Evolution or Creation? (In evaluating a scientific theory)

Introduction

The history of science is a history of conflict.  No new idea has ever been developed without challenging an old idea.

Evolution or Creation?  A question that has caused much controversy since the first evolutionary thoughts were brought up in the early 1800 century.  Once again religion and science stand on opposing grounds. Religion and science seem to have one common purpose: they both seek to explain the mechanisms behind our observations or predictions.  However, how they each fulfill that possesses many fundamental differences.  Religion relies completely on “faith”, and faith very much forbids any investigation.  But it is investigation that makes science at all convincing.  The religious practice their religion by staying within rules, while scientists celebrate science when breaking previous theories.  With these differences, religion and science can coincide as long as they stay in their parallel paths.  However, conflicts arisen if one of them is mistaken for the other, and the evolution-creation controversy is one of such.

                The creationists claim to be creationism scientists, and creationism is said to be scientific creation.  In every aspect, creationism is now regarded as a scientific theory in the hope of rewriting the theory of evolution.  The thesis question of my report would be: Is scientific creation the scientific alternative to the theory of evolution?  And my conclusion will be reached after I compare evolution and creationism under the criteria of theory evaluation.

 What is a Scientific Theory?

“Science seeks to understand how nature behaves by observing and correlating available factual information… … In science, fact-based explanations care called ‘theories.’”

        What exactly is considered a scientific theory? To make it simple: theory is a hypothesis that stands up to vigorous testing without being falsified.  Moreover, a valid theory has to meet the following three main types of criteria. 1)logical criteria, 2)empirical criteria, and 3) historical criteria.

                 Theories are built to explain the mechanisms behind facts, as the gravitational theory explains the fact that the apple falls downwards.  However, scientific theories themselves need to be constantly evolving.  For instance, when an old theory, or part of the theory, is proven invalid through scientific testing, a new, usually more accurate theory must be built to replace it.  So, are evolution and creationism scientific theories? And does the theory of evolution need to be replaced?

 What is the Theory of Evolution?

“The secrets of evolution are time and death.  Time for the slow accumulations of favorable mutations, and death to make room for new species.”

     Common descent: All living things originated from a common ancestor.

   Gradualism: Species evolve slowly and gradually through a long period of time, which would suggest a relatively old earth.

    Multiplication of species: The number of species increase as new species arisen from the old.  

    Natural selection: Only the “fittest” can survive, and the weaker are eliminated through generations.

     Mutation: Mutation works with natural selection and the environmentally favorable mutations are kept in the gene pool. Genetic drift: The accumulation and elimination of genes by chance.

What is the Theory of Scientific Creation?

“And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:25)

     Relatively new earth: The universe, including the earth and all its life forms are only about 6000 to 10000years old.

     Creator: The universe and life are created through supernatural powers possessed by the Christian God.

     Creation: The sudden and one creation of the universe and life from nothing, through steps recorded in the book of Genesis.

     Catastrophe: The earth is dominated by catastrophes created by God, such as the Noahic flood recorded in Genesis.

Are They Logical?

I compared the two “theories” under the three logical criteria of a valid theory.  They are

a)       simple, unifying idea that is logically consistent internally

b)       logically falsifiable

c)       limited my explicitly stated boundaries.

Referring to the evolution theory stated earlier, it is definitely simple, unifying idea that is logically consistent internally.  It is also logically falsifiable, because it can be imagined to be invalid. The theory is also limited by explicitly stated boundaries: it applies explicitly to all living organisms (including ones that are extinct) that has naturally brought to life on earth. Therefore, for example, scientists would know not to look at artificial breeding for relevant observations. 

Clearly, Scientific Creationism is also a simple unifying idea, it is the simple idea of a God’s creation of everything imaginable and more, as stated in the book of Genesis.  However, whether it is stated in a consistent, logical manner is debatable.  One can argue, that he does not interpret the Bible as literally true, symbolic, or mythical, therefore whether creationism is logical or not really depends on one’s religious beliefs.  Creationism cannot be logically falsified, since it is stated as the simple “Truth”.  “The only Bible-honoring conclusion is… that Genesis I-II is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.”  And there is no boundary to scientific creationism, because it has come from a religious context, which is already out of the reach of science.  To take this point one step further, an unbounded theory cannot be empirically tested, that is what I will proof in the next section of my report. 

Are They Empirically Verified?

 Baring in mind that all scientific theories have to empirically tested, I compared evolution with scientific creationism.  The empirical criteria are

a empirically testable

b) make verified predictions and/or retrodictions

c)       reproducible results

Clearly, a theory has to be empirically testable, and the tests must verify the theory in order to give it validity.  However, in the case of Scientific Creation, it cannot be, and does not need to be tested. It cannot be tested, because it is base on unbounded supernatural powers which is impossible to observe.  It need not to be tested, because according to the creationists,  “faith” simply makes it a fact.  “The Creator…used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe…. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes.”  Perhaps this is why no scientific creationists has ever performed any empirical testing, but they have spent most of their time point out “missing pieces of the puzzle” in the evolution theory.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is widely tested and verified.  This does not mean we have to observe the birth of a new species to prove its validity, (Neither do we have to see an actual atom to test the atomic theory) because the process is to long and slow to be observed.  However, a theory can lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable (as in the case of the atomic theory, the directions of refracted electrons in the gold foil experiment give rise to the atomic structure ).  Ever since the evolution theory is first proposed, geologists, archeologists, biochemists, paleontologists and zoologists have done numerous tests that have never invalidated the theory.

      Fossil record: Fossils are perhaps the most useful materials when studying evolution, they have captured billion years of the process in action.  The fact that the oldest fossils appear to be the simplest best supports evolution.

      Radioactive dating: The approximate age of each fossils are calculated by the usage of radio activedating, the age of the earth is also determined in the same way.

     Geographic variation: the marsupials are endemic to Australia, and the pandas are endemic to China.  Endemism give evidence for natural selection, as different environments give rise to different species, or variations within a species.

     Biochemistry: In the early 1950s, H.C. Urey and S.L. Miller made an imitation of the earth’s environment as predicted 4.6 billion years ago in a flask, several days later, organic compounds formed in the flask suggesting the first sign of life arising from inorganic substances.     

                A lot of misunderstanding exists regarding the verification of the evolution theory.  Note a theory is proven invalid only when it is empirically falsified.  Which means the remaining “missing pieces of the puzzle” in the “evolution tree” does not falsify it and therefore does not invalidate the theory.

Are They Supported Historically?

Lastly, two historical criteria are considered

a)       able to explain all data gathered under previous relevant theories

b)    consistent with preexisting ancillary theories

To further proof the validity of the evolution theory, it also meets the historical criteria.  No relevant data collected before nor after the development of the evolution theory has ever falsified the theory.  Also, the theory is consistent with, even developed with the aid of the preexisting ancillary theories.  Some of these ancillary theories are: sedimentation, fossilization, chemical affinity/reaction rates and so on. 

                Once again, Scientific Creation is proven unscientific.  It cannot explain all the data collected by the evolutionists through scientific reasoning.  Similarly, it is inconsistent with the preexisting ancillary theories establish through many generations in various fields.  Besides sedimentation and so on, Scientific Creation also denies radioactive decay (used to date the fossils), the speed of light (used to date the universe), and the Law of Thermodynamics (stating energy cannot be created in the universe).   

Conclusion

                It has many times been proven that creationism is not at all scientific, though the creationists have been placing the word “science” in front of it. However, the theory of evolution remains a valid scientific theory, which does not need to be replaced by a new one. So it is reasonable to be put amongst all the other well-established theories such as the theories of gravity and relativity.  The big controversy between Evolution and Creation exists because both the evolutionists and creationists are defending their cases as if it is a scientific one.   

Thoughts

            What, then, is creationism? And why is it said to be scientific?  Perhaps these questions can be answered in another essay.  Of course, questions still remain for the details of how exactly evolution was carried out, such as how life originated or who the human ancestor was. But these questions can only involve more specialists to the studying and investigation of this field, and therefore makes the theory even more powerful.  In the main while, the theory of evolution exists as the more important theory in biology, as it seeks to explain all the characteristics of living organisms, and it also keeps on making contribution to other basic sciences, such as psychology and anthropology.