This blog post examines the arguments of creationism, which denies the theory of evolution, and asks the question: where did we come from?
In 1859, a single book changed the world. British biologist Charles Robert Darwin published ‘On the Origin of Species,’ explaining how diverse species arose. It sold out on the day of release, causing tremendous social upheaval. Darwin’s paper on evolution, co-authored with Willis, faced immense criticism from both the scientific and theological communities while also receiving the support and praise of many scholars. The core claim of ‘On the Origin of Species’, often described as a book that shook the Bible, is ‘evolution’. This theory, now accepted as established science, states that organisms continuously diverge into different species through the process of natural selection. In the 1930s, evolutionary theory combined with Mendelian genetics to develop into modern evolutionary theory. This gave rise to various branches, notably population genetics, Gould’s punctuated equilibrium theory, and Dawkins’ theory of the selfish gene. Yet, staunch religious adherents still refuse to accept evolutionary theory as truth, instead advocating creationism, a pseudoscience rooted in religion. The author wishes to emphasize that such claims are clearly incorrect.
First, let us examine the pseudoscience they advocate: creationism. Creationism is a pseudo-hypothesis that applies a scientific veneer to the religious doctrine that God created the universe and all things within it. While often referred to as ‘creation theory,’ the term ‘theory’ is scientifically reserved for proven theories, leading to a growing argument that it should be called ‘creationism.’ Creationism is divided into two main branches: young Earth creationism and old Earth creationism.
The young Earth creationism theory, which directly accepts the chronology interpreted from the Bible to explain the process of creation, is the most influential branch of creationism. Based on the Bible, it estimates the Earth’s age to be approximately 6,000-10,000 years and asserts that creation occurred in just six days. Their primary basis is the following quote:
“Following Occam’s razor, we prefer simple scientific theories over complex ones. We do not wish to endlessly complicate science with unnecessary elements. The same logic should apply to biblical interpretation. We should choose the simplest biblical interpretation. The simplest interpretation means the most natural or the one with the most linguistic support.”
– Chapter 1, Young Earth Creationism, from ‘Three Views on Creation and Evolution’ (P. Nelson, J.M. Reynolds)
They cite the scientific principle of Occam’s Razor to justify their claims. However, there is insufficient explanation for interpreting the Bible and science under the same logical framework. There is also no basis for claiming that interpreting the Bible literally is the most rational approach. The Bible itself contains many logically contradictory elements, and the fundamentalist position of interpreting it literally fails to explain these contradictions, thus cannot be the simplest explanation. In fact, this is also a problem inherent to creationism itself. The only basis creationists rely on is the authority of the Bible, which inherently contains the critical error that every statement in the Bible is factually true. In other words, their argument boils down to the irresponsible statement: “According to the Bible, God created humanity this way, so our claim is correct.” Unfortunately, according to their own argument, Jesus becomes either the 29th or 42nd descendant of King David.
In contrast, the old-earth theory interprets the Bible with a bit more flexibility. They acknowledge the age of the Earth and universe as determined by scientific measurement, yet reject evolutionary theory. They base this rejection on the principle of ‘irreducible complexity,’ the most frequently cited argument by creationists against evolution. This theory posits that the existence of complex, finely tuned organs—like bacterial flagella, animal eyes, or immune systems—disproves evolution. Darwin himself explicitly addressed this:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely collapse.” (On the Origin of Species, Chapter 6)
Unfortunately for creationists, no such organ has been discovered. Crucially, even if evidence supporting such irreducible complexity were to emerge, it would prove evolution wrong, not creation right. Just as not being Charles Darwin does not make you Richard Dawkins.
Based on the discussion so far, creationism is nothing but nonsense, and creationists behave like sophists of the 21st century. Nevertheless, the fact that they still refuse to back down clearly shows they have followers. Indeed, surveys indicate that 37% of Americans support creationism, particularly young-earth creationism. The primary reason they reject evolution is ignorance and misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. I too read books on creationism to understand their perspective, only to discover their arguments always follow the same script, yielding no shift in my thinking. This highlights the lack of effort among creationists to read and understand books related to evolution. Perhaps having them read Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ would test their tolerance for such material.
Setting that aside, their ignorance is what leads them to disbelieve in evolution. To elaborate, their basis for denouncing evolution stems from their own inadequate understanding of it. A prime example of their criticism is the claim that “humans evolved from monkeys, which is nonsense.” This is slandering evolution without even knowing the basics. Humans did not evolve from monkeys; we diverged from a common ancestor. Using similar logic, the Korea Creation Science Society presented three grounds for why evolution is not factual. First, evolution is statistically impossible; second, there is no evidence of increasing genetic information; third, fossil evidence contradicts evolution. The first two points stem from misunderstanding evolution, while the third refers to the Cambrian explosion, which actually provides strong evidence for punctuated equilibrium and does not contradict evolutionary theory.
Despite the slander against evolutionary theory stemming from such ignorance and misunderstanding by creationists, the scientific community accepts evolutionary theory as fact and mandates its teaching in curricula. In reality, those in academia who take creationism seriously are so rare they can be counted on one hand. This is because the evidence supporting evolutionary theory is not merely sufficient—it overflows. First, biologically, evolution is a natural process. For organisms to ‘survive,’ they must constantly adapt to their environment. The most commonly cited examples are the beak size of Darwin’s finches and the ear size of Arctic foxes versus desert foxes. When such adaptations to environmental changes manifest at the level of speciation, it becomes (macro)evolution. Furthermore, vast fossil evidence supports this. Evidence that humans are primates—that is, evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes like chimpanzees—has been revealed through fossils. The phylogenetic relationships between species, a fundamental principle of modern taxonomy, have all been discovered through fossils. Moreover, not a single fossil discovered contradicts evolutionary theory. Statistically, the absence of even one fossil contradicting evolutionary theory among the vast number found falsifies the null hypothesis of creationists that “all life evolves.”
In ancient Greece, there was a profession called ‘sophist.’ Originally meaning ‘wise man’ or ‘one who knows,’ this term referred to the intellectual class of Athens. By Socrates’ time, however, it came to denote people who spouted sophistry for profit. Radical theists who advocate creationism are no different from these sophists. Even after facing dozens of rebuttals, they attempt a mental victory by declaring, “You cannot perfectly prove our claims are false.” When legally prohibited from teaching under the term “creationism,” they disguise it as “intelligent design,” dubbed “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” When confronting these fanatical sophists, nothing surpasses a scholar’s famous words:
“Honestly, I don’t think I can win against people who won’t listen to reason.”
However, any logical, rational modern person who truly loves truth will clearly discern what is genuinely worthy of recognition and what constitutes false ideology.
