1.7 Theories of Creation

Theories of Creation

I recently referred to “theories of creation,” in the plural. This is because there are many different viewpoints on creation and creation science, which are held by believers in Christ, as well as those of other religions or philosophies. In the following sections, I will briefly describe some of these theories of creation in the broad sense, without yet getting into the specific theories which are advanced to explain specific natural phenomena. It is important to recognize that a belief in creation is not limited to one viewpoint, but that there are many different views which are honestly held by sincere Christians. Before accepting any view as “the only way,” or rejecting certain views as false, it would be wise to understand them first, and to understand the many scientific and theological reasons that form the basis for why people hold those ideas.

The following sections will summarize the main positions that are typically referred to as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC) or Progressive Creationism (PC), Theistic Evolution (TE, also Evolutionary Creation or Continuous Creation), and Intelligent Design (ID).

For more information see the American Scientific Affiliation’s report from its Commission on Creation, which summarizes the points held in common and distinguishing features between these various views. Another way of analyzing various methods of viewing the relation between science and faith is given by Richard Bube, “Seven Patterns For Relating Science And Faith.”

1.6 What is a Theory?

What is a Theory?

Science operates according to the scientific method, which includes the creation of a theory or hypothesis, and the analysis and evaluation of those theories. In this section, some definitions of “theory” are explored.

The common definition of “theory” is a speculation, assumption, or conjecture. In other words, the way we commonly use the word “theory” is synonymous with "guess."

However, from a scientific point of view, “theory” is defined differently. A formal definition is: “a systematically organized body of knowledge, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.” In other words, a scientific theory is a model or framework of understanding which is used to explain something. It may include some guesswork or assumption in explaining unknown characteristics, but it’s not simply speculation without evidence.

One characteristic of a scientific theory is that it should be “falsifiable” – able to be demonstrated whether the hypothesis is true or false. This refers to the experiment and evaluation portion of the scientific method. Scientific theories go where the evidence leads. The rejection or revision of the hypothesis based on evidence should always be considered a possible outcome. If a scientist is unwilling to fairly evaluate the evidence and conclude that his hypothesis might be wrong, he will inevitably have to bend or ignore facts which disagree with his hypothesis.

This is an extremely important point to observe. A proposed explanation for which the final conclusion is held to be true no matter what the evidence shows, is not a scientific theory. Instead, this is a “tautology” – something which is asserted to be true by definition or repetition. This could apply equally to theories of creation as well as evolution.

Often the “Theory of Evolution” is derided by creationists as being “only a theory.” The intent of such statements is to caricature the scientific model (theory) of evolution using the common, non-scientific definition of theory. What they mean is, “evolution is merely an unproven conjecture.” And after all, it would be foolish to believe something that is mere conjecture, right? This method of downplaying evolution is typically employed in a scoffing tone for rhetorical value, but it is a logical fallacy of equivocation -- using two different definitions that are inconsistent.

The scientific theory of evolution is also criticized as being a tautology – something that scientists believe because they are predisposed to believing it, even though the evidence doesn’t support it. However, these are unfair and untrue characterizations. The theory of evolution is a genuine scientific theory, based on reasoned hypotheses about real evidence obtained from the physical world using a variety of scientific disciplines. It may be that the theory of evolution, or parts of it, or some of its proposed mechanisms, can be disproved based on the evidence. But to mischaracterize it using emotion-laden, non-scientific definitions, without fair consideration to the scientific issues and evidences involved, will not serve our purpose of constructing a solid Christian answer to the “evolution question.”

Further, it can be shown that, more often than not, many creationist “theories” are in fact mere conjecture, because they lack any scientific validation for their claims, and in many cases actually contradict the available evidence. Creationists who disparage evolution because it is “mere speculation” (as they claim), and yet fabricate their own highly speculative theories which they are unwilling to reconsider based on the evidence, are being dishonest and inconsistent. They are doing the very things they accuse the evolutionists of doing.

A good scientific theory is functional, in that it explains how things work, usually in terms of a prediction of how things will be expected to work in the future, or it anticipates the discovery of new evidence or principles. The theory of gravity is well understood, and can be used to explain why a ball tossed in the air travels in a parabolic trajectory. In fact, it has been demonstrated so completely and accurately as to be called the “law of gravity”; yet, we don't yet know for sure what is the actual mechanism of what causes gravity.
Even if our present theory of gravity were to be replaced in the future with better formulas or theories, they would still have to account for the evidence that is already known. In physics, this happened when Einstein's theories replaced Newtonian physics by showing that Newton's theories were special cases of more general principles. In the same way, the present theories of how biological species have developed over time will certainly be modified with further research, but any scientific theory or model (including creation theories) which claims to answer such questions must deal with and explain the existing body of real, physical evidence that is known to exist.

1.5 - What is Science / Scientific Method

What is Science / Scientific Method

Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Another definition is, “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.”

The definition of science includes the concepts of “scientific method” and “theory”. We need to understand these concepts in order to understand what science is, how it works, and what are its strengths and weaknesses as a means of obtaining truth about nature. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

The “scientific method” is a body of techniques developed throughout the history of scientific investigation, from the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, but particularly with the rise of the modern physical sciences in the 17th and 18th centuries. The scientific method is the primary way that science investigates phenomena, acquires knowledge of the natural world, and corrects and integrates previous knowledge based on objective, empirical, measurable evidence and laws of reasoning.

The scientific method consists of the following:

• Characterization (quantified information of existing knowledge, observations, measurements). This may include a list of unsolved problems for which an answer is sought.


• Hypothesis (theoretical, hypothetical explanation). This is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or proposal of correlation between existing data. A hypothesis or theory is generally testable based on the evidence, and may be proven true or false by later investigation.


• Prediction (reasoning, including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories). A useful hypothesis will generally make predictions of currently unknown outcomes. For instance, Einstein’s theories of relativity made a number of predictions, such as that light could be bent by gravitational fields, which have subsequently been proven true by observation.


• Experiment (to test all the above). The experiments may confirm or contradict the hypothesis. The scientist will then go back to the beginning to analyze and characterize the new information, correct (or in some cases completely replace) the hypothesis, and develop further experiments. If the hypothesis is confirmed by repeatable experiments and peer review of the results, and if it adds value in terms of useful explanation and predictions, it is accepted as a good theory. However, even good theories may still be expanded or contradicted over time as a result of further investigation through new observations, hypotheses and experiments.

There are many fields of science, such as:
- Natural sciences:
physics, including astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, dynamics, nuclear physics
chemistry, including analytical, organic, physical, theoretical, nuclear, biochemistry
earth sciences, including geology, meteorology, oceanography, paleontology, seismology, soil science
biology, including anatomy, biochemistry, botany, genetics, immunology, neuroscience, zoology
- Social sciences: anthropology, archaeology, economics, law, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology
- Applied sciences: cognitive sciences, computer sciences, engineering, health sciences
- Environmental sciences: atmospheric sciences, ecology, environmental chemistry, geosciences

Why isn’t astrology, alchemy, black magic, voodoo, mental telepathy, etc., in this list? What is it about those things that makes them non-scientific? See Gordon Glover’s video #2 in his “Science and Christian Education” series (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/science-and-christian-education-page-1).
These things are not science, because they deal with non-natural phenomena. They can’t be studied in a systematic way, and don’t follow natural cause and effect relationships. We wouldn’t expect these subjects to receive equal time in a science classroom. Alchemy has an interesting history, being once studied by some of the early eminent scientists (for instance, Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle), and it helped form the basis for modern chemistry and pharmacology; yet, its supernatural and mystical qualities are not legitimate scientific concerns.

Should special creation and “creation science” be included with these other sciences? Does “creation science” follow the rules of science? Does it make useful predictions and testable theories about the operation of nature? Are those theories supported by the evidence? Is creation science open to correction based on observational and experimental evidence, and peer review from other experts in scientific disciplines?
In this blog, I hope to the explore some of the evidences from nature, the methods, theories and assumptions made by mainstream science, and to evaluate the competing claims of “creation science”. I believe the evidence shows that in large measure, much of creation science is not good science; in fact, is often not science at all, but religious dogma covered in a veneer of scientific language. Yet, as a believer, it is also my desire to seek the best explanations which can reconcile Christian faith with the observational evidence from the world around us.

1.4 Miracles and “God of the Gaps”

Miracles and “God of the Gaps”

If science is limited to natural causes and effects, then what about miracles? What would result from allowing supernatural causes as part of scientific explanations? Does excluding miracles from scientific consideration mean that they aren’t true?

Science uses the tools of observation, measurement, testing and analysis to investigate the material world. One of the problems with introducing supernatural explanations into scientific theories is that scientists don’t have the tools necessary to investigate them. A miraculous event might be observable, but how can it be measured? How can we repeat a supernatural event in order to analyze it in detail, since it is by definition outside human control? If miracles are performed by God according to His will, they are not subject to repeatability by human initiative. Their outcomes are not capable of being predicted by any natural system, such as the law of gravity or the theory of relativity.
One illustration of this is scientific studies on the effectiveness of prayer. While believers are pleased whenever scientific studies are published claiming that prayer aids in the process of healing, do we really want to subject religious belief to scientific investigation? What happens when scientific studies prove that prayer isn’t that effective after all? Should such studies lead us to conclude that prayer is a waste of time? (There have been studies questioning the benefit of prayer.)

A true scientific experiment might be a “double-blind” test, where a group of people would be chosen to pray for individuals with medical needs, while another group is chosen to pray for imaginary people, and some of the sick aren’t prayed for at all. None of the subjects would know whether they were praying for a real person, and none of the sick would know whether they were being prayed for. The results would be tracked over time to gauge the effectiveness of prayer. But is the value of prayer in the praying itself, or is it partly in the fact that the faith of the sick is improved by knowing that there are caring people, and a caring God, concerned about them? Is it always God's will to bring physical healing? Even if such a study could prove that prayer is helpful, what would be the result? Hospitals might begin hiring staffs of “prayer employees,” to systematically offer prayers for every resident at medical facilities. But is this mechanical mechanism really the purpose of faith in God or the intended purpose of miraculous healing? By subjecting a supernatural, faith-based mechanism to scientific investigation, the special character of such activities would be detracted from.

Another difficulty with including miracle as an explanation is the “God of the Gaps” problem. Once we reach the end of our scientific knowledge, it is tempting to explain unknown phenomena as the interventionist work of a divine intelligence. Especially when this is taken to the level of “proof that God exists,” it often becomes problematic. “God of the Gaps” theology relies on the limits of human ignorance as evidence for God, and when those gaps in our knowledge are filled, the space for God (seems to) shrink.

An example of this might be the nature of solar energy. In the 1800’s, much was known about combustion and energy. They knew that the sun was a large star that was putting off tremendous amounts of energy into space in all directions. There was no known mechanism for explaining how the sun could give off this much energy through normal combustion, because it would burn itself out quickly. It might have been tempting for some 19th century Christians to claim that God himself was the source for divinely creating the light and heat given to us from the sun. This could have been reinforced by certain Bible verses that speak of Jesus as the light of the world, and God being the giver and sustainer of life.
However, this gap in our scientific knowledge was soon to be filled with the discovery of the processes of nuclear physics, and we learned that the energy in the sun comes from nuclear fusion of small elements. If we had relied on this gap in our knowledge as evidence for God’s existence, the natural process of nuclear fusion would have edged God out of this domain of responsibility that we had attributed to his miraculous power. A follow-on problem might be the temptation to oppose and obstruct the progress of science, when it appears that science is pushing God aside as a necessary explanation, due to its success in explaining physical causes and effects.

A third problem with the idea of attributing something to a miracle, as opposed to a natural scientific explanation, is that it creates an unnecessary either/or situation. Either God is responsible (miracle) or a natural process was involved. This doesn’t leave any room for something to be the result of both natural and providential influence. If God is providentially in control over all things, in addition to natural (secondary) causes, then there is no necessary conflict.

There is much more to say about miracles. One problem is even defining them. Are miracles violations of natural laws, or do they include natural occurrences that may have been providentially directed by God in terms of timing and location? An example of this might be with the Exodus of the Israelites – it has been suggested by various scholars that the plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea were naturally occurring phenomena, that were used by God to free Israel.
In either case, it is impossible for science to properly evaluate miracles. If they are violations of natural laws, science is incapable of investigating them, because science is limited to natural cause and effect. If certain miracles are natural occurrences that have been invisibly directed by God, then science can examine the physical aspects, but will have no power to explain the miraculous or unusual character of them (such as their rarity or specific timing). Yet, the fact that they occurred in precisely the time and place that they did indicates that God was in control. This is a matter of faith and is not subject to direct scientific validation.