Creation vs. Evolution: Why Are We Still Debating This?
The battleground between creation and evolution is fraught with one-sidedness. Have both sides been overlooking the obvious?
In the Beginning
I heard an interesting quote recently. It is from the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid who once said: “There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words”[1]. It caught my attention while I was trying to think of an appropriate opening for this article, and I am happy it did because it resonates so well. The ambiguity and multiple meanings of words can sometimes cause more confusion than they do clarity, especially when we fail to take them in proper context. Such is the case, I believe, with the debate about creation vs. evolution, or at least a significant part of it.
When I was younger, I remember some discussions we would have in school about which was true: creation or evolution. But as far as I can remember, the issue was never taken very seriously by myself or my school mates. Even in a Catholic school system where Biblical teaching reigns supreme, we were still taught about evolution as scientific fact. While that was many years ago, today I am perplexed to find it is not only an enduring and highly contentious debate, but that there seems to be so very little progress toward some form of reconciliation.
It should come as no surprise that a Google search on the terms ‘creation vs. evolution’ turns up so many different views on the issue. While it is tempting to think it is not a subject that most people are concerned with in their daily routine, it is certainly out there in large force. I am of the mindset that there is more to this debate than just this debate itself. If we peel back the layers underlying so many contemporary issues in today’s society, science and religion, and specifically creation vs. evolution, hover very near the surface.
This particular battle is not just fodder for those obsessed with the subject. There are strong political movements that remain adamant at pushing for the teaching of creationism in grade schools as either an alternative to evolution, or as a complete substitute for it. It is one of the major issues that currently polarizes western society, particularly in America. As a case in point, a recent survey estimates as many as 42% of Americans believe in some form of religious creationism over scientific evolution[2]. We cannot ignore the significant weight this carries in the direction we take with many political, social, economic, security, and even environmental issues of today. So without a doubt, it is an important issue.
So, Why All the Fuss?
Well, the answer is not that simple. We can appreciate how such an issue drives straight to the heart of our most existential dilemma; that being the questions about our origins, our place in the universe, and our relationship to God, or the supreme reality (by whatever name or word one prefers). So of course this is no small dilemma to untangle - religiously, scientifically, or philosophically.
We should understand empathetically how many people are more comfortable with simple answers which they can easily grasp - and in that context, perhaps we should not underestimate the appeal of the simplicity of the Genesis creation story, and how it offers a basis for our origins and our existential angst. For those who take comfort in creationism, it is understandable how the scientific theory of evolution complicates matters, and offers no clear foundation for our existential dilemma.
So can there ever be reconciliation between these two positions? Do we need to hash it out inside a ‘winner vs. loser’ box? What if we take a different approach? Can there be ways in which the two stories might reinforce each other? And, might it possibly set some precedent for how we address other questions on the relationship between science and faith?
Perhaps there are ways of seeing how both are correct to a certain degree within their own context, and in treating each with the respect and rigor they deserve. Personally, I think there is. So, let’s go back and start at the beginning.
Can Both Sides be Right?
Before we dive in too deeply, I feel it necessary to acknowledge up front, that what I aim to do in this article is to simply point out a few basic issues that if looked at with sincerity from both sides, should give some pause for thought as to whether holding on so strongly to only one side of the debate is such a wise thing to do in the first place. What I am referring to is really something very straight forward, and using a more common understanding of what the debate is about is sufficient to get us heading in that direction.
The crux of the problem we are dealing with is that on the science side, the notion that the entire universe and everything on the planet was created in six calendar days is preposterous on so many levels it is not even worth discussing. Many scientists remain perplexed as to why we are still debating it. One the other side, creationists are frustrated by how science completely overturned a longstanding belief of where we came from, why we are here, and what constitutes our relationship with ‘God’. They see scientific evolution as somehow invalidating their belief in God and Biblical scripture. As old as this belief may be for some, it remains an issue to be addressed and should not be so easily brushed aside.
It has always made me wonder that if somewhere in the mix of these two apparently opposing perspectives, there is some common ground that could be used to not only reconcile the debate itself, but to also reconcile how we treat the relationship between science and faith, so that they do not have to be perceived as being at odds with each other? Let us take a closer look at the apparent conflict between these two seemingly irreconcilable stories to really see where the differences are, and where there might be some common ground.
A Tale of Two Stories
One way of getting us started is to compare a summary of the two versions of the creation and evolution stories, as I have done below in Table 1. The first two columns are highlights of the Genesis creation story in terms of what was created, and when during the first six days of creation (or what I refer to as Genesis Days for the time being). Next to each of those six Genesis days are three additional columns that highlight what evolutionary theory tells us in terms of what was created (or evolved), over which time period of evolution, and the corresponding amount of space within which each level exists. Here is the first interesting thing we see when we put both stories next to each other and compare them in this way.
Table 1. A Tale of Two Stories: Sequential Highlights of Creation and Evolution (compiled by author).
For a moment, let us set aside the question of time and focus on the general sequence of what was created in succession. Of course on a detailed level there are number of direct differences. But if we can consider how they compare on a more general level (and I believe we can), there is actually more agreement and alignment than there are differences. The Genesis story breaks up the sequence in terms of all the major spheres or layers of creation, each one succeeding and building upon the previous. And so too does the scientific evolutionary story. The Genesis story break points seem to roughly align with the major Eras in the cosmological and geological time scales, some of which I include in the scientific description column.
Do they match one-for-one? Not exactly. But let us suppose they can match depending on how we interpret the Genesis side of the chart. Both sides first describe how the universe came into being seemingly out of nothing, with there being a distinction between lightness and darkness. In Genesis, the next day seems a bit hazy, so to speak, in terms of the creation of sky and water.
Normally, we might wonder how we can have sky and water without first having land and sea, which only follows on the third day, along with vegetation. It is also rather odd that only by fourth day do stars and lights appear to mark calendar periods; only after sky, water, land, sea and vegetation were created previously.
It is these aspects of the Genesis story that drives scientists crazy. Not only do we have things showing up in an illogical order, but more importantly, how can creationists argue for a 6 - 24 hr. day theory to be true, if we do not even have anything to mark the days until the fourth Genesis day? There may be an explanation for these irregularities, so let’s just put them aside for a moment.
To continue, the 5th and 6th days seem to be in stronger agreement with the scientific account, at least at face value. Genesis proclaims a period of life flourishing on the 5th day, and the 6th day is when humans appear to dominate over the God’s creation. So by simply setting the time question aside, this is how the two sides compare in terms of what was created, and in what sequence.
At first glance, we can see that there are a number of irregularities, but there are at least some similarities that are worth acknowledging. Where things get interesting is when we draw our attention to the amount of space and time, known scientifically, that corresponds with each Genesis day. Notice in the science columns the amount of space and time required for each period is approximately half the period before it. Here, we are using billions of years for units of time, and astronomical units (AU’s) for units of space. One AU is about 150 million kilometers, which is the distance between the Earth and the Sun. AU’s are used by astronomers as a standard measure for measuring distances between stars, planets, and other bodies in the universe [3].
When we put space and time together in this way, we are looking at a series of space-time cycles over which a sequence of things seemingly appeared out of nothing at all. Scientists use the term space-time contraction to describe this effect. That is, within the evolution of the universe, the more complex stuff came into being over shorter amounts of time, and smaller amounts of space. These can be seen as cosmological periods, but because they are not strictly linear, as in each period being the same length or size, it leaves us with two main questions:
- Why do the first three days of Genesis not align so well with the scientific story, and
- How we can possibly align the space-time cycles of evolution to Genesis days as 24-hour periods?
Are we left with irreconcilable differences between the two stories? Not necessarily. If we dig a little deeper, there may be a few clues that make the comparison more compelling.
Genesis in Context
To better understand what is transcribed in Genesis, it is first important to have some appreciation for how the creation story came to be scribed in the first place. For those who hold the bible as a sacred text, that being the Word of God, it is essential to know that it is not a book that simply appeared out of nowhere behind a big rock like in an old Charlton Heston movie. The reason the bible is referred to as scripture is the fact that it represents what was written down by various prominent spiritual leaders (then called prophets) throughout Judaic and Christian history.
Judaism, like so many other traditions around the world, was once, and still is, a strongly oral tradition. Teachings were originally passed on orally in small groups of families and tribes — some for very long periods of time long before scribing began. Scribing, or writing down, became a practice eventually as the population grew and there was a need to keep traditional teachings in a form that could be passed on to future generations. There were many individual writings that were collected and preserved long before they were amalgamated in the Jewish Torah or the Christian Bible (and many writings were not included, for various reasons).
The creation story of Genesis is one of those many stories, and the least understood in terms of its true origins and authorship. This is perhaps partly because it may have become so engrained in the oral tradition of Judaic culture for centuries (or longer), that the lineage to its source was lost. Yet, it seemed fitting for it to be scribed as the first book of both the Torah and the Bible (which both are collections of writings), and the one that sets the stage for all that follows.
Biblical scholars will always highlight how the books of the Bible are wide and varied in their content and historical context, reflecting how events of the world were impacting the faith and relationship people have with God and to each other. Some stories tell of strife and grief, or accomplishment and glory, or offer guidance on how people can practice their faith in God, Yahweh, or Abba Father. These are essentially the historical writings of the Judaic people. Others forms of scripture are more inspirational, or contemplative, taking us deeper into divine insight and wisdom. And yet other writings are more philosophical from the standpoint of ascribing political and moral positions on issues of the time.
We must also remember that much of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew; a language that is very different from modern English or many other modern languages of today. Translation of Hebrew scripture into modern English is a very delicate process. A qualified interpretation of an original text requires fluency in both the Hebrew language and history, and it is never done by individuals working on their own, rather by teams of Hebrew scholars. The scholastic discipline of hermeneutics (pron. her-men-u-tix) emerged specifically around the interpretation of original Hebrew scripture. It is an arduous process that involves knowing the historical context in which a piece of writing appears, and why it would have been included in biblical scripture in the first place. It also involves knowing or inferring something about the author and their particular life and faith experiences.
Not all of scripture is strictly about Judeo-Christian history. There are texts that go much deeper from authors who have spent a great deal of time in contemplative states; or deep meditation, prayer, and introspection. Practically all religious traditions have such texts; from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the west, to Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other eastern traditions in the east, to many indigenous traditions the world over. The common thread among them is that these writings are inspired by experiences of divine thought from people who have dedicated their lives to some form of deep contemplative practice. So to believe scripture as the word of God, is to recognize the process of divine inspiration experienced by the authors of such texts.
A Matter of Process
These aspects of Hebrew scholarship are important for us to know a little bit more about what it is we are working with when interpreting a book such as Genesis. Even as a modern day scientist, I personally believe it is a sacred text that should be held with reverence. It holds a form of truth, and opens our minds to some of the most profound questions humanity has ever faced, and continues to do so. It is also for this reason, that those who advocate for the Genesis story of creation to be taught as an alternative to the teaching of evolution, that they first hold a same deep reverence for the divine-human transference process that took place nearly three thousand years ago, and appreciate its meaning on a deeper level as opposed to a literal interpretation. Doing so allows us to go back and read between the lines (so to speak) to see if there are other insights that may be drawn from a text that may not appear at first glance. If we go back to Table 1 for example, we were left with the question as to why the first three Genesis days seem out of line with the modern scientific evolution story.
Here is one possibility. Imagine a holy person about three thousand years ago who spent much time contemplating how things came to be. They may have had some visions regarding a logical sequence in which things would have to come into order in the universe and the world around us. This requires some exercise of our imagination of course, as we moderns are not readily familiar with how society was three thousand years ago. But it should not be surprising that people back then were likely asking the same questions that we do today with regards to how everything was created, and how we fit in the big picture of things. It should be no surprise that even back then, it is quite possible that through the practice of deep contemplation combined with observations of the natural world, someone recognized some form of order in things and inferred a necessary sequence of events that would have had to occur to bring them into existence.
The idea that our distant ancestors observed or inferred some form of order or sequence in nature would not be implausible. It certainly follows at a much later time in the New Testament in John 1:1, also referring back to the creation of things, where he writes: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. Modern interpretations of this text point out the translation of the word logos for word; implying that there is an inherent logic (logos) in the intrinsic in the fabric of the universe that is a reflection of its highest being, source, or creator: God.
There is a strong possibility that the mental processes experienced by early contemplatives on the order of things are not dissimilar to mental processes experienced by modern scientists. Support for this notion can be found in a book published by American philosopher Ken Wilber back in 1984 called Quantum Questions[4] that contains a series of introspective letters written by some of the most highly noted physicists such as Einstein, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Pauli and Plank to name a few. Within them, the process of discovering logical relations in the form of mathematical equations is something they describe as being very similar to, if not an actual mystical experience, which inspired them to ponder the relationship between science and mysticism. There is no reason why the capacity of the human mystical experiences that offer insights on the hidden patterns of nature would be confined to modern humans. The difference over time lies more in how people expressed or communicated these insights in the cultural context of their time.
Early Contemplations
If we go back about three thousand years, we can imagine that such insights transferred primarily through an oral tradition would not be as elaborate as today’s scientific body of knowledge. So it may not be too farfetched an idea that however the Genesis story may have developed, it is not unreasonable that a vision of the intrinsic logic or order of things would be clearer for time periods closer to the human era (i.e. the latter three days), but were more nebulous the further back in time we go (for the first three days). This of course, is something science itself still struggles with as we continue to better understand the origins and structure of the early universe. So if we can be patient for modern science in refining these early periods, can we not also offer some poor mystic from three thousand years ago a little leeway?
Another possibility is that the visions were from a perspective of what could be seen during the very early stages of the formation of the Earth, from an Earth-centered vantage point. We now know scientifically that the early Earth was a very hot, molten surface with a dense, gaseous atmosphere which likely did not let much light in from the Sun or stars that we now take so much for granted. This could explain why we might only see the stars and heavens on the fourth Genesis day, coinciding with the flourishing of vegetation life in an oxygenated atmosphere, which we now also know scientifically took two billion years, or nearly half the age of our planet, to fully form. From this perspective, could it be that it is not that stars and other light bodies in the universe had not yet formed, but that they could not be seen during those earliest of times of the first 2 billion years or so?
Now, of course, there is no way of knowing with certainty if either of these possibilities would be true in a scientific sense. But from a contemplative perspective, it is quite possible. The same can be said of many early scientific discoveries in that while details of the discovery process may have been lost in translation or due to loss of historical records, it does not necessarily diminish their value. If we afford either of these possibilities some legitimacy, then there may not be as much of a misalignment between the two stories after all, at least in terms of approximately aligning the general sequence, or chronology of what appeared during each time cycle.
So while this may provide some insight into our first question, it still leaves the problem of the second question in terms of the apparent misalignment of time periods between the two stories.
Just a Coincidence?
Until this point, it is certainly arguable that trying to directly compare the six days of Genesis to some equivalent periods in evolution may be just wishful thinking, or an attempt to force fit two irreconcilable worldviews. We must acknowledge and remain open to the possibility in that we may never be able to draw firm conclusions, no matter how hard we try to compare the two stories. At the same time however, we must also be open to the possibility that there are parallels between the two stories, albeit arrived at through very different means, and distant historical time periods. But here is what may be one of the more compelling aspects that is worthy of serious consideration, in my opinion.
When Darwin’s theory of evolution was first published in the late 1800’s, it covered only biological evolution, corresponding roughly to days 5 and 6 in the Genesis story. It wasn’t until the latter part of the 1900’s that evolutionary theory was extended into longer periods of geological and cosmological time. These extensions were made possible by the theories of relativity and quantum physics (in the early 1900's), augmented by the theory of plate tectonics in geology (in the late 1900's).
What is profound is that the more complete scientific evolutionary story really only started to come together in the last 50 years! This is long after the ‘man vs. monkey’ debates on creation and evolution that began about 150 years ago. It just so happened that Darwin’s theory of biological evolution fit quite well with plate tectonic theory of the geological evolution of the planet, and which in turn fit very well within the cosmological evolutionary theory of the universe. The scientific evidence and alignment among these previously distinct spheres of science has certainly mounted and reinforced a more complete evolutionary story: the cosmological, geological and biological aspects of the world and universe are all in strong alignment and are mutually reinforcing.
Even more recently, within the last 20 years or so, there have been additional contributions from the field of thermodynamics (the study of energy) in helping to explain some of the more intricate aspects of the evolution [5]. This is from the standpoint of understanding what matter is in relation to energy, and how it transforms through different stages of cosmological, geological and biological evolution. Most fundamental to this discovery is that space and time, and energy and matter are all interdependent aspects of our physical reality, meaning you cannot change one factor without changing another. So different forms of matter that appear sequentially in evolution are actually energy configured into new forms under certain space-time constraints. With increasing complexity of forms, there is a corresponding decrease in the amount of space and time over which they occupy.
So why does this matter? Well, if we refer back to the scientific columns in Table 1, as mentioned earlier, there is a contraction of both space and time over which specific forms appear within each stage of evolution. Now the numbers we are using here are approximate, but generally accurate enough to reveal a pattern. Each successive stage progresses through about half the time and half of the space of the previous period. We can think of these as space-time-energy cycles, where in some places in the universe under certain conditions, there is an energy crisis of sorts that requires a creative response. The scientific term used most often used for this process is emergence, but essentially it is about the emergence of something new and more complex than what was there before. It is essentially a creative process.
If we return again to Table 1, there is a reference to the Hebrew word Yom in reference to the days of Genesis. In Hebrew, this word most primarily pertains to some form of period, or cycle. Although it could refer to a 24-hour period, the word yom may also pertain to a period of 40 days and 40 nights, a month, a year, a millennium, or any other time cycle depending on the context in which it is used. Hebrew scholars[6] who have studied how the word yom was used in various Hebrew writings arrive at the same conclusion: and that is, the context in which the word Yom is used in Genesis has the intended meaning of cycle or period; and not a 24-hour day. The beauty of this is that each cycle or period can also be of different duration. Hence, we can have an alignment of the cycles of Genesis with the space and time cycles in evolutionary theory.
So whether this is just a strange coincidence, or whether there is something more substantive to it is difficult to determine conclusively. But in my view, it is at least worthy of consideration in this whole debate. Because what it also tells us is that the cyclic sequencing in the Genesis story makes it intrinsically evolutionary, and the emergent thresholds that mark the successive cycles of evolution makes it intrinsically creative. Evolution and creation then, are not separate things in themselves, but are intertwined aspects of physical reality, all driven by universal laws of energy dynamics.
A Way Forward?
Without a doubt, the inferences presented here will likely draw the attention of a few critics from both sides of the debate. But it should also raise a few eyebrows on aspects that seemed to have been overlooked. Whatever direction this debate takes in the future, it would be wise to keep in mind Thomas Reid’s quote regarding the ambiguity of words. We can haggle about the subtle nuances in the meaning of specific terms, and remain tangled in the debate to no end if we continue to focus only on the major differences between the two stories.
But if we stand back and take a humble and objective look at their similarities, while fully respecting the rich contextual origins of each in their own right, as we have just done, then we may in fact begin to see the forest for the trees. Perhaps a better and more mutually agreeable way forward is to not regard the Genesis creation story and modern scientific evolutionary theory as opposed to each other, but as both partially true in their respective contexts. One story is simply a much earlier attempt using ancient contemplative methods, whereas the other is more recent using more rigorous modern scientific methods.
As an analogy, I leave an example taken from my own field of geoscience. Suppose we compare Ptolemy’s map of the world[7] with any of the digital global maps[8] we have on hand today. Modern geographers have always honored, and remain amazed by Ptolemy’s earliest contributions to mapping, along with early contributions by many others like him. We do not simply disregard Ptolemy’s map, or any other ancient map for that matter, because of their gross inaccuracies relative to the more sophisticated maps produced today. Instead we hold them in high reverence. Ptolemy’s map was a phenomenal piece of science for its time, but we would not use such a map for modern-day travel or navigation would we? Certainly not now that we have GPS and global maps that provide locational accuracy down to the meter for every location on Earth. So, should a modern course in geography give equal treatment to both Ptolemy’s map and todays sophisticated global digital maps? Of course not.
Map Sources: Ptolemy’s Map of the World (circa 150 AD), wikipedia.org; Global Map (circa 2000 AD), nationsonline.org.
The same can be said of the relation between the Genesis creation story and modern evolutionary theory. Both can be incorporated in their respective contexts in any school curriculum, not as opposing each other, but as representing a continuum of humanity’s quest to understand how things came to be, and our relationship to it all. In the end, they both tell a similar story of creation ‘and’ evolution.
But they also both leave us with the grand existential question of what meaning it all has for us. In all that we have covered here, we have not considered who or what is behind all of creation and evolution. Clearly, that is a topic much beyond the scope of this article. But, by extension, modern scientific findings about nature can always be used as a foundation for exploring such deeper philosophical questions of our relationship to the universe and planet, as well as the mystery behind all of evolution and creation, no? This, to me at least, is really our only viable way forward.
Endnotes:
[1] https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas-reid-quotes
[2]Frank Newport, 2014. In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins: Americans’ views related to religiousness, age, education.https://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
[3] Some interesting visualizations of the magnitude of these numbers are available at the following links:
· Big History — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqc9zX04DXs
· Powers of 10 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0
· Solar System Model in Desert — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4524AAZdE
[4] Ken Wilber and Ann Neihaus 1984. Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists. Shambhala Publications. https://www.shambhala.com/quantum-questions-1226.html
[5] Wiken, Jeffery. 1988. Entropy, Information, and Evolution: New Perspectives on Physical and Biological Evolution. MIT Press.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/entropy-information-and-evolution
[6] Schroeder, Gerald. 1995. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom. Broadway Books. http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=36
See also: Whitefield, Rodney. 2006. What does “yom” mean in Genesis 1? https://godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf
[7] Ptolemy’s world map, reconstituted from Ptolemy’s Geography (circa 150) in the 15th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy%27s_world_map#/media/File:PtolemyWorldMap.jpg
[8] Nations Online Project: https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/physical_world_map.htm
