Science and Religion 3: Creationism

class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide

.title[
# Science and Religion 3: Creationism
]
.date[
### REL 200 Quest for God - Spring 24
]

---

# Science and Religion

- What best describes the relation between science and religion? Competition, conflict, complementarity, indifference?

---

# Science, evolution, and creationism

Scopes' trial of 1925

---
### Two opposing views about the origins of the universe and the world

- The book of Genesis describes the historical process of the origin of the world
    - Creation in six 24-hour periods, 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.
- Cosmologists, geoscientists, and biologist's argument
    - The universe is roughly 14 billion years old
    - The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.
    - Anatomically modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago.

Tension between two extremes: 
- The universe has been __intentionally designed and created by God__.
- The existence of the universe can be explained solely by __naturalistic processes__.

---
### Evolution: different theses

- (T1) __The Ancient Earth Thesis__: The thesis that the universe and the earth are billions of years old.
- (T2) __The Progress Thesis__: Life has moved from simple unicellular organisms to complex multicellular organisms over time.
- (T3) __The Common Ancestry Thesis__: All terrestrial life shares a common ancestor.
- (T4) __Darwinist Thesis__: The mechanisms that account for the diversity and complexity of life are those identified by evolutionary scientists: random variation and selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and so on.
- (T5) __Naturalistic Origins of Life Thesis__: Life on earth arose through purely naturalistic processes.

Different creationist views are in disagreement with either all or some of these theses.

---
# From Science to Religion

Intelligent Design Theory (IDT): Facts about the realm of biology provide evidence that life is the result of intelligent design.

__Irreducible complexity argument__ (Behe):

1. A structure (process event) is either the result of (a) natural laws, (b) chance processes, or (c) intelligent design.
2. Biological structures that support life are not the result of natural laws.
3. Biological structures that support life are not the result of chance processes.
4. Therefore, biological structures that support life are the result of intelligent design.

Premise (1) seems plausible. So, we need to evaluate reasons for (2) and (3).

---
class: small-font
# Natural laws and biological structures

> (2) Biological structures that support life are not the result of natural laws.

Biological structures seem to be __irreducibly complex (IC)__, in the sense that they are composed by several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Example: Mouse trap, which has five parts: 1. base, 2. spring, 3. whacker, 4. cheese-holder, 5. catch (holding the whacker)

Key point: ICs cannot come into existence by a gradual process of increasing complexity and increasingly more efficient function.

Example: Since any simpler version of the mouse trap would not be functional, the mouse trap couldn't have evolved from simpler structures. Similarly, since any simpler version of biological structures that support life would not be functional, they couldn't have evolved from simpler structures.

---
class: small-font

# Chance processes and biological structures

> (3) Biological structures that support life are not the result of chance processes.

Structures that are the result of chance processes do not exhibit __specified complexity__.

Suppose you find some Scrabble pieces laid on the floor. Consider three different parallel scenarios:

1. They spell the word "at".
2. They spell the word "asptyblsmfl."
3. They spell the word "have a great day"

First scenario: Pattern is too simple, so it's probably chance. <br>
Second scenario: Pattern is complex but meaningless, so it's probably chance. <br>
Third scenario: Pattern is complex and specific, it conforms to grammatical rules, so it's probably not chance.

Biological structures exhibit specified complexity, as their patterns conform to rules that allow life processes to happen.

---

# Objections

The main point is that biological structures are irreducibly and specifically complex, in the sense that they are not functional if one part is not there, and that they are meaningful for their function.

- Simpler structures could be functional to simpler life-forms. These simpler structures could well have been created by chance.
- Simpler structures could have different functions.
    - Example: Ear bones (two of them were part of the reptillian jaw).

---
# Conciliatory view: Theistic evolution

__Theistic evolution__ (sometimes called __evolutionary creationism__): God acts and creates through laws of nature.

This view is compatible with the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution.

Embryology-Evolution analogy
1. Embryological and evolutionary processes are both teleological and ordained by God.
2. Embryological and evolutionary processes are natural processes sustained by God.
3. Human embryological development and evolution reflect intelligent design.
4. Embryological and evolutionary processes are spiritual mysteries (comprehending their origin completely is beyond our capacity to know).