The Logos Papers #79 The Creation vs. Evolution Controversy

PAPER NO. 79

THE CREATION VS. EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY

Introduction

There has been lengthy and heated discussion from both sides without resolution. This is an indication that the assumptions in the dispute are not being adequately addressed.

Three issues are involved in the controversy:

By what method is the dispute to be settled—by appeal to science, or to scripture, or to the critical use of reason in philosophy? This also requires analysis of fact, data, presupposition, and interpretation.
If differing assumptions are being used to interpret what is observed, which assumption, given the existing common ground, best interprets the data?
Are the two views mutually exclusive, or is there a compromise position (theistic evolution) which would be acceptable to both sides, without compromising fundamental features of either?

Issue #1: By what method can origins be known: science or scripture or philosophy?

Science assumes material monism and that only natural forces operate; it has not attempted to prove this.
Christian theism assumes the existence of God the Creator; it does not attempt to prove this.
The question of proof of first principles belongs to the realm of philosophy (critical use of reason).

Consider the example of the carbon dating method to see the penetrating presence of assumption in science:

Does C14 dating of bones require the principle of uniformity—that the present is like the past, that the forces now operating in nature have always operated and in essentially the same magnitude as today? For example, is the rate of C14 formation today the same as two million years ago?
If uniformity is required, is it verifiable by observation or is it an assumption of science?
If it is an assumption, on what basis is the alternative assumption of non-uniformity (catastrophism) excluded?
If non-uniformity is allowed in some places, must it be allowed elsewhere, and if it is disallowed, must it be disallowed everywhere?
Does consistent uniformity allow only natural forces to be used in explanation (methodological naturalism), and if so, does uniformity rest on the assumption of material monism, to the exclusion of theism?

The “fact” of the age of the fossil is an interpretation of data in light of a basic belief (material monism) and is warranted only as much as the assumption is warranted. Philosophy is the discipline which deals with basic beliefs (see Paper No. 78).

Issue #2: By what assumption is the data to be explained: uniformity or non-uniformity?

In all three areas of geology, biology, and astronomy, uniformity based on naturalism is not required to explain what is observed, nor does it best explain the data. The following will raise some brief points. For a more detailed explanation of each, see Philosophical Foundation – The Fourth Argument Against Materialism.

Geological Data: fossil beds, coal beds, sedimentary strata, mountain uplifts, volcanic plateaus, ocean levels/depths (underwater canyons), and meteorological changes.

Were these formed gradually by forces operating at the present rates, or were there catastrophic forces at work at some time in the earth’s history?

Biological Data—four stages: 1) From non-life to life (the origin of life); 2) From life to more complex life (the increase of complexity); 3) From more complex life to hominid (the origin of the species); 4) From hominid to human (the origin of man).

The dispute is not about microevolution (changes within a species, for example, the beaks of finches), but about macroevolution (changes between kinds, for example, from amoeba to man).

Can macro-mutation be explained as the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations?
Could natural forces, through some sort of gradual process (uniformity), have produced all the forms of life (four stages)? Can chance account for each step through gradual/greater complexity up to human beings?
Does the fossil record bear this out? (Current saltational theories deny the likelihood of finding any missing links in light of the completeness of the fossil record.)
If there are gaps between the various kinds of living things, are these gaps original (by creation), or were there sudden fortuitous changes from one kind to another?
Can anomalies (what is contrary to expectation) count as evidence against a theory?

Astronomical Data: fine-tuning and the age of the universe.

Fine-tuning of the cosmos

Recent discoveries in astronomy have revealed how finely tuned the forces of the cosmos must be in order for there to be a universe at all, and furthermore to have one that can make life possible. Scores of instances of fine-tuning have been identified and summarized.
Appeal to necessity and chance to explain the origin of the universe itself in natural terms alone, apart from intelligent design, is to shift from calculating probabilities within the actual world to calculating probabilities between logically possible worlds.

Age of the cosmos

Uniformitarian assumptions in thinking about the age of the universe are not warranted in light of commonly held views about 1) the expanding universe (Big Bang/white hole cosmology) and 2) gravity’s effect on time.
From 1 and 2, as the universe expanded, with less matter at the center, the event horizon (EH) (determined by the field of gravity surrounding the white hole) grew smaller. The greater part of the universe exists outside the EH, compared to what is at or near the center. Gravity affects clocks outside differently than within the EH. So, the age of the universe is not uniform.

Issue #3: Is a compromise position (theistic evolution) possible?

There are four points which are at issue: 1) the concept of man as a body/soul unity, 2) the concept of human equality, 3) the concept of divine goodness, and 4) the concept of science and divine intervention.

	Naturalism	Historic Theism	Theistic Evolution
Man as a Body/Soul Unity	No soul	Body/soul unity; soul survives death; soul = life	Soul survives death; soul infused by God (hominid to human); soul ≠ life
Human Equality	Evolution continuing; some more fit than others	Created equal in the image of God; creation has ended	Evolution continuing; some more fit than others
Divine Goodness	Struggle to survive and death as natural	Original creation very good (no natural evil); natural evil imposed in connection with moral evil	Struggle to survive and death as natural; compatible with divine goodness
Science and Divine Intervention	No divine intervention (unnecessary and too arbitrary)	God creates, sustains, and rules the creation; this is the basis for scientific investigation	Divine intervention in soul infusion and every micro-mutation

A compromise position (theistic evolution) is not acceptable to consistent naturalism and to consistent theism. The issue must be resolved at the level of assumption through the critical use of reason.

This paper was originally developed for an Introduction to Philosophy course.

It has been edited by The Logos Foundation editorial board.