Return to main evolution page

What is now known as the "creationist" (also termed "scientific creationist" or "creation science") movement was originally founded in the 1920s by the self-taught geologist George McCready Price. Price was a devout member of the Seventh-day Adventist sect, which adhered to a literal belief in Genesis. In several books that he subsequently authored, Price declared that much of modern science is "in the highest degree improbable and absurd." He focused his attack on geology, charging that geologists date rocks by their fossil content, while simultaneously determining the age of the fossils by their location in the geological column. Instead, Price, echoing his religious teachings, suggested that a miraculous "cosmic storm" buried the bodies of ancient animals. Thus the fossil record reveals merely a sorting of contemporaneous antediluvian life forms, and the conventional geological column is a delusion. Price's book The New Geology [Price1923], which was first published in 1923, sold over 15,000 copies.

The most influential creationist work in recent decades is Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood, which was first published in 1961 [Whitcomb1988]. These authors argued, as did Price, that since the scriptures clearly describe a universal flood, Christian believers have only two choices: reject God's inspired Word or reject the testimony of thousands of professional geologists. According to the authors, God created the entire universe and populated the earth with fully grown plants, animals, and human beings, all in six literal days, using methods and processes completely different from those now in operation in the universe. There was no death before the Fall, so consequently all fossils are the remains of animals that perished subsequent to the Fall. The authors rejected the conventional geologic ages as Price did, by attributing the apparent order of fossils to "hydrological sorting" of organisms in the flood waters and the superior mobility of vertebrates. They acknowledged that by some indications the earth and the universe appear to be very old, but an omnipotent Creator created them with the "appearance of age." [Whitcomb1988, pg. 233-238].

In the 1970s, Henry Morris published Scientific Creationism [Morris2000], and Duane Gish published Evolution: The Fossils Say No! [Gish1973]. More recently, Gish published Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record [Gish1985]. Morris' book took the same general approach as the earlier book he co-authored with Whitcomb, but added a number of items, including the claim that the earth and moon must be much earlier than scientists say, or else the moon would have been buried in several meters of space dust. He also highlighted what he claimed was a human footprint found in a Texas river bed with many dinosaur fossils. Gish's books have focused on gaps in the fossil record. He argues that for many of these gaps, such as the transition between land mammals and sea mammals, it is biologically impossible that suitable intermediate species could exist.

In recent years the intelligent design movement has garnered considerable attention, but traditional creationism continues to be very popular. A 2009 poll of Americans found that 39% agreed that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals and the first two people within the past 10,000 years." [Bishop2010]. In this same survey, 35% agreed that "The theory of evolution is not supported by any confirmed facts," and 43% agreed that "Human fossils have been found mixed in with dinosaur fossils showing that humans existed at the same time that dinosaurs existed." Previous studies have found very similar results [Gallup2004; Pew2005]. Another indication of the continuing (and perhaps growing) influence of creationism is the popularity of the new Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky (near Cincinnati, Ohio). This facility features a series of exhibits depicting, among other things, the creation in 4000 BC, a global flood in 2350 BC that deposited all fossil layers, and humans and dinosaurs living together. Murals contrast "human reason" with "God's Word." Since it opened in 2007, the museum has attracted over 1,000,000 visitors (as of August 2010).

Groups supporting creationism and intelligent design are very active politically, pressing their case in the U.S. and internationally [Lebo2008; Lebo2010]. In early 2010, some of these groups joined forces with opponents of climate change legislation, promoting legislation in several U.S. states that students be taught "all sides of evidence" on evolution and global warming [Kaufman2010].

Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science who testified in the 1981 Alabama creationism case, describes science as a discipline that (1) is guided by natural law, (2) is explanatory by reference to natural law, (3) is testable against the empirical world, (4) reaches conclusions that are tentative, and (5) is falsifiable [Pennock1999, pg. 5]. So how does creationism measure as a scientific theory?

At this point in time, the conventional scientific picture of the earth as approximately 4.5 billion years old, with fossil remnants of the branching tree of creation extending from primitive bacteria in the distant past to flowering plants and vertebrates several hundred million years ago and ultimately to homo sapiens during the past million or so years, is very well established. Geological dates are particularly well established, confirmed by numerous independent schemes, many of which rely on fundamental nuclear processes such as radioactivity and fission. Thus scientists have very good reasons to infer that these processes are completely reliable as clocks into the distant past. As biologist Kenneth Miller has observed, "The consistency of the data ... is nothing short of stunning." [Miller1999, pg. 76]. This is discussed in more detail at Ages.

In other words, the central tenet of creationism, namely that the earth is only a few thousand years, has been overwhelmingly refuted by modern scientific data. The only other option for those creationists who still nonetheless hold to a young-earth paradigm is to accept the theory advanced by Whitcomb and Morris that an omnipotent Deity created the earth a few thousand years ago, but meticulously designed it to have an "appearance of age" [Whitcomb1988, pg. 233-238, Morris2000, pg. 203]. In addition to the severe theological problem a deceptive Deity, such a notion is utterly non-falsifiable and thus utterly unscientific -- one could just as well assert that the earth was created two weeks ago, with everyone's memory intact and with photons already in transit to the earth from distant stars, and we could not cite any evidence to prove otherwise. This is discussed in more detail at Disadvantages.

With regards to biological evolution, in recent years some powerful new tools have arisen to test and explore the details of evolutionary history. These new tools, based on comparisons of DNA and amino acid sequences, have confirmed the traditional taxonomy of the biological world, determined in earlier years solely by similarities of anatomy and function, and now permit scientists to estimate times to evolutionary branching events in the past. To cite but one well-known example, the 141-amino-acid-long human alpha globin molecule (a component of hemoglobin) is identical with that of chimpanzees, differs by one location in gorillas, by 18 in horses, by 25 in rabbits, and by approximately 100 locations in various fish species. This is discussed in more detail at DNA.

In any event, what are we to make of some of the specific technical issues that creationists have raised? Here is a brief summary, plus a brief statement of the scientific response. For further discussion of these issues, see the other pages on evolution here, as well as some of the numerous books on the topic at Books, and Internet-based resources at Internet links.

1. Flood geology. As mentioned above, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris advanced the theory that the entire column of rocks and fossils that geologists have found were deposited in a cataclysmic flood at the time of Noah. They suggest that the reason that we see more advanced organisms at the higher levels of the geological column is because they were able to maneuver and swim better than others. Even setting aside the unmistakable testimony of radiometric dating, which shows the various layers to be millions or even billions of years old, flood geology meets insuperable obstacles. For example, in a huge flood surely some individuals of a certain species would be more successful than others in swimming or reaching higher ground. So why didn't the aged or infirm individuals drown and appear in much lower geological strata? In general, why do fossils appear only in very specific layers worldwide, and not helter-skelter in multiple layers as one would expect as the result of a cataclysmic global flood? Also, as pointed out by a recent article by Davidson and Wolgemuth, salt layers require water to have evaporated; how then are huge layers of rock and soil deposited on top of salt layers? Numerous other very severe difficulties could be cited [Davidson2010]. Creationists' continuing attempts to defend this absurd theory does not speak well for the movement.

2. Space dust. As mentioned above, various creationists have argued that the moon can't be as old as ordinarily thought, because otherwise it would be covered with several meters of dust. This claim was based on a 1960 study, published in Scientific American, of the space dust infall rate, estimated from measurements made at the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii [Petersen1960]. However, when the actual space dust flow rate was later directly measured in much more careful studies, the result was lower by factor of more than 100. When this and other adjustments are made to the calculation, the result is completely consistent with what the astronauts found on the moon [Pennock1999, pg. 222]. The above facts were made known to the creationist community at least 30 years ago. Yet creationist speakers and authors have continued to promote this argument. For example, it appeared in the 2000 printing of Morris' Scientific Creationism [Morris2000, pg. 151-153]. This has prompted one scientist to comment, "The continuing publication of those claims by young-earth advocates constitutes an intolerable violation of the standards of professional integrity that should characterize the work of natural scientists." [VanTill1988, pg. 82].

3. Paluxy River tracks. In their book, Whitcomb and Morris drew attention to "human" footprints and dinosaur tracks side-by-side near the Paluxy River in Texas. A team of anthropologists who subsequently examined this site found that the "human" footprints were 16 to 22 inches long. Subsequent analysis of subtle coloration effects confirmed that the "human" toe marks were dinosaurian. Based on such results, in 1988 an evangelical scientist wrote that it was no longer appropriate for creationists to use the Paluxy River tracks as evidence against evolution [Hastings1988]. Nevertheless, the tracks are mentioned in recent printings of The Genesis Flood and Scientific Creationism, and they were also featured in the 1995 NBC broadcast "Mysterious Origins of Man," narrated by Charlton Heston, which claimed that much of the traditional scientific account of the creation is false [Whitcomb1988, pg.174; Morris2000, pg. 122].

4. The second law of thermodynamics. For many years creationists have cited the second law of thermodynamics (a principle that closed systems tend to evolve to increasingly disordered states) as fundamental evidence that biological evolution cannot occur. But those who cite it ignore or downplay the key condition "closed system," namely a system that has no influx or outflow of energy. The earth's biosphere is clearly not a closed system, since it not only receives prodigious amounts of energy from the sun, but also from radioactive processes within the earth itself. This energy influx is more than enough to account for the evolution of life on earth. Indeed, life can be thought of as a process that creates order from its environment by extracting energy. Some creationists have discontinued using this argument, but it is promoted at length in the 2000 printing of Morris' Scientific Creationism, and it is also featured prominently in the museum of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego [Morris2000, pg. 38-46]. This is discussed in more detail at Thermodynamics.

5. Gaps in the fossil record. Creationists have long assailed geologists and biologists for gaps in the fossil record. It is certainly true that gaps exist, particularly in sections of the geological column for which there are few accessible fossil sites. In addition, scientists now recognize that the fossil record documents periods of relative stability, punctuated with periods of rapid change. But many of these gaps have been filled during the past few decades with discoveries of transitional fossils. These include many of the gaps that creationists and intelligent design writers have claimed could not possibly be bridged. Also, many "missing link" fossils have been found in transitions between ancient primates and modern humans [Prothero2007]. This is discussed in more detail at Fossils and Prehuman fossils.

6. Out-of-order fossil layers. In several locations, including a region of Montana and Canada, fossil layers appear out of their normal order. But these cases are readily explained by "over-thrusting," namely the movement of one section of rock over another, a phenomenon that can be verified by visual inspection [Eldredge2000, pg. 110-113].

7. No observed speciation today. Creationists and ID scholars often assert that the splitting of a species into two species has never been actually observed. Although speciation typically requires many thousands of years, biologists cite examples of present-day species that appear to be in the process of splitting [Coyne2009, pg. 5-8, 168-189]. One example is a certain salamander species in California, which is visibly different from one end of its habitat to the other, enough so that by established standards (such as failure to interbreed), specimens from the two ends would be classified as from two distinct species [Wake2001]. This is discussed in more detail at Speciation.

8. Probability. Several creationists have argued that the probability of a biomolecule such as human alpha globin, which is a sequence of 141 amino acids, forming at random from scratch is so remote that it could not be expected to have occurred even once in the history of the universe. These probability calculations are, in many instances, significantly flawed. But more importantly, this type of argument suffers from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as alpha globin arises by a single all-at-once event (which, after all, is the creationist theory, not the scientific theory, of their origin). Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. This is discussed in more detail at Probability.

9. Origin of life. Scientists readily acknowledge that many questions regarding the evolution of life on earth remain to be resolved. The origin of life, for instance, is still not understood, although intriguing advances have been made recently. In any event, it is not clear what is to be gained for the creationist cause by highlighting the remaining unknowns in the origin of life arena, since the evolution of living organisms since biogenesis is very well grounded experimentally, independent of how the first biomolecules formed. This is discussed in more detail at Origin.

It is ironic, in a way, that the creationist movement seeks to "prove" the hand of God in creation by seeking scientific evidence that certain aspects of the creation could not have occurred by natural processes. After all, a central tenet of the belief system of many, if not all, creationists is that faith is an essential part of religion, and faith, by definition, is a religious belief that lies outside the realm of what can be readily tested by the empirical methods of scientific research. Indeed, by placing God on the anvil of scientific verification or refutation, creationists are implicitly affirming the scientific materialist worldview of the atheistic critics who are their most implacable foes (see God hypothesis). Further, creationism's quest for scientific evidence of God inevitably leads to a "God of the gaps" theology, wherein God is sought in the gaps of what is currently unexplained in science. This approach has invariably led to disappointment and disillusionment over the years, as relentless progress in science has filled many of the "gaps" of previous eras. This is discussed in more detail at Advantages and Disadvantages.

In short, there are serious theological problems with creationism, in addition to overwhelming scientific evidence against it. Creationism is most certainly not recommended for those seeking harmony between science and religion. This will be a bitter pill for many of traditional religious backgrounds, but it is the only honest conclusion.

References

1. [Bishop2010] George F. Bishop, Randal K. Thomas and Jason A. Wood, "Americans' Scientific Knowledge and Beliefs about Human Evolution in the Year of Darwin," Reports of the National Center for Science Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pg. 16-18.
2. [Coyne2009] Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, Viking, New York, 2009.
3. [Davidson2010] Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth, "Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology," Biologos, 5 Aug 2010, available at Online article.
4. [Eldredge2000] Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, W. H. Freeman, New York, 2000.
5. [Gallup2004] Gallup Poll, 2004, available at Online article.
6. [Gish1973] Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, 1973.
7. [Gish1985] Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, 1985.
8. [Hastings1988] Ronnie J. Hastings, "The Rise and Fall of the Paluxy Mantracks," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 40 (1988), no. 3, pg. 144-155.
9. [Kaufman2010] Leslie Kaufman, "Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets," New York Times, 3 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
10. [Lebo2008] Lauri Lebo, The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America, New Press, New York, 2008.
11. [Lebo2010] Lauri Lebo, "Texas Textbook Massacre," Religion Dispatches, 27 Apr 2010, available at Online article.
12. [Miller1999] Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, Cliff Street Books, New York, 1999.
13. [Morris2000] Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA,1974, second edition 1985, reprinted 2000.
14. [Pennock1999] Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism, MIT Press, Boston, MA, 1999.
15. [Petersen1960] Hans Peterson, "Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust," Scientific American, Feb. 1960, pg. 202.
16. [Pew2005] [no author] "Public Divided on Origins of Life," Pew Research Center, 2005, available at Online article.
17. [Price1923] George McCready Price, The New Geology, Pacific Press, Mountain View, CA, 1923.
18. [Prothero2007] Donald R. Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, Columbia University Press, New York, 2007.
19. [VanTill1988] Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young and Clarence Menninga, Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 1988.
20. [Wake2001] D. B. Wake, "Speciation in the Round," Nature, vol. 409 (2001), pg. 299-300.
21. [Whitcomb1988] John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1961, reprinted 1998.