Why Creationism Gains More Acceptance in the United States Than Evolution

There is often a discussion about why creationism is more widely accepted in the United States than evolution. This discussion revolves around the interpretation of evidence and starting points, rather than the existence of evidence in the first place.

The Interpretation of Evidence and Worldviews

Both evolutionists and creationists are interpreting the same evidence, but they do so from different starting points or worldviews. Evolutionary theory is often viewed as a naturalistic, unguided process, while creationism posits the existence of a Creator. The difference is not in the evidence itself, but in how that evidence is interpreted.

Historical science, which deals with one-time nonrepeatable events, is the realm in which both creationism and evolution operate. Unlike empirical science, which can be tested, repeated, and even falsified, there are no experiments that could definitively prove either evolution or creation.

The Myth of Proven Evolutionary Evidence

Many claim that evolution has been proven by extensive testing and experimentation. However, any attempt to prove evolution is fundamentally flawed because it is a naturalistic, unguided process. Therefore, a test to "prove" evolution would have to be set up, initiated, and controlled by an intelligent mind, undermining the very nature of what evolution means.

Examples often cited, such as evolving bird beaks or the peppered moth, are actually examples of natural selection. Natural selection can only select from genetic information that already exists, not create new genes. It merely shuffles, combines, or deletes existing genes, leading to variations within species, but not the creation of new kinds of creatures.

For instance, breeding dogs, sheep, or cattle can result in various breeds, but the end result is still dogs, sheep, and cattle. It is impossible to breed two dogs and get a lizard or a bird, undermining the claim of new species forming due to evolution.

Conventional Paleontological and Fossil Claims

The fossil record often supports the idea of a massive flood on a global scale. Fossils found around the world suggest rapid burial before decay and scavenging. This aligns with the notion of a catastrophic event, such as a flood, rather than gradual processes over millions of years.

Paleontologists have actually found fossils in the act of fighting, eating, and even giving birth, indicating rapid burial. This supports the idea of a catastrophic event like a flood, as it makes sense that many creatures would be quickly buried before they had time to rot or be scavenged.

The Flaws in Carbon Dating and Other Fossil Dating Methods

Fossil dating methods, such as carbon dating and radiometric dating, are also subject to numerous flaws. Carbon dating is only reliable for a few thousand years at best and is limited to once-living organic materials. Radiometric dating, on the other hand, relies on several unproven and unprovable assumptions. Results from different dating methods applied to the same rock samples often vary widely.

For example, rocks taken from the area around Mount St. Helens, which erupted in 1980 and whose age is known, have been subjected to several dating methods. These methods show that rocks which should not be older than 44 years are instead claimed to be anywhere from several hundred thousand to several million years old. This discrepancy suggests that the dating methods are not as precise as claimed.

The Role of Education and Indoctrination

Many people accept evolution as a fact because it is all they have been taught. However, the reasons they are taught this and not other explanations, such as creationism, often stem from a prior commitment to a materialistic worldview. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin once admitted:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, our devotion to materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

This admission highlights the role of materialism in modern scientific practice, suggesting that evolution is accepted to maintain a materialistic worldview rather than on the strength of the evidence.

Conclusion

The acceptance of creationism in the United States may be influenced by worldviews and the nature of the evidence itself. While both creationism and evolution operate within the realm of historical science, the interpretation of evidence and adherence to a materialistic worldview can lead to different conclusions. Understanding these complexities is crucial for comprehending the broader debate surrounding these two theories.