# Creationism vs. Evolution: the only choices? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055 "2008-08-06T17:57:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2008, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/121 "2008-08-08T21:27:31Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] When he was young, evolution was already a theory and there was already vast amounts of evidence supporting it. Just sayin’. Hmm, is there _any_ discussion left to be had on the _actual_ topic of this thread? [/QUOTE] I think it was pretty clear that there are no supported alternatives and an infinite number of unsupported ones. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2008, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/122 "2008-08-08T21:29:02Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] That seems harsh. Did phylogeny even exist as a concept in Linnae[a]us’ time? [/QUOTE] Well, I didn’t mean that Linnaeus set out to destroy phylogenetic trees (which, as you note, are a relatively recent invention). More like his scheme, and the continued adherence to it, have caused all manner of confusion and misrepresentation regarding the relationships of various groups. Thus we have the mistaken perception that reptiles “became” birds, or “became” mammals. The logical leap required to understand the transition from, for example, “reptile” to “bird” is much greater when they are considered separate-but-equal ranks than when one considers the actual hierarchy of those groups. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/123 "2008-08-09T02:38:47Z")
[QUOTE=Oy!] But **lekatt** , did I not, in the passage you quoted, demonstrate humility before knowledge and caring of others before self? I don’t understand what those things have to do with beliefs of something that you can’t even describe except to say you don’t accept either science or religion. [/QUOTE] Yes, you did, and I appreciated it. But, I see now the thread is becoming a podium for some to cheer their rightness and jeer the wrongness of their chosen opponents. So I will leave now for more peaceful pursuits. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/124 "2008-08-09T02:58:42Z")
Perhaps someday you can try to explain what you mean to me more fully. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2008, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/125 "2008-08-09T03:25:49Z")
[QUOTE=Oy!] Perhaps someday you can try to explain what you mean to me more fully. [/QUOTE] Yes, perhaps on my message board. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/126 "2008-08-09T03:46:44Z")
I checked it out once; I didn’t have time then for the contents, but the music was very pretty. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2008, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/127 "2008-08-09T13:42:40Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] Yes, you did, and I appreciated it. But, I see now the thread is becoming a podium for some to cheer their rightness and jeer the wrongness of their chosen opponents. So I will leave now for more peaceful pursuits. [/QUOTE] Since you are a primary poster embracing that activity, you do well to retire from this thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2008, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/128 "2008-08-09T13:44:57Z")
EVERYONE, if you have a point to make regarding alternatives to creationism or evolution, post them. If you have only snide remarks to make about people with different world views than your own, take it to the **Pit**. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2008, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/129 "2008-08-09T22:35:48Z")
Well, personally I thought that I provided some novel and thought-provoking alternatives back in post #19. But apparently the SDMB isn’t yet ready to acknowledge the possibility of Cosmic Chickenism. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2008, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/130 "2008-08-10T01:47:09Z")
I’ll step up and challenge the assumed dichotomy. Why is the debate phrased as creationism OR evolution? That requires a Creator that could create only a product, and not a process. I’m no theologian, but that doesn’t fit any definition of ‘omnipotent’ that I recognize. Only creation myths (if I may use the word without offense) that specifically state certain times frames could contradict creation by evolution. To accept creation myths as inerrant is just not acceptable; no myth that has been handed down orally, copied by hand, and translated could _possibly_ be inerrant. (I’m not a linguist, either, but I’ll stand by that). [QUOTE=Terrifel] Well, personally I thought that I provided some novel and thought-provoking alternatives back in post #19. But apparently the SDMB isn’t yet ready to acknowledge the possibility of Cosmic Chickenism. [/QUOTE] Well, the chicken does have to be intelligent enough to keep the egg warm, and not go gallivanting about in other universes. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2008, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/131 "2008-08-10T01:57:18Z")
Actually, look at **Terrifel** ’s Chickenism in Post #19. It’s a very good example of your Created Process. Evolution set as a process is probably the most common form of mainstream Christian belief, at least in my experience here in the US. God more or less set things up and let them unfold. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2008, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/132 "2008-08-10T02:20:07Z")
Most of the discussion thus far has been about choosing either creationism or evolution as _the_ explanation for life as we know it (the principal mechanism of natural history). In other words, the implied choices have been: a. Creationism is right b. Evolution is right I think an interesting third choice is this: c. In the fullness of time, we’ll discover that neither provides an adequate explanation. This is very much the choice that I’m learning to favour. I dismiss creationsm as a non-scientific derivative of out-moded medieval superstition and mythology, and I have nothing to do with it. Whatever else you can say about it, it simply doesn’t explain anything. As for evolution… I know there is a lot of evidence for it, and that it is a very successful theory that accounts for a rich variety of things we can observe about natural history. However, I think there are also things that it either explains very poorly, only in the vaguest terms and with some hand-waving thrown in, or doesn’t explain at all. I could give examples, but I think this would lead to some serious derailment of the thread. In other words, I believe evolutionary theory is far, far from being a complete or comprehensive mechanism for all we currently know about natural history, and that it is possible there is another mechanism at work (nothing to do with mysticism or religion) that we haven’t recognised. I believe that in the fullness of time, say 50-100 years, we’ll look back on our current understanding of evolution the way we now look back on, say, medical knowledge before we knew about bacteria and penicillin. We’ll realise it was incomplete, to a far greater extent that we could either perceive or feel comfortable acknowledging. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/133 "2008-08-10T02:26:51Z")
[QUOTE=ianzin] I think an interesting third choice is this: c. In the fullness of time, we’ll discover that neither provides an adequate explanation. [/QUOTE] That certain is true of just about every scientific theory ever proposed; they get refined. I think the problem that most people have with Creationism is that it is static: these are the facts; questions, comments, and alternate interpretations are not allowed. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2008, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/134 "2008-08-10T03:05:42Z")
[QUOTE=ianzin] I believe that in the fullness of time, say 50-100 years, we’ll look back on our current understanding of evolution the way we now look back on, say, medical knowledge before we knew about bacteria and penicillin. We’ll realise it was incomplete, to a far greater extent that we could either perceive or feel comfortable acknowledging. [/QUOTE] I doubt it. The thing about evolution is that it’s really very simple, there is change over time, offspring are not identical to parents. We will continue to learn about specific details, but the basic process is just too simple. It would actually be far more difficult to not have evolution, it would require elaborate mechanisms to keep things static in an error prone environment (our biology). As for the OP, the only other alternative I can think of is that the formation of our DNA (and everything else’s DNA) is a naturally occuring formation of molecules analogous to the formation of crystals. It’s a mathematical certainty that the specific parameters of our environment(s) cause these formations exactly as they are. The only problem with this proposal is that the evidence doesn’t support it in the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/135 "2008-08-10T03:38:34Z")
[QUOTE=ianzin] As for evolution… I know there is a lot of evidence for it, and that it is a very successful theory that accounts for a rich variety of things we can observe about natural history. However, I think there are also things that it either explains very poorly, only in the vaguest terms and with some hand-waving thrown in, or doesn’t explain at all. I could give examples, but I think this would lead to some serious derailment of the thread. In other words, I believe evolutionary theory is far, far from being a complete or comprehensive mechanism for all we currently know about natural history, and that it is possible there is another mechanism at work (nothing to do with mysticism or religion) that we haven’t recognised. I believe that in the fullness of time, say 50-100 years, we’ll look back on our current understanding of evolution the way we now look back on, say, medical knowledge before we knew about bacteria and penicillin. We’ll realise it was incomplete, to a far greater extent that we could either perceive or feel comfortable acknowledging. [/QUOTE] Actually, I suspect that a presentation of events that you believe are not or poorly explained by the Theory of Evolution would be exactly what is required to give this thread any meaning. For example, we already are aware of such apparent divergences from the Theory of Natural Selection as ring species, genetic drift, and junk DNA, yet Darwin, himself, noted that Natural Selection was probably not the sole engine of evolution and none of the exploration of the other factors has served to undermine Natural Selection in nearly 150 years of continuing development and trial of the Theory of Natural Selection. If you think that there is an aspect of the development of species (or genera or whatever) that the Theory of Evolution inadequately explains, then let’s see it so that we can speculate on why a “third” option might be viable (or discover that the T of E actually has addressed it). ---
**Author:** ![SandyHook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@SandyHook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SandyHook)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/136 "2008-08-12T01:18:27Z")
As a devout Pastfarian I believe that it is time to put in a word about the missing “third option.” Unintelligent design. The universe, as we followers of the “[Flying Spaghetti Monster](http://www.venganza.org/)” know, was created 5000ish years ago by the “Lord of Lasagna”. The “Prince of Pasta” isn’t really all that bright, thus the UD. He also doesn’t seem to be that interested in us. But the “Master of Manicotti” gets to make the rules so whatta’ya gonna do? But we followers of the “Giver on Gonnochi” are in on a major cosmic truth that may be of help to this discussion. Science isn’t wrong, as far as anyone can tell or prove. What happens is that the “Creator of Calamarata,” for reasons of His own, steps in, and with his Noodly Appendge alters any measurement so that scientists get readings consistant with a 14 billionish year old universe. Hope this helps. RAmen ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/137 "2008-08-12T02:13:14Z")
Sorry. That is only a variation on Creationism (using a different creator). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/138 "2008-08-12T18:07:46Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Sorry. That is only a variation on Creationism (using a different creator). [/QUOTE] Well, there _are_ only two options: the universe/world/mankind/tennis balls/whatever was created, or it wasn’t. However, I think it’s rather disingenuous to conflate all forms or variants of creation with “Creationism”, which is primarily a christian construct, describing a handful of very specific models. Nothing polytheistic, or polynontheistic (like the earth being built by a group of non-gods a la Hitchhikers Guide) would really fit the term “Creationism”, the way I understand it. There are ways of having been created that aren’t Creationism, and there are ways of not having been created that aren’t Evolution. Ergo, there are myriad options besides the given two. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/139 "2008-08-12T23:59:56Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I just read that a big effort is beginning to build something living - perhaps a virus - from the basic constituents. If that happens, would you agree that no divine “spark of life” is required? [/QUOTE] Actually, that was done [years ago](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm), with the polio virus. [QUOTE=BBC] To construct the virus, the researchers say they followed a recipe they downloaded from the internet and used gene sequences from a mail-order supplier. [/QUOTE] So, unless the “spark of life” is downloadable, it’s not necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055/140 "2008-08-13T00:37:22Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Actually, that was done [years ago](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm), with the polio virus. So, unless the “spark of life” is downloadable, it’s not necessary. [/QUOTE] Ah, but that was done using splicing. It would be even clearer if this was done from the most basic of molecules, to build the DNA. A bit harder, but doable. But I do admit that downloading the spark of life from some divine Gtunes has a certain appeal. Be prepared for moving goalposts, though. Once a virus is done, that won’t be considered life. Once the parts of a cell were done they’ll just say “but you didn’t make a person, so there.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-vs-evolution-the-only-choices/459055.md?page=6)