Minirant: Evolution vs. Creationism

With the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate yesterday, I wanted to clarify one HUGE problem that never gets addressed. Creationism is not the rival to evolution. It’s the rival to the Big Bang and abiogenesis. In Mr. Ham’s opening argument, he accused schools of “imposing molecules to man evolution as fact.” That’s because it is. It also has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

Here’s the problem. Evolution came AFTER the beginning of the universe. It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. We observe objects falling down. We call that “gravity”. What caused the gravity? Newtonian physics or magical elves pulling us down? Regardless of the cause, the EFFECT is fact. Same with evolution. We know that organisms change over time. Anytime you see children with a different color hair than their parents, you’ve seen evolution. What caused it? Natural Selection, as posited by Darwin or an invisible sky wizard? Regardless of the cause, the EFFECT is fact. Evolution is the effect. It is fact.

Evolution deniers like theists and creationists, group all three (Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution) together. This is a mistake. They are three completely separate theories to describe three completely separate sets of observations.

According to the latest scientific model of the universe, everything started with the Big Bang. Right now, we can’t see what happened before that. During the Big Bang, the universe expanded. Then it cooled, and some particles grouped together, causing stars, planets, etc. This is where the Big Bang ends. The Big Bang only explains how the universe started.

We know that at some point, life started. This is where abiogenesis comes into the picture. I know almost nothing about this field of study, so here’s a brief overview. Abiogenesis tries to explain how non living matter became living matter.  Once single celled living organisms existed, abiogenesis stops. Abiogenesis only explains how life started.

After life started, it began to change. New traits were developed and inherited. Some organisms died off, while others thrived. This is evolution. This is fact. Natural Selection says that survival of the fittest facilitated this. Natural selection only explains how life evolved.

So as you see, they’re three totally different topics with  three totally unrelated explanations. Creationism only rivals the first two, while ignoring the third. Creation posits that an all powerful entity that we call “god” created the universe and all life upon it. Creation says that evolution never happened. All living organisms are exactly the same now as when they were created. While this last part is obviously false, as evolution can be observed, the part about a god creating everything could, potentially, be true. There’s no evidence for this, besides ancient texts from primitive people, but it’s possible.

Another thing to point out is that even if the Big Bang was proven wrong. Or abiogenesis was proven wrong. Or Natural Selection was proven wrong. Even if all three were proven wrong, that still won’t prove Creation true. Creation is it’s own claim, and therefore it needs it’s own evidence. It doesn’t win by default. It wins by fulfilling it’s burden of proof.