth is supported on the back of an elephant”, says the first.

“What is the elephant standing on?” asks the second.

“Why, the elephant is standing on a turtle”, answers the first.

“Well, what is the turtle standing on?” queries the second.

“My dear fellow”, the first responds, “it’s turtles all the way down…..”

True science takes all the alternate views, or theories, about an observation in nature, follows the data and draws conclusions based on what theory best fits the available data. As such, Creationism should be considered dispassionately and scientifically, just as evolution is. Teach our students good science and let them draw their own conclusions. What could be simpler?