In this blog post, we will look at the arguments of creationism that deny the theory of evolution and ask the question of where we came from.
In 1859, a book that changed the world was published. British biologist Charles Robert Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which explained how various species of organisms came to be, and it sold out on the same day, causing a huge social uproar. The paper on the theory of evolution that Darwin wrote with Wallace was heavily criticized by the scientific and theological communities, while it was defended and praised by many scholars. The core argument of “The Origin of Species,” which is considered to be a book that shook the Bible, is the “theory of evolution.” This theory, which is accepted as the orthodox theory today, is that living organisms constantly differentiate into different species through the process of natural selection. In the 1930s, the theory of evolution was combined with Mendel’s genetics and developed into modern evolutionary theory. As a result, various sects have emerged, the most representative of which are group genetics, Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium, and Dawkins’ selfish gene theory. However, hard-line religious people still refuse to accept the theory of evolution as true and insist on pseudoscience based on religion called creationism. I would like to emphasize that these claims are clearly incorrect.
First, let’s take a look at the pseudo-science and creationism they claim. Creationism is a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that puts a scientific spin on the religious doctrine that God created all things in the universe. It is often referred to as “creationism,” but the word “theory” is usually used to refer to scientifically proven theories, so recently there has been a growing movement to refer to creationism as “creation hypothesis.” Creationism is divided into two types. There are two theories about the age of the Earth. One is the Young Earth Theory, and the other is the Old Earth Theory.
The Young Earth Theory is a theory that explains the process of creation by accepting the age interpreted based on the Bible as it is, and it is the most popular branch of creationism. It estimates the age of the Earth to be approximately 6,000-10,000 years based on the Bible and claims that creation took place in six days. Their representative evidence is the following quote.
“Following Ockham’s razor principle, we prefer simple scientific theories over complex ones. We do not want to endlessly complicate science with unnecessary elements. The same logic should apply to biblical interpretation. We should choose the simplest biblical interpretation. The simplest interpretation is the most natural or the one with the most linguistic support.”
– Chapter 1, Young Earth Creationism, in Three Views on Creation and Evolution (P. Nelson, J.M. Reynolds)
They justify their claims by citing Ockham’s razor, a scientific principle. However, there is no sufficient explanation for interpreting the Bible and science on the same logical line. There is also no basis for the claim that it is most reasonable to interpret the Bible as it is. There are many logically contradictory contents in the Bible itself, and the fundamentalist position of interpreting it as it is cannot explain these contradictions, so it cannot be the simplest explanation. In fact, this is also a problem with the creation theory itself. The only basis on which creationists rely is the authority of the Bible, and this is a crucial error that all the words of the Bible are true. In other words, their argument can be summarized as “According to the Bible, God created mankind like this, so our argument is correct.” Unfortunately, according to their argument, Jesus is the 29th or 42nd descendant of King David.
On the other hand, old-earth creationists interpret the Bible more flexibly. They accept the age of the earth and the universe as determined by scientific measurements, but they do not accept the theory of evolution. They use the principle of “irreducible complexity,” which creationists most often cite when criticizing the theory of evolution, as their basis. This is a theory that the existence of complex and precisely regulated organs, such as the flagella of bacteria, animal eyes, and the immune system, disproves the theory of evolution. Darwin also clearly stated this.
“If it is proved that any complex organ cannot be formed through a large number of successive small modifications, my theory will collapse completely.” (On the Origin of Species, Chapter 6)
Unfortunately for creationists, no such institution has been found to support it. Crucially, even if evidence is found to support such irreducible complexity, it does not mean that evolution is wrong, but only that creationism is correct. Just as you are not Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins is not you.
Based on what has been discussed so far, the creation theory is nothing more than a non-sensical theory, and creationists act like sophists of the 21st century. Nevertheless, the fact that they still stand by their claims clearly shows that they have followers. In fact, a survey found that 37% of Americans support the creation theory, especially the young earth theory. The biggest reason why they do not support the theory of evolution is their ignorance and misunderstanding of the theory. I have also read books on creationism to understand it, but I only learned that the basis for creationists is always the same repertoire, and there was no change in thinking. It is that creationists lack the effort to read and understand books related to the theory of evolution. Perhaps reading Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” to them would test their violence.
Regardless, their ignorance of the theory of evolution stems from a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, which is why they slander it. For example, the reason for criticizing the theory of evolution is that “humans evolved from monkeys, which is nonsense.” This is a slander against the theory of evolution without knowing the theory. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but branched off from the same common ancestor. By the same logic, the Korea Creation Science Association cited three reasons why the theory of evolution is not true. First, evolution is statistically impossible, second, there is no increase in genetic information, and third, there is fossil evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. The first and second points are a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, and the third point refers to the Cambrian explosion, which is actually good evidence for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium and does not contradict the theory of evolution.
Despite the slander of evolution that comes from the ignorance and misunderstanding of these creationists, the scientific community accepts evolution as a fact and it is also taught as a compulsory subject in the curriculum. In fact, there are only a handful of people in academia who take creation seriously. This is because there is sufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution. No, there is more than enough evidence. First of all, evolution is a natural process in biology. In order for a living organism to “survive,” it must constantly adapt to its environment. The most common examples are the size of the beak of the finch discovered by Darwin and the size of the ears of the Arctic fox and the desert fox. If the adaptation to such environmental changes is manifested at the level of speciation, it becomes (macro)evolution. Numerous fossil evidence supports this. Evidence that humans are apes, that is, evidence that humans have a common ancestor with monkeys such as chimpanzees, has been revealed through fossils. The basic principle of modern taxonomy, the flexible relationship between species, has all been discovered through fossils. And not a single fossil discovered contradicts the theory of evolution. Statistically, the absence of a single fossil that contradicts the theory of evolution among the many fossils found can disprove the creationists’ null hypothesis that “all living things evolve.”
In ancient Greece, there was a profession called sophistry. Originally meaning “wise man” or “one who knows,” this word referred to the intellectual class of Athens, but by the time of Socrates, it had come to mean people who used sophistry to make money. Extreme theists who claim creationism are no different from sophists. They try to win the mental battle by saying, “You cannot prove that our claims are wrong.” When it is legally prohibited to teach creationism, they disguise it as “intelligent design,” which is called “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” When dealing with these fanatical sophists, there is nothing better than a quote from a scholar.
“I honestly don’t think I can win because they don’t understand what I’m saying.”
However, a logical and rational modern person who truly loves the truth will be able to clearly distinguish what is true and what is false.
