Creationists Will Never Evolve, Part 2
(Printed in the Towanda Daily Review on 3/16/96.)
Editor: On 3/1 Dave Harnish wrote: "Evolutionist theory starts with the presupposition of abiogenesis, that life arose from non-life . . . " Mr. Harnish is incorrect because evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origins of life, only that existing organisms descended from ancient ones. The ancient organisms could have been divinely created, or arose from some "primordial soup". Dennis Lantz, on 3/3, correctly asserts that, "Evolution in no way disproves that there is a God or a force that created or initiated the 'system.'"
On 3/5, Darris M. Hauser wrote that the probability of life beginning by evolution is nil "considering the 23 pairs of human chromosomes just happening to get together in the correct sequence is 10 to the 87th power." Mr. Hauser is correct if the assumption is that a complete person must arise from a blend of dead chemicals. However, evolutionary theory requires much simpler beginnings that reduce the probabilities to a non-nil range.
To all who wrote that evolution is still an unproven theory, youíre absolutely correct because theories are not intended to prove anything. Theories only explain observed facts and can be falsified by failing to explain predicted facts. Gravity is also "only a theory", as are electricity and magnetism.
Many writers asserted that non-created life, or even the belief of non- created life, resulted in immorality. This a based on the assumption that God defines morality. From "The Elements of Moral Philosophy," (Rachels) an argument asks: (A) Is a conduct moral because God commands it, or (B) Does God command it because it is moral. The first choice leads to the conclusion that Godís commands are arbitrary because He could have commanded the opposite conduct, making it moral. Keep in mind that choice "A" assumes that it is Godís command that makes a conduct moral, thus any particular conduct would have no moral status prior to His command. To avoid concluding that Godís commands are arbitrary requires choice "B", giving morality a definition independent of God. Thus, evolution, the belief in evolution, and even atheism, do not automatically exclude moralism, just as "religious" does not automatically include it.
A belief in creationism requires that the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis, be interpreted as literal and accurate. For me, this presents a multiple of problems, one of which is the account of the Flood. If interpreted literally, God destroyed (killed, murdered) all life on Earth except for eight people. How does One who commanded "Thou shalt not kill (murder)," justify this action? Surely there were thousands, even millions, of innocent men, women, and children who were drowned because an omniscient God decided that he made a mistake. Iíve heard and read many explanations. The only one that makes sense to me is that Genesis is something other that literal. This would also explain creationism.
John L. Ferri