Creationism: Still valid in the new millennium?
by George T. Javor
Creationism is not for the faint-hearted. It is based
on a 3,500 year-old assertion found in the Bible: "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1, NIV). Most contemporary
scientists, however, believe that life resulted from a huge explosion
of primeval matter billions of years ago. To believe in creation is to
run against the tide.
" Nothing in biology," wrote Dobzh-ansky, "makes sense
except in the light of evolution." 1
The editors of Science magazine, introducing a special issue
on evolution, stated not long ago: " The intellectual concepts arising
from our understanding of evolution have enriched and changed many other
fields of study." 2 In the same issue,
Stephen Jay Gould wrote: " Organic evolution. . . [is] one of the firmest
facts ever validated by science." 3
The standard creationist response to such declarations
is to point out flaws in the evolutionary arguments. But creationists
are at their best when they show that their explanations work better than
the evolutionary ones. Their goal should be to develop their paradigm
so well that people will have to admit, " Nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of creationism."
With that as a background, let us consider a few aspects
of creationism still valid for the 21st century thinking Christians.
1. Is creationism a religiously motivated paradigm?
Yes. Efforts to present creationism in a secular wrapping
distort its central thrust. At the very core of creationism is the Creator.
The Bible teaches that the Creator is intimately involved with nature,
and yet not part of nature. It follows that religion cannot be divorced
from science. While science may be practiced without any reference to
religion, the interpretation of such efforts may be flawed.
Of the great civilizations, the one in Western Europe
gave rise to modern science, with emphasis on experimentation and mathematical
formulations. 4 Several cultures of antiquity,
the Chin- ese and Arab among them, produced higher levels of learning
and technology than medieval Europe. Yet it was in Europe that modern
science was born. Heavily contributing to this was the Judeo-Christian
faith, with its confidence in the laws of nature.
The supposed conflict between religion and science is
a recent invention and a distortion of historical realities by a class
of historians (led by John Williams Draper and Andrew Dickson White),
whose agenda was to destroy the church 's influence. The currently popular
secularism in science may only be a detour in the history of science.
2. What are the perceived liabilities of creationism?
- Creationism originated in a pre-scientific world, where myths abounded.
The biblical story of creation is often compared with the Babylonian
and other creation stories.
- Creationism rests on the notion that there is a Supernatural Being,
which cannot be verified scientifically. Moreover, if this is true,
then ours is a capricious world, subject to the whims of supernatural
powers. Science is not equipped to study such a world.
- Creationism restricts the range of inquiries, because by definition,
there is no point studying the origins of life or the relationships
- Creationism implies accountability. Then humankind is not the supreme
authority in the world.
Responses to these observations:
- The fact that a creation story exists in different ancient cultures
suggests a common source for these stories.
- The Supreme Being of the Bible created a world with laws that were
either given or which can be discovered. Humans are mandated to subdue
and care for creation, using these laws. There appears to be no caprice
in the routine operation of nature. Nevertheless, the creationist paradigm
permits divine intervention in nature, when known natural laws are superseded.
Creationists believe that past divine interventions of great significance
have been explained to humanity by special revelations. Modern science
went astray when it discarded supernaturally revealed information relevant
- Whether the creationist paradigm is restrictive has to do with one's
perspective. A person's understanding of reality will dictate his or
her range of inquiry.
3. Is science hindered or helped by creationism?
The creationist worldview was a strong motivating factor
for scientists to study nature--to actually experiment and see how God
ran the world. These were the "voluntarist" scientists who opposed Aristotelianism
(which held that the universe and everything in it had to be made by laws
of logic, which Aristotle himself discovered). Prominent voluntarist scientists
who practiced scientific experimentation and measurements were Van Helmont,
Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton.
The biblical doctrine of creation assures us that we
live in an orderly world ruled by the Supreme Lawgiver. This is in stark
contrast to the pagan worldview, which saw nature as alive and being moved
by mysterious forces. Thus, the doctrine of creation was a positive and
possibly a decisive contributing factor to the birth of modern science.
4. Is there explanatory power in creationism?
Science to a great extent is explaining. The acid test
for the value of a paradigm rests in its explanatory power. Here are some
- Elements of design, seen in nature at every level, follow naturally
- The great diversity among organisms can be viewed as a reflection
of the Creator's unbelievable range of imagination.
- Interaction between and mutual support among organisms is a testimony
to a benign design.
- The burden to explain how living matter came into existence is lifted.
So is the burden of having to connect every organism together through
- Creationism is helpful in light of the exceptional fidelity of genetic
reproduction on the one hand and the very limited range of possible
changes that can be accomplished by mutations. (It has now been shown,
for example, that the bacterium E. coli remains E. coli even after thousands
of generations in the laboratory.)
all manifestations of the biosphere have to do with survival values.
There is more to life than mere survival. If survival were the only
criterion, we would see a much starker and sparser world. Creationism
frees us from having to explain why there are both uni and multicellular
organisms, and why there is an absolute requirement for two different
genetic types of organisms (male and female) to coexist.
- Common features among organisms are understood to come from the same
Designer. For example, similarities in metabolic pathways generate common
metabolic needs, which can be satisfied by common food sources. Diverse
features support the ability of organisms to fill different niches and
to preserve their identities. Differences among organisms also reflect
the Designer's obvious penchant for variations.
- Instead of asking, How an organism is successful in carving a niche
for itself, we ask, How does this species contribute to the good of
- The puzzle of the chicken/egg is solved. The chicken came first.
- The cause for existence, from atoms upward is understood to be the
expressed will of the Creator. The Adventist understanding of creation
emphasizes that the Creator was not dependent upon pre-existing matter.
We hold that matter is not infinitely old, that it was created.
- A characteristic of a designed entity is that the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts. Design and organization enable components
of complex systems to cooperate for the expression of new functions.
Layers of reality may be arranged to show the appearance of new functions
at each successive level. (See Figure 1.)
- Predation, toxic plants, viruses, and the suffering and death of
non-plant organisms do not fit into a scheme conceived by an all-wise
Creator. The creationist paradigm assigns these to the work of an evil
power in nature. This concept is most helpful when we consider the immense
sophistication seen in the operation of living matter, all of which
appears to go for naught--that is, to the eventual demise of the organism.
5. Can we make scientifically testable predictions
using the creationist paradigm?
Creationism has been criticized for not leading to testable
predictions. Wrong paradigms may lead to testable suggestions, but that
does not necessarily make for a good hypothesis. It makes it a testable
When a paradigm's prediction is tested and the results
are different than predicted, sometimes the paradigm is altered, but often
the test results are reinterpreted so as to allow for the continuation
of the paradigm's validity. When the Viking Missions to Mars found no
evidence for life on the Martian surface soil, even though microbial life
was predicted by the chemical evolutionary paradigm, the adjustment was
made to postulate the existence of living organisms deep within the Martian
The creationist paradigm suggests that rather than creating
a few species, the Creator generated a rich variety of living organisms.
Therefore, it would be surprising to find planets populated with microorganisms
Other predictions that follow from the creationist's
- The biosphere is complete. No new orders of organisms are expected
to arise. (The creationist paradigm nevertheless is comfortable with
new species arising within the same order.) All current organisms have
- No living organisms will arise abiotically.
- The fossil record will suggest a rich variety of organisms coexisting
from the beginning.
6. Theological insights from Creationism.
- Science cannot be divorced from religion. Theologians must not give
up the realm of physical reality entirely to the scientist. They may
not be able to contribute to the understanding of how physical realities
operate in nature, but they have a grave responsibility to advise scientists
on the clearest meaning of supernatural information that has bearing
- To illustrate this, we may imagine a scientist from elsewhere in
the universe visiting Earth a week after its creation. Not being told
of the recent creation event, and observing mature organisms and well
developed trees in the Garden of Eden, this well meaning scientist would
conclude that Earth had been around for some time. The conflict regarding
the age of the Earth is caused by the fact that dating techniques all
but ignore the possibility of a mature Earth appearing suddenly.
- Humanity is accountable to the Creator for the way we utilize nature
- The Creator 's wisdom and sophistication are documented by countless
examples in nature. It needs to be emphasized that He is not only the
Designer of the world, where objects and organisms are integrated into
a coherent setting, but He brought all of it into existence and has
sustained it for thousands of years. Contrast this to the famous "Biosphere"
experiments, which showed how difficult it is to balance ecological
- Even though we do not have a complete understanding of how our world
fits into the rest of the universe, and what kinds of contribution we
can make to it, there can be no doubt that the existence of our world
has a purpose.
- The Adventist worldview is based on the profound theme of the great
controversy between Christ and Satan. The Bible tells that in the last
days, Satan will work mightily to deceive the world. A facet of this
deception may be the theory of evolution.
Creationism is a robust paradigm, fully capable of undergirding
the scientific enterprise in the new millennium. Wider acceptance of creationism
by the scientific community in the future will depend, in part, on how
well theologians can convince scientists of the priceless value of revealed
information. In addition, this approach will gain greater credibility
as more scientists conduct research on the basis of the creationist perspective.
George T. Javor (Ph.D., Columbia University) teaches
and does research in the Department of Biochemistry, Loma Linda University
School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California, U.S.A.
Notes and references:
1. T. Dobzhansky, The American
Biology Teacher 35 (1973): 125.
2. B. Hanson, G. Chin, A. Sugden,
and E. Culotta, Science 284 (1999): 2105.
3. S. J. Gould, Science
284 (1999): 2087.
4. N. R. Pearcey and C. B. Thaxton,
The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Wheaton,
Ill.: Crossway Books, 1994).