Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiments.
So, what is creationism and how is it defined? “That depends on who you ask, ” said Dr. Jay L. Wile, acquired PhD in nuclear chemistry. “Some people say creationism is a belief that God created what we see today. However, by that definition, many evolutionists are creationists, because they believe God used evolution to create. I define creationism as a belief that God created the variety of creatures we see today, and any change that occurred in creatures after creation is adaptation within the genomes that God created.”
Dr. Wile is best known for his award-winning, “Exploring Creation with…” series, among the series of books includes general science, physical science, biology, marine biology, chemistry, anatomy and several more books. Wile has traveled far and wide (including in country and out of country visits) to give seminars on the education and information from creationist approach within science.
The question comes into play, why isn’t creationism taught in most schools or at the very least, mentioned in most college science textbooks?“Because it’s not recognized as an actual scientific field of study,” said Michael Erbe, biology professor at Sinclair. “Creationism is a faith-based religious philosophy. Its evidence comes from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Biology is the scientific study of life—it’s based on empirical evidence derived from nature. ”
When evidence comes into play, what evidence does creationism have to support its legitimacy as either a hypothesis or a theory? “This, once again, depends on who you ask,” said Wile. “Some would say that it is neither, since it is ‘not science.’ Others would say it’s a hypothesis because there is little evidence to support it. Others would say a theory because there is a lot of evidence to support it. I would say it is a theory, because I think there is a lot of
evidence to support it.”
“None whatsoever,” said Erbe, when asked if there’s any validity to creationism. “From a mainstream scientific standpoint, there’s no validity to it at all. There’s just not enough scientific
evidence to support their views.” There’s a modern misconception today. Many people utter the word “evolution” and use
that to classify the whole concept of Darwinism, when in actuality, there’s a split. There are two distinctive sub units, one is microevolution and one is macroevolution. Microevolution is also
called “adaptation” and known for small changes within various organisms, hence the word “micro,” while macroevolution is known for large changes within an organism; such as, humans
originating from a more primitive being.
“There is a lot of evidence supporting microevolution,” said Wile. “We can see species changing over time due to natural selection, and we know how wolves, for example, were selectively bred into pet dogs. This process is well-documented and the mechanism by which it happens is well-understood.”
However, Wile said there isn’t nearly enough information on macroevolution, as there is against the theory. “There is very little evidence supporting macroevolution, and a lot of evidence against it.
We can’t see a fossil succession that shows it happened, and it happens too slowly to observe in just a few centuries. Also, there is no viable mechanism by which it can happen because it requires the information content of a genome to be fundamentally altered, and there is no consistent mechanism to explain how that can happen,” Wile said.
This distinction is an important and crucial one to separate the two ideas since they are most commonly lumped together. Wile explains that microevolution is a scientific theory, while macroevolution is only a scientific hypothesis. To see microevolution on a small scale, and macroevolution on a large scale, a question arises. Is there an assumption process with which macroevolution uses evidence from microevolution to support the claim that larger changes must have occurred at some point?
“That’s what most evolutionists think—they see small changes in finch beaks and then assume that if those changes were extrapolated in time, eagles would form,” Wile said. “The problem is that we understand the mechanism of microevolution, which involves natural selection working on the information that already exists in a population’s genome. That mechanism cannot produce macroevolution because macroevolution requires new information to be added to a population’s genome.”
This brings society back to the main question: if creationism is a current scientific field, why is it not in most universities? “Well, I think it belongs in a Religions of the World class, but not in a science course because it’s a religious philosophy,” said Erbe. “Education from the creationists point of view is not in most colleges simply because of academic intolerance,” said Wile, in response to the same question. “There are certain hypotheses and theories that are simply not allowed in most universities because they go strongly
against the consensus.”
There are organizations, such as, ICR (Institute for Creation Studies) that provide education in the creation perspective. Also, there is a museum in Petersburg, Kentucky called the Creation Museum, which is a 75,000 square foot museum dedicated solely to the creationist perspective. Wile gave a listing of current colleges that provide education from the creationist perspective at answeringgenesis.org. Although creationism still exists, Wile said the groups that support it are very small.
“It is a very small, minority opinion. I have no idea what the percentage is. In fact, I would expect that it would change wildly depending on what kinds of questions you asked and whether or not the survey was anonymous. However, it is a small minority opinion, ” said Wile. Science experiments and tests ideas, so Wile suggests to anyone that they look at as much information as one can from both the creationism and macroevolutionary Darwinism side of the issue to determine what one wants to support.
“That’s what I did, and I am a creationist as a result, ” said Wile.
That’s a large misconception in modern times that one cannot “believe” in science and be a believer in a higher power, and vice versa in the sense that one cannot be a believer in a higher power while “believing” in science.
Wile responded to that and said, “That statement is wrong because it was belief in God that produced the science we know today. Medieval Christians realized since God is Creator and gives laws, it would only be natural for God to give laws to creation as well. Thus, they began looking for those laws, which spawned modern science.” To put into real context, what influential scientists were creationists? Gregor Mendel (often coined as “father of genetics”), Louis Pasteur (French chemist and microbiologist), and George Washington Carver (U.S botanist and inventor) to name a few.
The current required textbook for a biology class at Sinclair is “Biology, Concepts and Connections” by Campbell, which mentions Mendel and Pasteur, yet has no mention within its texts of these individuals as creationists, mostly due to creationism not being mentioned once within the book and isn’t even found in the glossary. The book also uses Mendel and Pasteur’s scientific studies in support for macroevolution. Louis Pasteur has been quoted, “A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him… the more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”Gregor Mendel has been quoted, “May the might of destiny grant me the supreme ecstasy of earthly joy, the highest goal of earthly ecstasy, that seeing when I arise from the tomb, my art
thriving peacefully among those who are to come after me.”
Those quotes share incite on the two scientists’ personal views and brings to question why a biology book would fail to mention that their research was based in a creationist perspective. Whether creationism be accepted as an actual field of science or not, some might argue that political correctness should be applied within a book informing the reader what these scientists originally intended their studies to support. For more information on this issue, students, faculty and staff can visit Dr. Wile’s website, where he provides more in depth explanations to these topics, which is only the tip of the iceberg to the creationist viewpoint.
Ehron Ostendorf
Copy editor