Introduction to Creationism

Which Theory Has More Evidence?

Evolution Theory

Biblical Creationism

Progressionism: Everywhere in the world, if you dig for fossils, you will find that as you get deeper, the fossils become simpler. This trend is known as progressionism and it indicates that highly evolved animals occupy only a small, recent portion of the fossil record, so they couldn't have been there from the beginning. This consistent, observed physical evidence is predicted by evolution theory but not by creation theory. If all of the world's creatures came into being at once, why are fossils always progressively simpler as you dig deeper into the rock?

Homology: Profound similarities between different species (in conjunction with their geographical placement) were the original motivation for Darwin's theory of evolution. To put it simply, when two species are so similar that they seem as if they're related, then perhaps they are related. Evolution is based on "family trees", hence the biological classification of species into larger groupings known as genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla. You can draw a "family tree" for any animal species on Earth, tracing its evolutionary ancestry as well as the geographical migrations of its ancestors. This is consistent with evolution theory because all species must have evolved from more primitive species. However, it is inconsistent with creation theory, since creationists propose that each species was "designed" separately. If they were designed separately, then why would each and every species on Earth just happen to have an ancestral "family tree" of remarkably similar but progressively less advanced organisms, miraculously arranged in geographical patterns which are consistent with migration and evolution? There are several types of homology:

Structural Homology: There are fundamental similarities between divergent species within their families. For example, the forearm skeletal structure of hundreds of vertebrate species (including man and ape) are remarkably similar. The structure of the eyeball is remarkably similar among mammals. All flowering plants share structural aspects of leaves, stem, roots, etc.
Behavioural Homology: There are striking similarities between the behavioural instincts of different species. For example, different species of thrushes in Britan and South America line their nests in exactly the same way. Also, geographically separated different species of stickleback have similar mating rituals.
Biochemical Homology: As with structure and behaviour, there are profound similarities in the chemical makeup of numerous related species. For example, we share 98% of our DNA with apes. Human blood-precipitation agents are still 64% effective in gorillas. And at a more fundamental level, the protein enzyme known as cytochrome is part of the respiration process and is found in everything from plants to bacteria, fungus, and mammals. Minor differences in the structure of the enzyme constituents can actually be used to map the evolutionary development of entire "family trees" of species.
Embryological Homology: The embryos of different species are often indistinguishable from one another, even when the end product is markedly different, eg- lizards, birds, and mammals. Modes of formation of heads and torsos are often identical between different species. Human embryos even have tails, which never develop into anything useful.

Transformed organs: Some related species have similar organs in similar places, with subtly altered functions. For example, flies differ from most flying insects by having one pair of wings rather than two, but the rear pair of wings is not gone- it has been transformed into a pair of gyroscopic organs (halteres) which aid in directional control. Some fish have organs which produce an electrical discharge that can be used as a form of close-range radar, while others have the same organ in roughly the same part of their anatomy, but the electrical discharge is much stronger so that it can kill or paralyze predators and prey. This is consistent with evolution from one species to another, but a staggering coincidence if one believes in individual species design.

Poor design: Many biological structures are obviously "jury-rigged", ie- they are trial and error modifications upon pre-existing structures which don't work very well in their current application. We can see this in both their structural similarity to those structures (ie- the homology argument), and the fact that they are pretty damned bad designs. For example, the human eye's photoreceptors are backwards (the nerve fibers are on the side facing the incoming light), which means that the "wiring" gets in the way and reduces our visual acuity! Worse yet, there is a hole where the fibers exit the eye, which creates a blind spot! Squids and octopi don't have this problem, but we (and all vertebrates) inherited this flaw from our ancestors. Similarly, we swallow and breathe through the same tube, which creates a choking hazard that can easily be fatal. Once again, this is easily explained by examining our evolutionary ancestors, but it is absolutely incomprehensible for an "intelligent designer".

Vestigial features: The human appendix serves no useful function but it corresponds to the cecum of the alimentary canal of many other mammals. It can be removed without detriment, and it creates a serious infection hazard that can lead to death; hardly a good idea! Flightless birds such as ostriches and penguins also serve as examples of vestigial features because their wings are transitional. They correspond in structure and placement to the wings of flying birds, but a land animal has no need of wings, and their shrunken wings make terrible arms. And what about the hollow bones of flightless birds? A land animal has no need of such weight-reducing measures, which merely weaken their skeletal structures. All of this is easily explained through evolution from previous life forms, but if one subscribes to creation theory, it can only be viewed as evidence that God was a terrible engineer, mindlessly copying serious design flaws from species to species.

Parasites and diseases: Most parasites have evolved to specialize so that they require another life form, sometimes retaining structural evidence of a previous, free-living evolutionary ancestor. It is easy to imagine organisms adapting to utilize other life forms for survival in a manner consistent with evolution theory. Once a life form becomes numerous, it behooves parasites to adapt in order to take advantage. However, if we are to believe that life was created in its current form as predicted by creation theory, then Adam and Eve must have been created with tapeworms in their stomachs and malaria parasites in their blood! In fact, Adam and Eve should have both died immediately from an astounding array of diseases, because every species of human-specialized parasite and bacteria must have been already present in their bodies or it would have promptly died for lack of a host.

Geographical distribution: If God made thousands of separate species which were coincidentally similar in every respect, why would he also locate them in such a manner that they appeared to spread outward from a single origin? Was he playing a practical joke? Similar species of flora and fauna can be found on the Cape Verde islands and Africa. Similar species of flora and fauna can be found on the Galapagos islands and South America. Similar species of tapirs are found in the seemingly distant regions of South America and the East Indies, but related tapir fossils have been found in the intermediate regions of North America, Asia and Europe, thus explaining the apparent discontinuity. Species are not located in a random fashion, even when environmental conditions favourable to their success exist in geographically separate areas.

Paleontology: The fossil record demonstrates that the structure of animals has historically been consistent with their environmental conditions. For example, the feet and teeth of horse fossils have changed in correlation with changing environmental conditions: 65 million years ago, the habitat of the horse's ancestors was swampy and full of leafy plants. The horse ancestors (hyracotherium) accordingly had feet with four splayed toes so as not to sink in the swamp, and short teeth for eating the soft leaves. When the ground hardened and the leafy plants receded in favour of grass, more recent horse ancestor fossils had long teeth and smaller feet. This is quite a remarkable coincidence- according to the creationists, all of the fossils were put there as a practical joke by God, and they were coincidentally tailored to be consistent with evidence of appropriate environmental conditions for each era, which was also put there as a practical joke by God. This is a rather elaborate practical joke!

Observed adaptation: It is hopefully common knowledge that bacteria have been constantly adapting to survive the antibiotic assaults of mankind. It is hopefully also common knowledge that successive generations of cockroach can become resistant to chemical pesticides, as can numerous other forms of insect. A more specific example is the British peppered moth. Before the nineteenth century it had only been seen in a gray variant, but in 1850 a black mutant variant was seen. The black variant was not successful because it was so easily spotted by predators, compared to its gray brethren which could blend into the tree bark. However, the black variant remained in the species as a recurrent strain due to a recessive gene, and it began to dominate after the Industrial Revolution. There is some debate as to why and how the Industrial Revolution caused this change, but no one can dispute that they were predominantly gray before the Industrial Revolution and predominantly black afterwards, thus acting as an example of environmentally driven change, ie- evolution.

Scripture: The Judeo-Christian Bible says it happened, in the Book of Genesis. Naturally, proponents of this type of "evidence" always assume that the Judeo-Christian myths are scientifically accurate while the creation mythologies of all the world's other religions are mere superstitious nonsense. Logically, this type of argument is known as a fallacious "appeal to authority", ie- "it's true because somebody says so".

Mystery: There are many phenomena in the universe that scientists still do not understand. There are an even larger number of phenomena that creationists don't understand, since they make only a half-hearted effort to understand science. They deem anything falling into either category to be "evidence for creationism". The underlying assumption is that any area in which scientists have not yet achieved perfect, complete understanding is de facto proof of the literal truth of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Logically, this type of argument is known as a fallacious "false dilemma", ie- artificially narrowed choices: they force you to choose between the extreme positions of "science understands everything" and its polar opposite: "science understands nothing so we should ignore it and use the Bible".