Arguments against Creationism/Intelligent Design

For a lighthearted but spirited refutation of creationist misconceptions of Earth history, call your local library (or check out their catalog on the internet) and see if they have Creation/Evolution Satiricon: Creationism Bashed. It’s written by the well-known marine geologist/geomorphologist Robert S. Dietz and illustrated by John C. Holden. Stephen G. Brush, a historian of science, examines scientific theories for dating the age of the Earth, particularly radiometric dating in Transmuted Past: The Age of the Earth and the Evolutions of the Elements from Lyell to Patterson; Volume 2 in the series, A History of Modern Planetary Physics. Cambridge University Press, 1996. For a shorter but hardly less lucid critique of claims by creationists that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, coupled with an exposition of radiometric dating methods, see Stephen G. Brush, “Finding the Age of the Earth by Physics or by Faith,” Journal of Geological Education, vol. 30, pp. 34-58, 1982.

In a challenging book intended for the lay audience, G. Brent Dalrymple reviews scientific evidence for the age of the Earth, Moon, and Solar system in such well documented and critical manner that it leaves no room for uncertainty or doubt: The Age of the Earth, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1991. The book’s greatest virtue is its detailed analysis of radiometric dating methods. The many, many examples and the exhaustive chronology that are presented reveal how imaginative but sometimes wrong researchers have been in the past. But then he shows how tirelessly other researchers have checked their work, finding the errors and developing more reliable methods. It is also clear that the results of proven techniques have been checked rigorously against the results of other methods, until there can be little scientific doubt about the final conclusions. One cannot read that book with an open mind and continue believing a few warped scientists conspired to conjure up a patently false system and that hundreds of later scientists simply fell into line and confirmed their bizarre fantasies. Philip Kitcher, a philosopher of science at the University of Vermont, has written a marvelously lucid summary of the evidence for evolution and the overwhelming case against its opponents in a thoughtful and witty attack on 'scientific' creationism, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Updated March 2001; go online and read the excerpt, “Creationist’s Blind Dates” at: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/KitcherBlindDates.htm. Kitcher, who as a philosopher is concerned with the way science operates, is particularly adept at showing how creationists distort Karl Popper’s views on scientific method and how they misuse such books as Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Of course, readers interested in the geoscience side of the argument over creationism should read Arthur N. Strahler’s marvelously written and well-reasoned, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, 2nd ed., Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1999. Strahler was professor of geomorphology in the Department of Geology at Columbia University and author of numerous textbooks in geoscience. His book is a comprehensive treatment of the ongoing conflict between scientists who accept the theory of evolution and creationists. He reviews the philosophy, methods, and sociology of empirical science from astronomy to zoology, contrasting those with the belief systems of religion and pseudoscience. In one very interesting section he establishes sound criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience and demonstrates with devastating logic that creation science fails to meet the criteria of scientific enterprise.

A more recent and delightful work based on sound science and leavened with literary grace and elegance is also well worth reading, no matter what your evolutionary point of view, but only if you have an open mind, which by my personal experience is something almost entirely lacking in creationists: Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004. For a very well written and tightly reasoned point of view of a Christian geophysicist, see: Roger C. Wiens, PhD, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, material originally written in 1994 and revised in 2002: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html.

And don’t forget the early and remarkable essay by the evolutionary biologist and devout Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky that criticized Young Earth creationism and espoused what he called evolutionary creationism: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 35 125-129, 1973. Note that that article may have been inspired by the work of Jesuit physical anthropologist and philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Dobzhansky much admired.

Everyone interested in the cultural war between the adherents of evolution and creationists (in this camp I squarely place those who believe in intelligent design) should read two recent books. The first, by the physical anthropologist Eugenie C. Scott, is Evolution vs. Creationism, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2005. It is both a history of the debate and a collection of essays written by partisans from both sides. Its main attribute is its clear explanation of the scientific method and the astronomical, biological, chemical, and geological bases of evolutionary theory. As good as that book is, even better is Michael Ruse’s The Evolution-Creation Struggle, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 2005. As a philosopher of science, Ruse (self-described as an ardent Darwinian) has testified against the inclusion of creationism in public school science curricula  He cautions all of us on the use of the word “evolution,” especially since it has two meanings: the science of evolution and something he terms evolutionism, which is the part of evolutionary ideas that reaches beyond testable science. In other words, Ruse interprets the struggle between science and theology as a war between two rival metaphysical worlds.

Matt Young (PhD physics-optics) and Paul Strode (PhD biology-ecology) provide a series of clear, concise, and lively discussions for everyday people in their excellent book, Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009. Their narrative is a well-written and highly readable response to creationists’ objections to evolution. Their science-based work takes pains to demonstrate that creationists profoundly misunderstand the very nature and structure of science and avow positions that are contradictory and inconsistent.

One positive indication, though no one should put much “faith” in it, is that courts at various levels repeatedly have held that public schools must be religiously neutral and must not advocate religious views. In that vein, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in the public schools was unconstitutional.

And finally, I wonder if it ever occurred to our creation science and Young Earth friends to explain with scientific rigor the fossilized marine sedimentary rocks (from the Ordovician) forming the summit of Mount Everest, known locally as Chomolungma, Goddess Mother of the World, and explain how those marine sediments were pushed and shoved to an elevation of nearly 30,000 feet. For the latest and slickest version of neo-creationism that has many rich, powerful, and right-wing political backers, interested readers should consult published articles that discuss the implications of the late-2005 decision of a federal judge against the Dover (Pennsylvania) School District in what may have been a critical test case that ruled intelligent design and creationism are one and the same and have no place in a biological science curriculum.

Certainly many arguments can be and have been made that demonstrate the fallacy of creationism/young earth/intelligent design (see above). One that I personally hold dear is practical in nature. To believe in creationism etc., etc., one must reject not only biology and geology but also basic principles in astronomy-astrophysics, physics, geophysics, and geochemistry. How people are prepared to do that I simply can not imagine, even when it is explained to me by those who have faith in creationism. It's a puzzle that can only be explained by Julius Caesar's famous dictum: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Men willingly believe what they want.

HAPPY 2013 TO ONE AND ALL from SOB