#28: Chris, Me, and that Evolution/Creation Thing (Part 2)

Confronting Origins of the Universe and Man

This is Part 2 of my small series Chris, Me, and that Evolution/Creation Thing. You can read Part 1 here.

By way of quick recap …

I hadn’t given the “evolution-creation thing” much thought until 10 years ago when science educator and television host, Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” and Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis (AIG), a young earth creation ministry, debated the question “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?”

A couple of audience-submitted questions being debated were:

• Does it damage children to teach them biblical creationism?

• What are the costs of denying evolution, one of evolutionary biology's core tenets, if any?

The event was live-streamed and those on both sides of the evolution/creation issue gathered in small and large groups nationwide to watch it together. My husband and I were among them. You can watch the full debate here.

—

In Part 1, I explained that my husband, Chris, and I were among the last generation to be taught evolution and creation as competing theories of origins in public schools. Edwards v Aguillard, the case that outlawed teaching creation science in schools, wasn’t decided until 1987, long after we’d had our foundational learning years. And, given that we were both raised inside the Judeo-Christian worldview and with respect for Western tradition, we weren’t persuaded by Charles Darwin’s thoughts (which have long been superseded by scientists) or arguments that we humans are nothing more than “grown up germs.” While creationism is anathema today, it wasn’t when we were kids, or for the 200 + years of American education before Edwards intervened.

I wanted to know why we’re so dead set on the “truth” of evolution when, like the Biblical account of creation, no one alive today was there “in the beginning” and no one has ever “observed” the origins of the universe or the origins of man. As we all know, observation is key element of the scientific method and a non-negotiable requirement for scientific inquiry.

It seemed to me that both those who believe the truth claims of the Genesis creation account, AND those who believe the truth claims of the the evolutionary account of origins, including the Big Bang Theory, arrive at their beliefs on the basis of authority, not observation. Creationists trust and rely on the truth claims of the Bible, and evolutionists trust and rely on the truth claims of Darwin and his progeny.

How We Know What We Know

There are only three ways we “know” things, or three ways we “perceive” things in order to gain knowledge of the external world:

• rationalism (trusts reason)

• empiricism (trusts senses/experience), and

• faith (trusts authority).

Rationalism and empiricism help us gain knowledge of a reality we can see, while faith helps us gain knowledge of a reality we cannot see, a reality we cannot know by reason or experience alone.

In the blog post, Faith: Sine Qua Non, author Don Samdahl explains the differences between these means of perception in a simple way:

Science deals with knowledge gained through our senses and reason and operates primarily through the scientific method. With the scientific method, one observes the world and formulates a hypothesis or theory. The hypothesis or theory is tested through experimentation. These results are analyzed and interpreted to see if they confirm or deny the theory. New conclusions are drawn and the process begins again.

In the scientific method, data are valid if they can be observed and reproduced. If they cannot, they fall outside of the realm of science. Scientific knowledge is extremely valuable. However, valuable as it is, it occupies only a small subset of knowledge.

For example, all historical knowledge falls outside of science. No scientist can form a theory and run an experiment to determine if Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, what year he crossed the Rubicon, or even if there was a Julius Caesar. All historical knowledge is based upon authority. To possess historical knowledge requires faith for we must trust historical records.

Almost all knowledge is non-scientific.

I have never been to India but believe India exists. Why? Because I trust atlases, satellites, and persons who have been there. News from newspapers, television, radio, and the internet is based upon trust. We directly experience almost no news we receive through the media and no experiment can validate it. It is knowledge based on faith.

Similarly, all learning begins by faith. A child begins to learn language, for example, by a parent saying “dog.” The child then says, “dog.” He learns because he trusts the parent.

Before we continue down the road of creation v. evolution, it’s important we understand what we’re examining: two competing theories understood not through reason or experience, but solely through faith.

The creation account of origins is non-scientific, so is the evolution account.

This was a massive bombshell for me.

For years and years, I’ve been told I’m an idiot/religious freak for not “trusting the science” even though I was spot-on that the evolutionary theory of origins isn’t science at all. I didn’t know how to articulate it back then, but my “hunch” was indeed correct.

Make no mistake, we aren’t dealing with myth v. science, or religion v. science, rather we are dealing with one historical account of non-scientific knowledge v. another historical account of non-scientific knowledge; or put another way, one set of truth claims v. another set of truth claims, each of which must be believed or not believed based solely on trusting or distrusting authority. There is no observation, no testing, no measuring - just trusting.

» SIDEBAR: Evolutionary theory is often divided into macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Macro-evolution looks at evolution above the species level, or evolution over long periods of time; whereas micro-evolution focuses on changes at or below the species level, or changes in a shorter span of time.

Macro-evolution looks at vertical changes, such as the origin of new species from pre-existing, but different, species. Consider a fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or a whale descending from land mammal.

Micro-evolution, on the other hand, looks at horizontal changes, or changes with a given species, such as variation or adaption due to changing conditions - think wisdom teeth! Variation and adaptation can be due to natural causes, or artificial ones, like breeding animals.¹ When micro-evolution can be observed, it can certainly produce scientific knowledge. To be clear, however, no one has ever been able to prove that macro-evolution is a natural outgrowth of micro-evolution.

Armed with this understanding, what did I do next?

I’ll tell you in Part 3 of Chris, Me, and that Evolution/Creation Thing!

To be continued …

Thank you, as always, for reading and supporting my work. As you may know from my posts, 2024 was an unpredictable year to say the least … I’m looking forward to a steadier season in 2025 … fingers crossed!

xo,

Kelley

December 19, 2024

1. https://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/#:~:text=Macroevolution%20refers%20to%20major%20evolutionary,do%20these%20lead%20to%20macroevolution?