CREAVOLUTION

Well, they’re at it again. Only a day after Mike Huckabee ‘won’ the Iowa caucus, “A group of scientists” came out to announce that the United States is “doomed” if a creationist is elected President. As if Huckabee would be the first President in history to entertain an irrational idea. Assuming creationism is irrational. Or that classical evolution is not. The scientists (unnamed for the most part, and I couldn’t find a name for any organization) admit in their own announcement that nearly half of adult Americans (47%, according to this laughable article) do not accept the notion that humans evolved over very long periods of time from lesser life forms. That’s their big argument for banning Creationism? 53% claim to accept the theory. But listen to some of the arguments used to blast creationism:

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming . . .”

I find this an interesting admission. While we all believe smoking to be hazardous, there have been more than a few cases of people smoking their entire lives with no discernible ill-effects. The global warming logic is even weaker. That isn’t even a theory—it’s an opinion. Lots of well-educated people share it, but as many or more do not. If that kind of logic is the best they can do, Creationism doesn’t have much to worry about. But let’s follow that logic back a ways and see where it leads us. In order to accept trans-species evolution, we have to accept the prevailing theory of the creation of the earth, which takes us back four billion years to the accretion of dust and gas, the igniting of our sun and the subsequent forming of the planets, the long bombardment, the “building blocks of life” somehow coming into being, etc. In order to accept all that, we have to go even further back to Inflation, [and now] the appearance of dark matter and energy, then back to the Big Bang. In order to accept the Big Bang and its subsequent faster-than-light inflationary period (because, you know, the speed of light hadn’t been ‘determined’ yet) we have to accept the idea of spontaneous generation—something created from nothing. Here’s why. According to the theory, the universe came into being as the result of a rapid expansion of a “super plasma” which cooled enough to form matter and energy. This original “singularity” is described as a point without reference of any kind, of infinite mass and infinite pressure, balled up into an infinitely small space. An infinitely small space is synonymous with nothing. All of existence must have come from that one point of Everything which is described as having the characteristics of nothing. Later on, we have to accept the idea of non-living elements and combinations thereof, suddenly and miraculously figuring out how to be alive. Even though no one, not even those smarty-pants evolutionists, has any idea at all how something like that might happen—something not-alive becoming alive. And even though for thousands of years our experience has consistently been that only living things are able to create living things. So we know of at least two cases directly related to the theory of evolution in which miracles have to be accepted as articles of faith. No one has an explanation for non-living to living, and no one has an explanation for how or why the singularity existed, or what came before it. Remember, anything that is not infinite—eternal—has to have a cause. What caused the singularity? Science clings to belief and dogma with the same zeal and passion as any believer-in- God.


"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other [smoking and energy policy] arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.”

Is he serious? That’s like saying if you don’t believe in Santa Clause, you won’t believe in plate tectonics either. What do those things have to do with one another?
People believe all kinds of crazy things, but that doesn’t make them crazy. I believe God is corporeal, has a body of flesh and bone. Most of the rest of Christianity calls that crazy, heretical, and blasphemous, including many of my friends. But while most of my friends might tell you they find me odd, or even quirky, none of them would call me insane or crazy. Except Gloria, but she’s just jealous.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves how doubting the veracity of the theory of evolution is going to hinder a Presidents ability to make treaties, or deal with congress, or hold State dinners. I can see how the acceptance of Creationism could weaken a Presidents authority; “gee, this guy thinks God made the world! We’d better not trust him to run the military or negotiate with terrorists!”
There are several variations of Creationism, but the one everyone thinks of is the idea that God made the world in six literal days, and that humans were put here after everything else had been selected and placed. Another is a little more liberal—allowing for one of the Lords ‘days’ to be a thousand years, which gives us a little more time to evolve, but not enough to satisfy those paleo-biologists. I like the one which allows us to accept six “creative periods” of indeterminate duration, as it is able to encompass the inexact number scientists love, known as “billions”.
The newest iteration is “Intelligent Design”. This one suggests that the universe is natural and all, plain as your hand in front of your face, but that the level of organization demands some kind of guiding intelligence. This is the same as “God made the world” without mentioning God specifically. If I were God—and I’m not—I think I would resent being left out of my own creation. But that’s just me.
For me the problem isn’t which one is “true” or what should or shouldn’t be taught in school. I’m not at all sure Creationism needs to be in schools. We taught our children the doctrine of our faith starting in the delivery room and reinforced the lessons every day, more or less, until they left home. I was content to let evolution run rampant in the classroom, after all, it’s “logical”. All my kids can explain the theory of evolution well enough to prove themselves literate, but the logic hasn’t weakened their faith in revealed truth. Amazingly, we are able to exist successfully in both worlds with hardly any cranial hemorrhaging at all. Apparently, there are some scientists out there who are not.

"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine," said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.

That’s a pretty good argument on the face of it. But we do teach astrology after a fashion. At least culturally. You can find your horoscope in most newspapers, popular magazines and on-line. Universities teach it, and not just in classes on mythology or history. Classes are available for Tarot, astrological interpretation and charting. But it’s true they’re not taught as alternatives. At least not officially.

“We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," he said.

That sounds pretty strident for a scientist. Almost like he was afraid of something. Now, I know some people are trying to pass Creationism off as science, and that’s not the brightest idea in the world, but these attacks sound purposefully mean-spirited. Creationism cannot and should not take the place of rigorous scientific inquiry. On the other hand, science has no business trying to suppress and-or eliminate religious inquiry and the religious experience. That will turn out to be a self-defeating behavior--that kind of thing makes it sound as if science is afraid of religion. They claim to be afraid of ignorance and superstition, using those words as poorly disguised synonyms for religion. But I wonder if it is something else. I wonder if some of them are afraid of what they might find at the end of their search. I can easily imagine these rational, “truth”-worshiping researchers laying awake at night, full of an unnamed anxiety, suffering from dreams and night-sweats, unable to name their fear. But I can name it. After all their creativity, and their research and deductions, their brilliant theories delving ever deeper into the heart of the universe, past atoms and bosons and leptons and quarks, past DNA and fossils and natural selection, dark matter and dark energy, strings and superstrings, they will finally come to a place where they can go no further, having not answered the ultimate question. And there, waiting with the answer, which will prove to be a logic beyond logic and a truth encompassing all truth, will be Intelligence. God. Not ‘a’ supreme being, but The Supreme Being. And He will prove to be quite willing to explain it all and there won’t be anything irrational about it at all. The scientists and the religious will both find themselves surprised at their ignorance, superstitions, and the inefficacy of their deeply-held beliefs.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect to be in that group as well. The difference is, I know it.