Debates

In the any serious discussion one of the first tasks of the presenter is to define their terms. Many times terms, phrases and ideas are passed around like two ships in the night and meaningful dialogue never gets established. This is especially evident in the whole evolution and creation debate. Words get tossed around and many times speakers and debaters just talk past each other without really listening to what they are really saying.

For example, sometimes when the word creation is used in these situations, it usually triggers in the minds of the audience keys words such as “six days,” “creationist,” and “fundamentalist.” On the other hand when the word evolution is mentioned, many people think of a sort of progressive critique that gets worst by the minute; they start with concepts such as Darwin and slippery-slope their way into all sorts of causal (seemingly connected) ideas that lead up to Nazi Germany. There needs to be some working definitions when these discussions take place in order to avoid any semantic summersaults.

It is this kind of sloganeering that immediately lends itself to the creation of straw men and ad hominems that liter the battlefield of both the creationist and Darwinist camps. The attacks have been so vitriolic that sometimes we forget what the issue is really about. Similarly, important ideas are lost in the mix. And in effect, if we are to consider whether evolution and creation are foes or allies we must clear the air and define our terms.

What are we talking about? What is evolution? Evolution can mean a variety of things for a variety of fields. To give you an idea of what evolution meant to one of the first individuals to fully employ the term, Herbert Spencer, Malcolm Guthrie writes, “Except in the definition of Evolution given in First Principles,” Mr. Spencer seldom uses the word in the sense defined as the concentration of matter and the concomitant dissipation of motion, but he usually employs it as meaning the advance from a state of homogeneity, indefiniteness, and simplicity, to a state of definite, coherent complexity.” Herbert Spencer was an English philosopher that dealt with everything from political theory to social complexity theories. He is credited to being one of the first of developing (free from metaphysical ideas) the concept of evolution.

However, in the contemporary debate, there are more refined definitions that tune in specifically on the idea of biological systems. To use a modern day example, “what is evolution? In Charles Darwin’s times, a general definition would have been ‘descent with modification.’ And that is not a bad definition. It means that one generation of animals or plants… which in turn produces the next generation, and so on. This is the descent part. Upon closer observation, however, you will notice that each generation is different from the one preceding; that is, the generations are not simply exact copies from each other. This is the modification part. A more modern definition would be “any change in the gene frequencies of a population with time.”(emphasis mine). However, a more comprehensive and working definition (for all parties) is found in Dr. Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology,

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

Since this is more akin to the modern concept of evolution, this is the definition we will use. Consequently, this definition makes a couple of assumptions that are worth noting. First of all, it assumes that is a purely mechanistic process. In addition it is also a broad definition that includes small variations to substantial changes in organisms. Absent from this definition are concepts like purposelessness, random mutation, the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, etc.

It is important to note that although these issues are not mentioned in the working scientific explanation of evolution, nevertheless these topics underlie many of the argumentations between these two fields once they get unpacked.

On the other hand, we cannot expect the doctrine of creation to be defined by the scientific academia for it primarily resides in the formal area of theology and philosophy and materially in the datum of scripture. One definition states that, “Scriptural teaching on God and the relation of the universe to Him unmistakably affirms creation. God alone is declared to be underived, self-existent (Exodus 3:14), and in comparison with Him all things else are as nothing (Wisdom 11:23; Isaiah 40:17). God is said to be the beginning and end of all things (Isaiah 48:12; Revelation 1:8); all things else are from Him, and by Him, and in Him (Romans 11:36” As a matter of fact, Theologian and Scientist John Polkinhorn mentions that the doctrine of creation implies that:

1. The world is orderly, since God is rational 2. No prior constraints are imposed on the creators choice of creation’s pattern, so that one has to look (observe and experiment) to see what the divine will has selected 3. Because creation is not itself sacred, it can be investigated without impiety

This gives us a broad picture of what is meant by the doctrine of creation. Not only is God the creator of everything there is but He created everything from nothing. As mentioned above, the Fourth Lateran Council firmly established that creation was de nihil condidit. This is a very important distinction and one that is crucial to the answer we seek in regards to the relationship of evolution and creation.

Nevertheless, it is very important to mention that these two definitions are often confused with their extremes. Evolution, in the minimalist sense, accounts for transition among species and leaves all other philosophical assumptions aside. If evolutionists adhere by their own standards, then they will deal with the factual and empirical. If, on the other hand they “import” some value type judgments such as “we are purposeless,” or “there is no God,” etc., then they have transgressed their minimalist worldview and veered into making philosophical judgments. This “borrowed capital” makes this worldview come with baggage without paying for the extra fair. These views can be represented by people such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

On the other hand, the theology of creation could become impregnated with the idea of strict biblical literalism and, undergirded with a soft form of bibliolatry; it could seminally produce what is commonly called creationism. Just as it is good to be rational but bad to be rationalistic, it is also good to believe in the doctrine creation and naïve to believe in a flawed view of creation. This is the heart of the matter. When these two ideas clash they usually do in a summersault of semantics that never allow the air to clear and see what epistemological foundations undergird both views.

The Implications of these two realms With the above definitions we can start traversing the intricate road that will determine whether creation and evolution can coexist or if there cannot be any meaningful communication at all.

If we are to use the two simpler (Ockham’s razor) definitions, then it seems that there could be some dialogue between the two. In addition, there could be some shared assumptions that do not violate each other’s territory.

Furthermore, I think that given the fact that the two areas have their share of mistakes, we can learn from those mistakes and make inroads instead of walls. There needs to be an understanding between the two that creation cannot claim an isolationist perspective and ignore the scientific data. It has to welcome the data (since it is God’s other book) and adjust and or tweak the framework of our worldview and thus also affect our interpretation of it and of the Scriptures. Creation advocates can hold tight to answers for The Cause while holding ever so gently to issues arising from secondary causes. They could be sure of the ontological dependency to the Prime Mover but they could have a humble, wait-and-see attitude with the smaller movers.

In addition, science has to acknowledge that they can’t always have their cake and eat it too: either they behave nicely and play with their naturalistic toys without complaining about the other kids playing with their so called imaginary friends or they could admit that there is possible postulate that might lie outside their field of which they could never prove or disprove but accept it as a possible postulate as an inference to the best explanation (which has worked in both the fields of philosophy and science). I acknowledge that this is a tall order for a dispute that has lasted for several hundred years. Nevertheless, the best possible scenario for evolution and creation can be found in an excellent article by William Carroll and it is worth repeating the whole quote.

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material. If, in producing something new, an agent were to use something already existing, the agent would not be the complete cause of the new thing. But such complete causing is precisely what creation is. To build a house or paint a picture involves working with existing materials and either action is radically different from creation. To create is to cause existence, and all things are totally dependent upon a Creator for the very fact that they are. The Creator does not take nothing and make something out of nothing. Rather, anything left entirely to itself, wholly separated from the cause of its existence, would be absolutely nothing. Creation is not some distant event; it is the complete causing of the existence of everything that is. Creation, thus, as Aquinas shows, is a subject for metaphysics and theology; it is not a subject for the natural sciences. Although Scripture reveals that God is Creator, for Aquinas, the fundamental understanding of creation is accessible to reason alone, in the discipline of metaphysics; it does not necessarily require faith. Aquinas thought that by starting from the recognition of the distinction between what things are, their essences, and that they are, their existence, one could reason conclusively to an absolutely first cause which causes the existence of everything that is. (emphasis mine)

Here, Carroll makes a clear distinction between creation as something that lies in the realm of metaphysics and change in the realm of that which is knowable through the sciences. I would say that there is a logical distinction between the two that do not contradict each other but can be both part of the same phenomenon. It would be similar like looking at the follicles of your skin through your own eyes and seeing them through the eyes of a dermatologist. Although they both see the same thing, they both have information that complement what they see although it not might be at the same place and in the same manner.

Conclusion Can evolution and creation coexist? I would answer in the affirmative provided that they establish some ground rules for thinking, interpretation, and analyzing the framework from which they worked from. Hence, this might be seen as the balance along the continuum instead of the balance between two extreme poles, which could be harder to achieve (See figure 1).

Fig. 1 WORKS CITED Eugenie C. Scott. “The Creation/evolution Continuum .” National Center For Science Education, December 7, 2000. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp/ (accessed 05/01/2008). William E. Carol. “Creation, Evolution And Thomas Aquinas.” Catholic Education Resource Center, 2000. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html. (accessed 04/29/2008). William Lane Craig. “Is There Historical Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus?”.” Bring To You Apologetics, 1988. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm. (accessed 04/27/2008). Truman State University. “Founding Figures.” Truman State University, 14 March, 2008. http://www2.truman.edu/~rgraber/cultev/spencer.html. (accessed 04/28/2008). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm. “Creation.” New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908. / (accessed 04/28/2008). Laurence Moran. “What Is Evolution?.” The Talk Origins Archive, January 22, 1993. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html. (accessed 04/28/2008). George R. McGhee. The Late Devonian Mass Extinction: The Frasnian/Famennian Crisis. Irvington: Columbia University Press, 1996. Malcolm Guthrie. On Mr. Spencer’s Unification of Knowledge. Cambridge: Trübner & co, 1882.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "EVOLUTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION: FRIENDS OR FOES?", url: "http://www.thomisttacos.com/evolution-and-the-doctrine-of-creation-friends-or-foes" });