Creation and Evolution 1

There is such a variety of fun ways to continue this dialogue on creationism and evolution that I am unsure in which way to proceed.
Well, here is a quote to begin with.

“Creationism is based on mountains of evidence. Evolution has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”

Okay, so you didn’t say this, but I am. And I believe this as fully and strongly as you do the statement, “Evolutionary Theory is based on mountains of evidence. Creationism has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”

Now both of us are looking at the same evidence. It is the same set of fossils setting on the table, the same scientific laws, the same data. And yet there appears to be another metaphysical elephant in the room, one which determines how we interpret that data. You see, no piece of data can ever be understood outside of one’s metaphysical bias. It is his metaphysic that informs how he looks at and understands the data in front of him.

So I, because I have a Christian metaphysic, interpret the data one way, you, because of your preexisting metaphysic interpret the same data completely differently. Hence how we can come to two entirely antithetical ideas looking at the same things.

All of this is to say a couple of things.

1) No one ever views a piece of data neutrally. It is impossible, because for him to interpret it he must use his metaphysical presuppositions to do that interpreting.

2) Just as my creed (Christian metaphysic) caused me to view the evidence one way, so you must understand that it is your creed (metaphysical naturalism) that causes you to view the data the way you do.

3) This is, of course, not limited to you and I but everyone in the whole world. Every evolutionary biologist has a creed (metaphysic) that determines how he interprets evidence. He presupposes certain things that then determine how he sees what he sees. The same way with creationists.

4) All scientific work is subject to the scientific philosophy that undergirds it. That scientific philosophy is, in part, the metaphysic of which I speak. Both of us appear to be consistent with our metaphysic in interpreting the existing data as we have, but are in need of understanding that the way we even view science the way we do is because we are already biased in our philosophical understanding of what it entails. (That was a mouthful).

And so once again we are in need of discussing our metaphysical beliefs and whether or not they are consistent and valid, before we even go to the evidence, because in the end all the interpretation of every piece of data is only as good and valid as the metaphysic which gives rise to it.

A few other noteworthy points need to be made here.
The “Uniformitarianism” of which we have spoken is one of those metaphysical concepts. The reason you don’t read about it in evolutionary authors is because it is assumed by them. But it is rather easy to prove that they hold these beliefs.

With the scientific method we have observed change within nature. This change has always been minor and we have never ever observed, or even come close to observing, one kind changing into another. With this I know you will agree. And so evolutionary biologists say, “Well this must have occurred just like this throughout all of history”, and then they combine the observed data with the assumption to make theories about the past. Uniformitarianism is simply the assumption stated above, the belief that the way nature behaves now is the same way that it has always behaved. Yet this, of course, cannot even be remotely proven for we cannot test the past but only the present and we have no record of scientific experiments done even 5,000 years ago. Every evolutionist believes it implicitly because his beliefs dictate that this is the way things must be. He was not there 5,000 years ago nor 500,000,000 years ago (if there was such a time). Therefore he must make assumptions about how nature behaved at those times. (hence his uniformitarianism) It is his creed. Whether we want to call it religion or non-religion, the fact remains that it is an unverifiable metaphysical assumption that underlies how someone understands and interprets their present experiences.

One more comment. You said, “Creationism is based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by the adherents of the specific faith that it is a part of. Such dogma has no place in science.” Two thoughts here.

1)Evolution is also based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by its adherents (as I already covered above with the metaphysical assumptions). There is a degree of challenging ideas in evolution, but those go on within the given metaphysical construct. The same is true of creationism by the way. Though creationists hold the same metaphysical constructs there is a wide variation of how of creation and the flood.

2)As to the “such dogma has no place in science”, I still am trying to figure out how a non-theist can account for any of the numerous presuppositions (axioms) that underlie science and are necessary for any science to be done. If you would like me to list some of these axioms then I will do so.

Anyway, that is plenty of fodder for you to play with for now. I hope you had a great weekend and look forward to your responses.

Addendum:
As I have had a little more time to process and think on this I had a few more thoughts. (These are just enhancements to the two points directly above.)

1)We know that Science or the Scientific method is based upon the principle of falsifiability. If we cannot falsify a theory or hypothesis then it is not scientific. Therefore, as you stated, creationism “has no place in science” since one cannot falsify that a supernatural Creator created the universe. Well, then we must also say that evolution has no place in science, because it is not falsifiable either. When I posit something in the remote past, whether it be an event of purely natural processes or an event done by supernatural processes, it is still an event of the remote past and not repeatable or falsifiable. So just as creationism “has no place in science”, so evolution has no place in science.

2)Having said this I am going to turn the tables a bit. I think the real question here is not “Can science account for my theory”, but “Can my theory account for science?”. You see, though neither can be tested or falsified by science, the truth of the matter is that only one of them can explain why science is even possible. Evolution, if it were possibly true, cannot explain any axiom basic to science. If evolution were true then science would no longer be objective but would become a purely subjective discipline. On the other hand, creationism not only led to modern day science but is basic to any scientific endeavor. It alone gives rise to a solid basis (those axioms of which I speak) upon which science can be done.