I felt that I should do one last post before wrapping up my origins research. I haven't discussed much about potential methodology for providing proof of Creation or Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt (100% proofs on these topics are not possible). While someone could probably make a reasonable decision based on a gut feeling of the summation of evidence after enough research, it wouldn't hurt to have a realistic methodology established. I don't believe that my terminology is spot-on, but it should suffice. Creation vs. Evolution isn't the most ideal phraseology as Evolution is simply the most accepted Atheistic theory. Evolution is also a broad term, and can apply to culture, science, and of course, the theory of biological Evolution. However, I will use the old terminology as I'm (unfortunately) more used to it, and potential readers probably are too. Please don't hesitate to write a comment in reply to this post if you wish to correct me or what not.
We have two theories under scrutiny here, and they could both use a proper definition. Theistic Evolution is of a slightly different nature, but I will cover it briefly.
Creationism is the belief that life and the universe as we know it were created by a god. There are a few kinds of Creationism, Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism are the two prominent theories. Of course, the core Creationistic theory stays the same. Old Earth Creationism is quite close to Theistic Evolution, so for the purposes of this text, Creationism will refer to Young Earth Creationism (YEC, for short). Creation does not need to be bound to religion as it often is. Debating that Creation is possible does not have to carry any sort of moral code or religion with it. The theory merely regards whether or not we were created by a god, not how that god wants us to serve him. It is likely that if we were created by a god, he wrote a text or embeded in our DNA some set of guidelines, and/or influenced history in some way. Perhaps he only left us with a few
easter eggs to know who he is, but simply wants us to go on with our daily lives. By definition, a god should be an infinite, super natural being that needs nothing. Thus, it would seem unlikely that he would create us merely for the sake of watching us in some convoluted Sims-like game. The possibility exists that he created us to share something with us, but I won't go into much detail on that. The main point I wish to stress is that Creation alone does not imply religion; considering the existance of a god does not make you a religionist (by this I mean anyone who follows a religion, including those who call it a relationship) in any way.
Evolutionism is the belief that we came to be solely by natural causes. Current theory is that the Big Bang and billions of years were sufficient. If we were not created with a purpose by a god, some interesting potential life purposes through Evolution theory can be gathered, along with those like
Contact purposes in regards to finding extra-terrestrial life (if exists, of course). Some religionists think that since Evolution is secular, the theory and those who follow it must be immoral. Like how giving the possibility of a god fair consideration does not make you a religionist, morals are irrespective of considering a theory. I know many atheists who are far more moral than Christians, but I've also seen some of the opposite, too. My own experience says that just because someone follows a religion or believes in Evolution does not say a thing about their moral code. Statistically, religion Xists may be more moral than religion Yists, but there is no conclusive evidence to support that atheists are simply immoral. Thus, Evolutionism proposes that we were created solely by natural causes with nothing supernatural involved.
Before going further, I thought I should address something. Creation/Evolution is often an emotion-filled debate. Creation is often championed solely because it backs religion, so it often turns into a Theistic vs Atheistic debate. Most reading this text have probably been hurt by religion, or more rather its misuse in the past. Throughout history, billions have died all because of religious matters and the thought that those with differing beliefs should be exterminated. People also have the tendency to form religions when they have no scientific understanding of something, instead of accepting uncertainty as a normal part of life. Some atheists probably hold on to their belief partially due to religion's ugly history (as I said earlier, Creation does not mandate religion, but Evolution insures there is no possibility of a true religion). Likewise, some religionists have been hurt by atheists, but I think overall the atheists are much more owed an apology than the religionists. However, I have seen evidence of religion being beneficial, psychosomatic or not. If Creation and thus religion is disproven, some form of secular humanism is probably more ideal, but in general I would have to say that (in my opinion), religion as a whole has done more harm than good. If there is a true religion out there, it has presumably been quite beneficial to humanity when treated properly. Since a true religion implies that a god exists, a religion that the god would produce to find him would simply be more ideal than not. It could have much advice and give a good definition as to the meaning of life, so if Creation is true, it would be worth looking into if a religion, text, or something else has sufficient backing to be considered written or inspired by god.
Creation nor Evolution (more correctly, atheism) cannot be disproven in full. No one was there to see the creation of the universe, but we can look at the geologic table, biology, astronomy, chemistry, and countless other areas to compile a reasonable certainty based on the current evidence. I won't try countering some of the overly-simple two sentence "disproofs" of Creation or Evolution, but I would recommend giving those a second look if you can't consider the alternative theory because of it. However, I will state one example of why the possibility of a god existing must be considered to be scientific. Imagine if you coded a self-conscious, adaptive artificial intelligence and placed it in a virtual reality. You made the virtual reality exotic and expansive, and provided historical geologic evidence suggesting a sudden creation. You also implanted Pi number sequences throughout, but considered
Fibonacci. The artificial beings are then let loose to decide for themselves what to do in life and whether or not they think you (the god coder) exist. Ultimately, we could be in the same predicament. If we were created by a god we are essentially in a matrix, though possibly not one of binary, but of real organic compounds and minerals. The artificial beings could ignore the prospect altogether, make arguments such as that god couldn't exist because he had to be created initially, or hopefully make a genuine effort to search. Perhaps you made the virtual reality so that it looked as though it had not been touched by a god, and everything had evolved after a big bang and abiogenesis. In which case it would be your fault if the residents didn't believe you existed.
Occam's razor is a very useful principle in researching origins. Given two options otherwise equal, the simpler one is more likely true. Suppose I drove to your house and had to make a final right turn. You didn't see me driving, but knew when I left and when I arrived. Using a simple calculation, you determine that under normal speeds I would have had to make the last right turn instead of doing three left turns. Your friend says that I drive fast and insists that I must have missed the turn and taken three left turns at four times the legal speed limit (in order for the leaving and arrival times to add up). The right turn is easy to notice, so I probably wouldn't had any problems finding it. Is it logical to think that I made three left turns when I could have comfortably made one right turn and not had to speed excessively? Ultimately, people may be able to "prove" evolution by millions of calculations, chance mineral deposits, *really* good luck, and billions of years, but a god snapping his fingers is a much simpler solution. On the other hand, if we have clear astronomical evidence of a big bang, excellent evolutionary transitional fossils, proven methods of forming DNA through inorganic chemical reactions, and no seemingly valid religious texts given by a god, invoking that a god started the process which could have realistically occurred naturally is more complex and thus less likely.
All in all, a reasonable methodology for making a conclusion regarding origins isn't terribly hard given Occam's razor, reliable sources of information, and sufficient reasoning. In the end, while direct evidence of the processes required for both theories is important, it really comes down to which is simpler and more realistic. There are more atheistic theories than just Evolution, but Evolution is the most championed and thought-out theory, so it would probably be quite sufficient to stick with it. Theistic Evolution is less likely than atheistic Evolution when given Occam's Razor, unless a god appears to have left his mark in some way.
One can start with Evolution and logically follow the path it would make. We should see transitional forms, evidence of an *ancient* earth, and be able to form left handed amino acids in test tubes simulating a reasonable primitive sea/muck environment. Dating methods can also be used to check evidence, but before saying that Evolution must be true because the BBC says that a fossil was dated at 7 million years old, one should check what methods were used and how valid they are. Using Wikipedia (Evolution-biased) and CreationWiki (Creation-biased), along with other sources should be sufficient. Carbon-14 is a famous technique, but does have some criticisms (
CreationWiki article;
Wikipedia article). Evolutionists have a tendency to purport supposed natural occurrences of Evolution that only evidence natural selection, which is also agreed on by Creation theory. Creationists have a tendency to purport natural phenomena that is merely impressive, but would be equally probable under the Evolution model, as evidence for a god. It helps having as neutral sources as possible, but know your source's bias when you can. Even biased information can be useful, you just need more of it as well as the other side's opinion.
Providing adequate information for Creation is a slightly different as it can be improperly invoked in almost any situation of evidence (Theistic Evolution, for example (not saying that it is necessarily improper in that case though)). However, it does have a few possible direct evidences that should not be found in Evolution. While proving that Evolution is nearly impossible would be a large evidence for Creation, if life demonstrates traits that would not be evolved it has some direct evidence. Easter eggs (like those in software) and mathematical patterns that would not likely be randomly evolved are potential evidences for Creation. Evolution theory currently requires a huge time scale; if it could be shown that the earth is much younger than what is required, Creation has a stronger stance. Inability for abiogenesis to occur would also be a critical stumbling block for Evolution.
While I won't go into much detail on this, if Creation is true, the possibility that God left a religious text exists. The text first has to be tested in regards to authenticity. It must be asked how old the text is, how many copies exist, (if applicable) how long since the events occurred that it was written, and of course the consistency between copies. It should also demonstrate logic beyond the known level of the culture at the time, show scientific understanding beyond its time, have geological backing for recorded historical events, and have its existence or recorded events in other texts of the time. A genuine, god-inspired/written religious text might not meet all of those, but it should have to overcome a heavy standard. Interpreting and translating it is a whole other topic in itself.
When all is said and done, one theory should have considerably more evidence than the other. There may be a few minor issues that may simply be human error in perception; they should be counted but not distort the overall picture. If Occam's theory still works on your conclusion, you are probably on the right track :-). Just stay open to possibilities and have an open mind, but don't stay on edge over minor things. There is a time to keep researching and a time to wrap it all up and just go with your conclusion.
In summary, give both theories a fair chance and think twice before accepting new information as true. The evidence doesn't lie and the mind works incredibly well; use both to the best of your ability.
Cheers, and thanks for reading :-).
