Creationism and Its Many Forms
(I've been meaning to write this one for some time.)
Brian Dunning is a great guy who, in addition to being one of the motivating factors behind The Skeptologists (see the Support! sidebar, do it now), is the creator of the excellent podcast Skeptoid where he uses his "skeptical eye" to investigate a wide range of topics, from UFOs to detox therapy, then compiles his findings into bite-sized, extremely informative podcasts. I first encountered him when he was interviewed on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (another wonderful podcast as exemplified by my sidebar, listen to it now), so I surfed his site to see for myself.
I eventually came across his show called "What Do Creationists Really Believe?". Now, at the time, I knew the answer - crazy, half-witted arguments saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old that deny the entire basis of science. At least I thought I did. Fact is, a fact that has rattled around in my brain for a long time but never really connected with this particular subjects, we define what words mean, and the word "creationism" is no exception.
So... what does "creationism" mean? In the strictest sense, creationism is the belief that the world and universe were created by something supernatural, typically some deity. Nothing about it having it being 6,000 years old. Nothing about believing in the literal words of Genesis in the King James Bible. It's not even exclusively Christian, creationism applies to all religions when it comes to their creation myths, even when it's turtles all the way down.
Now, you should be saying "FUCKIN DUH" because it's extremely obvious, but it's something not often mentioned. "Creationism" is almost always tied to science denial, when in fact there are many self-described creationists who are dedicated scientists. Ken Miller, defender of evolution and devout Catholic (and all-around great guy), has called himself a creationist because he thinks God created the universe and acts through it through the laws of nature as described by science. My friend Melissa, another devout Christian, calls herself a creationist for largely the same reason, and is currently pursuing her degree in zoology. (She'll make a great scientist one day, and I hope will want to keep up the fight for science.) To me all this proves that you can reconcile your beliefs and religion with objective science (but that's another blog).
So, creationism is just an idea of something supernatural creating the natural, and like any idea it has a myriad of different forms spawned by different perspectives. Each perspective intersects the science in different ways with varying levels of acceptance of certain topics and plain-old denial of others. Dunning lists these and I'll briefly summarize.
Old-Earth creationism is the idea that the Earth actually is 4.5 billion years old and that much of the science is correct. God just created things that way. It includes:
Then there's everyone's favorite -- young-Earth creationism, the loony fringe that are the real believers in the 6,000-year-old Earth and purveyors of Answers in Genesis the Creation "Museum". Right?
Well, not exactly, that's the group Dunning calls "young-Earth fundementalists." He explains another group of young-Earthers called "Omphalists." Named after the book Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot by Phillip Gosse, they believe in the idea set forth by the book: the Earth was created with age. God put those dinosaur fossils in the crust and had radioactive elements decaying away at certain intervals and created the cosmic background radiation to make it look like the Earth and the universe are as old as science says. The Earth is REALLY young though and God did it in the manner described in the Bible, of course.
I personally find this argument extremely lacking, since that, well, God could've created everything a second ago, everything from the universe contsining information saying its 14 billion years old to me containing almost 24 years worth of memory. It's spawned parodies like the Church of Last Thursday (God created the universe with age last Thursday) and Ken Miller doesn't like it either, calling it the Steve Martin Theory of Evolution, in that God does these thing 'cause God is a wild and crazy guy. Miller says that such an idea leads to the concept of a deceptive God, which he personally disagrees with, and really I find that logic to be satisfying. Even still, it's a position believed by many, and one can still be a scientist with it as Dunning describes. (I guess you think you're really studying God's elaborate practical joke as opposed to natural history, but okay.)
What Dunning doesn't include is intelligent design, which he argues isn't a set of beliefs on its own, but "a blanket concept intended to show that the scientific method alone is not adequate to explain the natural world, and that a divine creator is a required component for any complete explanation of nature." He then says that "all types of creationists rally under the banner of Intelligent Design". All of the above is true, but let's apply the same logic of semantics to "intelligent design".
Strictly speaking, "intelligent design" means that something is specifically created by an intelligence of sorts, and this concept is really a belief in of itself that can filter into any of the above types of creationism, as Dunning says. But I don't entirely agree. If you happen to argue the concept at face value, like apologist lapdog for the Discovery Institute Michael Behe does, then it IS a type of creationism, which its own literature states:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings.
Meaning that, for example, birds and fish aren't related except only by their designer. Meaning that they were created. Hence, creationism.
All this means that some creationists are aggravated that people associate the term with the travesties the young-Earthers perpetuate. Answers in Creation is a site dedicated for that purpose, founding a place for old-Earth creationists where they can refute the arguments of Answers in Genesis.
Despite their good intentions, it still doesn't come out right:
Welcome to Answers In Creation, a creation science ministry believing in an inerrant Word of God, a literal interpretation of Genesis, and a billions of years old earth.
Did you know that you can be a conservative Christian, and believe that our world is billions of years old? You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict between modern science and the Bible.
True, evolution and being Christian aren't polar opposites, they aren't even on the same axis. But, if you still aspire for a literal interpretation of Genesis, then Earth was created before the stars, which isn't right. But I'll cut them a break -- it's their version of "literal" truth as opposed to young-Earthers' version. That's the point.
In the end though, creationism is just a point of view, a perspective on reality as described by science. You can believe the world was created by a supernatural entity, and that belief, like all beliefs, can coincide with science in any way possible along the spectrum of rationalization, from embracement to complete rejection. This is the power of the human mind, and the creativity we can express when confronted with an issue such as the evolution-creationism battlefronts should be one of the lessons we take home from it.
So when somebody calls himself or herself a creationist, don't automatically think of Kent Hovind, watchmaking, and mousetraps. Engage them for a bit to see where they stand on the spectrum, and then decide how to approach them. But of course if they start saying "PILTDOWN MAN EVOLUTION HOAX", well, you know what you doing. For great justice! Move Zig!
Brian Dunning is a great guy who, in addition to being one of the motivating factors behind The Skeptologists (see the Support! sidebar, do it now), is the creator of the excellent podcast Skeptoid where he uses his "skeptical eye" to investigate a wide range of topics, from UFOs to detox therapy, then compiles his findings into bite-sized, extremely informative podcasts. I first encountered him when he was interviewed on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (another wonderful podcast as exemplified by my sidebar, listen to it now), so I surfed his site to see for myself.
I eventually came across his show called "What Do Creationists Really Believe?". Now, at the time, I knew the answer - crazy, half-witted arguments saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old that deny the entire basis of science. At least I thought I did. Fact is, a fact that has rattled around in my brain for a long time but never really connected with this particular subjects, we define what words mean, and the word "creationism" is no exception.
So... what does "creationism" mean? In the strictest sense, creationism is the belief that the world and universe were created by something supernatural, typically some deity. Nothing about it having it being 6,000 years old. Nothing about believing in the literal words of Genesis in the King James Bible. It's not even exclusively Christian, creationism applies to all religions when it comes to their creation myths, even when it's turtles all the way down.
Now, you should be saying "FUCKIN DUH" because it's extremely obvious, but it's something not often mentioned. "Creationism" is almost always tied to science denial, when in fact there are many self-described creationists who are dedicated scientists. Ken Miller, defender of evolution and devout Catholic (and all-around great guy), has called himself a creationist because he thinks God created the universe and acts through it through the laws of nature as described by science. My friend Melissa, another devout Christian, calls herself a creationist for largely the same reason, and is currently pursuing her degree in zoology. (She'll make a great scientist one day, and I hope will want to keep up the fight for science.) To me all this proves that you can reconcile your beliefs and religion with objective science (but that's another blog).
So, creationism is just an idea of something supernatural creating the natural, and like any idea it has a myriad of different forms spawned by different perspectives. Each perspective intersects the science in different ways with varying levels of acceptance of certain topics and plain-old denial of others. Dunning lists these and I'll briefly summarize.
Old-Earth creationism is the idea that the Earth actually is 4.5 billion years old and that much of the science is correct. God just created things that way. It includes:
- Theistic evolution, the Catholic Church's stated position and basically Miller's argument.
- Evolutionary creationism, theistic evolution except with a literal Adam and Eve who were the first "spiritual aware" humans that could identify with God. I can see that working with anthropology and the origins of religion, meaning the first religious people were the legendary "Adam and Eve".
- Progressive creationism, which states that some evolution happened but humans and other modern creatures were specially created. That means apes and humans aren't related, even though it can be proven that they are.
- Day-age creationism, which says that the six days of creation correspond to six geologic epochs, which is demonstrably untrue without LOTS of fudging.
- Gap creationism which says there's a HUGE gap of time between God creating the heavens and the Earth and him creating certain creatures. That means evolution doesn't happen but at least the Earth is as old as the geology says.
Then there's everyone's favorite -- young-Earth creationism, the loony fringe that are the real believers in the 6,000-year-old Earth and purveyors of Answers in Genesis the Creation "Museum". Right?
Well, not exactly, that's the group Dunning calls "young-Earth fundementalists." He explains another group of young-Earthers called "Omphalists." Named after the book Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot by Phillip Gosse, they believe in the idea set forth by the book: the Earth was created with age. God put those dinosaur fossils in the crust and had radioactive elements decaying away at certain intervals and created the cosmic background radiation to make it look like the Earth and the universe are as old as science says. The Earth is REALLY young though and God did it in the manner described in the Bible, of course.
I personally find this argument extremely lacking, since that, well, God could've created everything a second ago, everything from the universe contsining information saying its 14 billion years old to me containing almost 24 years worth of memory. It's spawned parodies like the Church of Last Thursday (God created the universe with age last Thursday) and Ken Miller doesn't like it either, calling it the Steve Martin Theory of Evolution, in that God does these thing 'cause God is a wild and crazy guy. Miller says that such an idea leads to the concept of a deceptive God, which he personally disagrees with, and really I find that logic to be satisfying. Even still, it's a position believed by many, and one can still be a scientist with it as Dunning describes. (I guess you think you're really studying God's elaborate practical joke as opposed to natural history, but okay.)
What Dunning doesn't include is intelligent design, which he argues isn't a set of beliefs on its own, but "a blanket concept intended to show that the scientific method alone is not adequate to explain the natural world, and that a divine creator is a required component for any complete explanation of nature." He then says that "all types of creationists rally under the banner of Intelligent Design". All of the above is true, but let's apply the same logic of semantics to "intelligent design".
Strictly speaking, "intelligent design" means that something is specifically created by an intelligence of sorts, and this concept is really a belief in of itself that can filter into any of the above types of creationism, as Dunning says. But I don't entirely agree. If you happen to argue the concept at face value, like apologist lapdog for the Discovery Institute Michael Behe does, then it IS a type of creationism, which its own literature states:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings.
Meaning that, for example, birds and fish aren't related except only by their designer. Meaning that they were created. Hence, creationism.
All this means that some creationists are aggravated that people associate the term with the travesties the young-Earthers perpetuate. Answers in Creation is a site dedicated for that purpose, founding a place for old-Earth creationists where they can refute the arguments of Answers in Genesis.
Despite their good intentions, it still doesn't come out right:
Welcome to Answers In Creation, a creation science ministry believing in an inerrant Word of God, a literal interpretation of Genesis, and a billions of years old earth.
Did you know that you can be a conservative Christian, and believe that our world is billions of years old? You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict between modern science and the Bible.
True, evolution and being Christian aren't polar opposites, they aren't even on the same axis. But, if you still aspire for a literal interpretation of Genesis, then Earth was created before the stars, which isn't right. But I'll cut them a break -- it's their version of "literal" truth as opposed to young-Earthers' version. That's the point.
In the end though, creationism is just a point of view, a perspective on reality as described by science. You can believe the world was created by a supernatural entity, and that belief, like all beliefs, can coincide with science in any way possible along the spectrum of rationalization, from embracement to complete rejection. This is the power of the human mind, and the creativity we can express when confronted with an issue such as the evolution-creationism battlefronts should be one of the lessons we take home from it.
So when somebody calls himself or herself a creationist, don't automatically think of Kent Hovind, watchmaking, and mousetraps. Engage them for a bit to see where they stand on the spectrum, and then decide how to approach them. But of course if they start saying "PILTDOWN MAN EVOLUTION HOAX", well, you know what you doing. For great justice! Move Zig!