Responses to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
about Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.

 
This page contains:

A — an introduction to the FAQ:
Real-Life Drama about People and Ideas,
Improved Understanding and Attitudes,
A Website with Multiple Perspectives.

 
      Real-Life Drama about People and Their Ideas
      What happens in encounters between people with different ideas about origins?  Unfortunately, the personal interactions are sometimes "dramatic" rather than peaceful and productive, when the differing ideas are held with a confident passion by individuals (and their groups) who behave as if they think people with other views are enemies who must be fought and conquered.  Much of the drama is motivated by the importance of our questions about origins, which have philosophical implications in life and practical applications in education.
      In this FAQ the condensed summaries (about creation, evolution, and design) will help you learn a lot in a little time.  There is a sprinkling of illustrative examples — including potential dramatic conflict in three contexts (for questions about age, evolution, and education) — but these are just "extra spice" to supplement the main goal, which is to help you understand the theological and scientific reasons for real-life drama, and to help us think and respond in ways that will lead to less drama:

      Accurate Understanding and Respectful Attitudes
      Students in my high school learned valuable lessons about understanding and respect from our civics teacher, who held debates in class and used his rhetorical skill to persuasively argue the strong points of one view on Monday, but the next day he argued for another view and made it look good.  After a few months of discovering "what he didn't tell us Monday," we learned that to get accurate understanding we should try to get the best evidence and arguments that all sides of an issue can claim as support.  And after we understood more accurately, we recognized that even when we have valid reasons to prefer one position, people on other sides of an issue may also have good reasons (both intellectual and ethical) for believing as they do, so we learned respectful attitudes.
      But you can respect someone and their views, yet criticize their views, which you have evaluated based on evidence, logic, and values.  The intention of our teacher, and the conclusion of his students, was not a postmodern relativism.  Our goal was a rational evaluation of ideas in a search for truth.

      A Website with Multiple Perspectives
      Unlike most other organizations, ASA doesn't claim to offer The Origins Answer.  Instead of telling you what to believe, we'll give you information about a wide range of positions.  Our goal in this website is education, so we'll try to avoid one-sided "Monday without Tuesday" indoctrination.  Some people won't think the overall result is NEUTRAL, due to perception (because they want a website to be biased in favor of their own views, and they think a website is "neutral" only when it is biased in this way) and reality (because it's impossible to say anything substantial in a way that is neutral).  But we will try to be FAIR by giving you accurate descriptions of all positions, not weak "strawman" distortions of what others believe.
      Who are we?  So far, in this FAQ the "we" is just me.  As explained in the FAQ HomePage, my FAQ — with its descriptions and opinions written by me as an author — "is being written for ASA, but does not claim to speak for ASA. ... It is one ASA-FAQ rather than the ASA-FAQ.  Within ASA there is a wide range of strong opinions about some questions, and in the future we'll add other FAQs, written from other ASA perspectives."  And in the present, each part of the medium-sized FAQ links to other pages, including some of my own but also LINK-PAGES (written by me as editor) where you'll find links to pages by other authors with different perspectives.
      Providing information about multiple perspectives is consistent with the policy of the American Scientific Affiliation: "As an organization, the ASA does not take a position [what are the views of ASA?] when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue [such as the "when and how" of creation].  We are committed to providing an open forum where... legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed... in a context of Christian love and concern for truth." (from the preface to ASA's Statement of Faith)
 

 
      a three-stage FAQ (short, medium, long)
      There are three versions of this FAQ:  the brief outline of Sections 1A-7D in this page (it's 19 k plus five drama-stories), a medium-sized Overview-FAQ (107 k) that is the best balance between brevity and clarity/completeness, and the 8 full-length pages (165 k total) for more detail.
      When you read the outline below, remember that it's extremely condensed — so you can get a quick "big picture" — and many details have been omitted.  Generally it will give you an accurate picture of what's in the larger FAQs, but the picture will be incomplete.  If you want a more thorough understanding, I strongly recommend reading the corresponding sections in the Overview-FAQ, which I think is the best page I've written about origins. But the outline below is brief so it's a good place to begin.

 
1 — Views of Creation and "When we disagree..."
      1A.  When you listen to some Christians and atheists, you'll think there are only two views of origins:  young earth (for authentic Christians) and old earth (for atheists and misguided Christians).   In the media, we often see only one "Christian view" due to its sound-bite simplicity and its value for calling attention to dramatic conflict. (and contributing to the conflict)  In reality, there are four authentically Christian views of creation — young earth, old earth progressive (by independent creations and/or genetic modifications), and old earth evolutionary — plus variations.
      1B.  What are the mutual influences between our worldviews — our views of the world, used for living in the world — and our science?  Why is a theist (but not an atheist, deist, or rigid agnostic) free to "follow the evidence" to any conclusion?  But are Christians using their freedom?
      1C.  Why are so many so confident?  Because vigorous advocates for each view make "adjustments among ideas" until they become satisfied with the quality and consistency of their own ideas, so each view confidently believes it has The Answer.  In this context of self-confidence, how can we minimize unintentional distortions of our opponents' views (due to lack of knowledge) and intentional distortions (due to abuse of knowledge)?  In this website — which explores Origins Questions, but doesn't claim to offer The Origins Answer — we try to promote accurate understanding and respectful attitudes.
      1D.  What are the views of ASA?  Are we creationists? (yes and no, it depends on how "creationist" is defined: all of us believe that God created everything, most of us think the earth is old, and we have a range of views about how He created)   ASA does not advocate a particular conclusion about the WHEN-and-HOW of creation (even though we all agree about the WHO) but we do endorse a process of respectful discussion.  We won't tell you what to conclude, but we will provide information (as in this website with multiple pespectives) so you can make an informed evaluation and reach your own conclusions.

 
2 — Using Information from Nature and Scripture
      2A.  Warfare between science and religion!  This colorful portrait of history — with inherent conflict causing rational science to be opposed by ignorant religion — is dramatic (with heroes and villains clearly defined) and entertaining.  It is useful for anti-Christian rhetoric, and this was the main motive of its most prominent popularizers.  Even though a "conflict" perspective is oversimplistic, inaccurate, and is rejected by modern historians, it has exerted a powerful influence on popular views, and many people mistakenly think irreconcilable conflict cannot be avoided.
      Why?  Some atheists (and rigid agnostics) want to believe in "conflict" to support their personal rejection of Christian faith;  some Christians think statements in the Bible cannot be reconciled with conclusions in science;  and some people are confused by a scientism that goes far beyond science, as in thinking that science shows miracles in the Bible couldn't occur, or that when science explains how "it happened by natural process" this shows "it happened without God."

      2A is a pivotal section, since the next 16 sections (from 2B through 5G) are a response to show why science and Christian religion can peacefully coexist, despite the claims for "conflict" made by some atheists (against Christianity) and some Christians (against science).

      Drama you can Imagine
      Earlier, I describe the "exciting drama of real people and their ideas."  You can get a feeling for what often happens in real life by using your imagination to visualize the ideas and feelings in five common situations where we see dramatic conflict;  one is below, and four are later when we look at evolution & design and education.   These stories illustrate conflicts — internal and external, within people and between people — that commonly occur in real life.  Imagine that:
      • your pastor confidently declares, "the Bible says the earth is young, so you should believe it."  But at another church you've been attending a Sunday School class because it's taught by a close friend, who has explained (as an expert geologist) why science shows the earth is old, and (as a theologically conservative Christian who has studied the Bible carefully) why Genesis does not teach a young earth.  But your pastor insists that Genesis 1 must be interpreted as six 24-hour days.  And what about the geology?  You're not a scientist and neither is your pastor, but when you ask him about this he loans you a book by young-earth scientists, and their arguments seem to make sense.  Your pastor wonders why the pastor of the other church lets your friend teach, and you have questions.

      We'll look at these questions in Sections 2, 3, and 4 below, and (in more depth) in the Overview-FAQ.

      2B.  Science and the Bible cannot be compared.  But we can compare our interpretations of nature (in science) with our interpretations of the Bible (in theology).  And we can look at the mutual interactions between our views of physical reality (in science) and spiritual reality (in theology).  And we can learn from history, by comparing science-theology interactions in the 1600s (with stationary-earth science) and now (with young-earth science).
      2C.  God has graciously provided us with two sources of information, in scripture and nature.  For the most important things in life — for learning about God and how He wants us to live and love — the Bible is more important.  But for other questions we don't have to make an either-or choice;  instead we can learn from both scripture and nature, and our understanding of total reality (spiritual plus physical) will be more complete and accurate.   How can we wisely combine both types of information? and what can we learn from Psalm 19?

 
3 — What does Bible-information say about age?
      3A.  In Genesis 1, the most important meaning is theological, but is it also historical?  Does it describe a recent 144-hour creation, or six long periods of creation, nonconsecutive days, proclamation days, or a re-creation?  Or, as I think is true, do the days form a non-chronological framework for history?
      3B.  If the earth is billions of years old, and animals died before humans sinned, is this theologically acceptable?  Yes.  Due to human sin, the full supernatural "protection from death" provided by God in Eden — symbolized by "the tree of life" — was removed by God (in Genesis 3:22, because "he must not be allowed to... live forever") so Adam and Eve would begin to perish, with natural processes temporarily allowing life while leading gradually to their death.  But the Good News of Jesus Christ — whose sinless life and sacrificial substitutionary death show us His wonderful plan for converting sin and death (of humans) into grace and life (for humans) — offers salvation for each of us, whether the earth is young or old.
      3C.  Is belief in a young earth an essential Christian doctrine?  Is it taught with certainty in the Bible, and is it important?  No.  There are good reasons to think a young earth is not true, and is not "essential theology" because the full gospel of Jesus — including His deity, virgin birth, teaching and miracles, sinless obedience to the Father in life, substitutionary atonement in death, victorious resurrection, ascension into heaven, and second coming — is fully compatible with a young earth or old earth.
      3D.  It seems unwise to claim that "if the Bible is true, the earth is young" because this means "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true."  When a believer (or sincere seeker) thinks a young earth is essential, and concludes — based on a logical evaluation of evidence from nature — that the earth is not young, faith can be weakened or rejected.  Proponents of a young earth should be admired for their desire to believe what the Bible teaches, but they should humbly consider the possibility that their interpretation of the Bible might be wrong, and should adopt a more loving attitude toward their brothers and sisters in Christ who don't include young-earth belief as part of their Christian faith.

 
4 — What does nature-information say about age?
      4A.  The scientific predictions of young-earth "flood geology" don't match our observations of reality, so young-earth science fails in these scientific reality-checks.  Abundant evidence from a wide range of fields — studying sedimentary rocks, coral reefs, geological and biogeographical patterns in the fossil record, seafloor spreading and magnetic reversals, genetic molecular clocks, radiometric dating, the development of stars, starlight from faraway galaxies, and more — indicates that the earth and universe are billions of years old.  Thus, we have multiple independent confirmations, and if all of these fields are wrong we must discard much of modern science.  This isn't likely to happen, nor does it seem desirable.  But "the full gospel of Jesus... is fully compatible with a young earth or old earth" so we can examine the evidence-and-logic of science with an open mind, to learn what information from nature shows us about the world created for us by God.
      4B.  We cannot observe ancient history.  Proponents of a young universe ask, "Were you there? Did you see it?", and imply that "no" means "then you can't know much about it."  But scientists can logically evaluate the evidence produced by past events, and historical sciences provide reliable ways to learn about the history of nature.
      4C.  But can we believe what we see?  If the universe is young, to be immediately functional it would have to be created with some essential features (mature humans,...) having a false "appearance of old age."  But how old, and for what features?  Or would an honest God create a universe that is old, so it can actually be the age it appears to be?

      After you have "learned from both scripture and nature, and your understanding of total reality (spiritual plus physical) is more complete and accurate," you can decide whether you think the universe probably is young or old, and either way you can be confident that God loves you, and Jesus offers you salvation.   Biblical Theology for young-earth Christians

 
      Now we shift our focus from WHEN to HOW.  You can get a feeling for the drama of "people and their ideas (in Sections 5-7)" by imagining that:
      • you're a flexible agnostic, uncertain about God but willing to search for truth.  You hear Richard Dawkins declare that evolution did happen, so God isn't necessary, and smart people don't believe in God.  But another respected scientist explains why evolution (astronomical and biological) is possible only because the universe was intelligently designed with the detailed fine-tuning that is necessary for life.  And another explains how evidence for "intelligent design" is evidence against a totally natural evolution.  You're confused, wondering whether Intelligent Design claims that evolution did or didn't occur.  And is design scientific?  Some scientists claim that design — but which one (trying to explain evolution or challenge it) — is scientific, while others claim it's religious and it has no basis in science.  These scientists disagree, but all of their arguments seem logical, so you're baffled, wondering "what is science" and "what is (probably) true" and "what should we teach" and you have questions.

5 — What can a Christian believe about evolution?
      5A.  In a Judeo-Christian worldview, "natural" does not mean "it happened without God" because we believe that God designed and created natural process, continually sustains it, and can guide it to produce a desired natural-appearing result in formative history and (more important) in our daily lives.
      5B.  Many properties of nature are "just right" for life.  Why?  Maybe our universe was cleverly designed to allow sunshine, proteins, and people.  Or maybe we live in a multiverse (with many universes) and "many things will happen," including life, if there are enough universes.  It seems impossible to know whether we live in a designed universe, a designed multiverse, or an undesigned multiverse.
      5C.  Some debaters try to prove (or disprove) the existence and activities of God.  But proof seems impossible, which is frustrating for those who seek certainty.  God seems to want us to live in a state of uncertainty, with enough logical reasons to believe or disbelieve, so we are free to make an internal heart-and-will decision without being overwhelmed by external evidence.  We can use evidence (historical, personal, interpersonal, scriptural, and scientific) to estimate the plausibility of various worldviews.  But there is no proof, so each of us — no matter what we believe in our unique personal worldview — must live by faith in what we believe.  For a Christian, a trust in God should be the foundation for all thoughts and actions in daily living.
      5D.  Scientifically, when we ask "is nature 100% naturally assembling?" the answer is uncertain.  Theologically, we should praise God if he designed nature to be totally self-assembling by natural process, or if he used some formative miracles, which would be necessary if a world cannot have both optimal operation and total natural assembly, and God wanted optimal operation.
      5E.  An evolutionary creationist can believe that miracles are used by God in the salvation history of humans, but were not necessary (due to a clever design of nature) in the formative history of nature.  Even though atheists claim that "natural" means "without God" so natural evolution would occur without God, proponents of theistic evolution can claim that God designed nature so evolution would occur, and actively guided evolution to achieve his goals, including the creation of humans with the characteristics (physical, mental, emotional, ethical, spiritual) desired by God.   { Later, but not yet, human origins will be discussed in this FAQ. }
      5F.  During the history of nature, has God ever used miracles to bridge "gaps" in the cause-and-effect chain of natural process?  If someone says "yes" (or even "maybe") their claim is often criticized by calling it a "God of the gaps" claim.  But this criticism is sloppy because "God of the gaps" has many potential meanings, since it might be criticizing a theologically unsatisfactory implication that God works only in nature-gaps, or a claim that (in general) gaps are possible, or (in a specific situation) a gap did occur.  Some of this criticism is justified, and some isn't.  This is confusing, so I think we should replace this multi-meaning term with several single-meaning terms.
      The Bible tells us that God works in two ways (usually natural and occasionally miraculous) so affirming one mode of divine action does not require rejecting the other.  An either-or choice isn't necessary.  We should not allow implications that "natural" means "without God" so "if it isn't a miracle then God didn't do it."  And a claim that God occasionally has worked through miracles is not a claim that God works only in this way, and is consistent with the way God works in human history — usually natural and occasionally miraculous.
      5G.  In theology and science, our humility should be appropriate — not too little, not too much.  We can make some claims, but not others, with confidence.  Regarding the WHEN of creation, theological humility and scientific confidence seem justifiable, and it's appropriate to say "the earth is old."  For the HOW of creation, humility (both scientific and theological) seems justifiable, and all Christians should humbly acknowledge that "IF God created using another method (differing from the way I think He created), then God is worthy of our praise."  But this humility (if... then...) is compatible with explaining, using arguments based on our studies of nature and scripture, why we think a particular view is most likely to be true.   { You'll find more about appropriate humility and "What can a Christian believe about evolution?" in 5A-5G of my Overview-FAQ. }

6 — What is intelligent design?  Who proposes it?
      6A.  four types of design:  Maybe a feature of nature was produced by intelligent design, by  a) natural process because nature was designed so this would occur,  b) natural process that was supernaturally guided to produce a desired natural-appearing result;  or by the detectable design-directed action of  c) a natural agent, or  d) a supernatural agent.  Or maybe there was no design.
      6B.  The usual meaning of Intelligent Design is "detectable design-action," so evolutionary creationists — who say "this action was not necessary in formative history" but affirm two types of divine design (a and b) — are not included in the "big tent community" of Intelligent Design.  Logically, a basic design theory — which only claims "design-action did occur" and does not propose divine action, but does acknowledge this as a possibility — is not a creation theory.  Sociologically, there are connections between design and creation, including young-earth "scientific creationism," and unfortunately this is relevant when we're thinking about origins education in public schools.

7 — How should we evaluate evolution and design?
      Sections 7A-7D don't evaluate theories of evolution and design, they look at the process of evaluation.
      7A.  Most scientists think the support is very strong for astronomical evolution (in an old universe) and geological evolution (on an old earth) but is very weak for chemical evolution (of the first life).  The support varies when we look at four related aspects of biological evolution (for development of life): micro-evolution (as in drug-resistant bacteria), fossil evolution (in the geological context of an old earth), common descent (with all species related), and a Total Macro-Evolution of all biocomplexity and biodiversity.  We should ask "what does each origins theory claim about each aspect of evolution," and then logically compare different theories to see where they agree and disagree.  And support should not be illogically shifted from one aspect of evolution to another;  this occurs, for example, when evidences for micro-evolution, fossil evolution, and common descent (with "bad designs" like the panda's thumb) are claimed as support for a Total Macro-Evolution that is 100% natural without any miraculous-appearing genetic modifications.
      7B.  A feature of nature must be produced by either undirected natural process or design-directed action, which are mutually exclusive. (note: undirected natural process might be divinely guided, as in the "type b" design of Section 6A.)  Everyone agrees about "detectable design-action by a natural agent," which we infer when we see "signs of design" in a house, newspaper, car,...  But there is disagreement when we ask whether we can infer design in nature, especially in biology — by looking at minimal complexity, irreducible complexity, and rates of evolution — and when the agent (and action) might be supernatural.  We cannot prove anything in science, but — by asking "what do we know now, and what is likely to happen in future science?" — could we develop a logically justified confidence about design?  Where is the "burden of proof," and what should we conclude when the evidence is not conclusive?
      7C.  questions (and responses):  Is science possible in a world with occasional miracles? (Yes, because science requires a world that is usually natural, not always natural.)   But can non-natural events be studied using the methods of science? (In some ways, no. But in other ways, yes.)   Is MN scientific? (No, because MN cannot be derived from science. But MN is compatible with science, so it is not unscientific.)   In natural science, must we explain natural phenomena and natural history by natural causes? (Do you see the two different meanings of "natural"?)   Do proponents of design want to replace non-design research, or supplement it? (If non-design is supplemented by design, with its distinctive critical thinking, this could be useful in science. But will a claim that "maybe there is no natural mechanism" cause all scientists to abandon their searching, thus bringing science to a halt? Probably not.)   Should we view science as a game with rules, or an activity with goals? (IF one goal of science is to find truth about nature, and IF science is restricted by rigid-MN so we must automatically conclude - no matter what is being studied or what is the evidence, even when {as in the origin of life} current evidence does not favor a naturalistic conclusion - that "of course, it happened by natural process," and IF history has included some non-natural events, THEN rigid-MN must reach some conclusions that are incomplete or incorrect;  is this scientifically useful, and is it wise?  if rigid-MN forces us to always conclude that "this happened by natural process" before we examine the evidence, are we bypassing the process of science?  should a scientist assume conclusions or investigate questions?)
      7D.  Can a Christian use methodological naturalism (MN) by including only natural cause-and-effect in scientific theories?  Yes, I think Christians can use either an open search (with rigid-MN in science but not outside science) or open science (with testable-MN, by starting science with MN but viewing it as a theory to be tested).  We have a choice because naturalism can mean either "only natural process in this situation" (theologically acceptable for a Christian) or "only nature exists" (not acceptable for a Christian).  But worldviews can be influenced by MN-Science and its naturalistic conclusions about "what can and cannot happen in the world, according to science," because most people are influenced by science.

If you're curious about "how we should define and evaluate design," and you want the ideas to be more clearly explained and more deeply explored, you can read 6A-6B and 7A-7D in my Overview-FAQ.

 
8 — Wise Education about Creation and Origins
      The questions in Sections 1-7 can produce uncertainties and conflicts within a person.  But when we make decisions about education, internal personal questions can become external interpersonal tensions, and conflicts become visible and vocal.  To get a feeling for the drama of people and their ideas, and the effects on teachers and students, imagine that:
      • you are a science teacher in a private Christian school, and last year several parents didn't like what you said about the "when and how" of creation, about the evidence for an old earth with creation occurring over a long period of time, not in 144 hours.  They removed their children from your school and began a campaign in local churches, encouraging other parents to also boycott your school.  Now your principal is blaming you for the school's damaged reputation and financial problems, and is saying "if you want to keep your job, you will change the way you teach science."
      • you're a public school teacher who is wondering what to teach about origins:  Is there any scientifically justifiable controversy about the "how" of origins?  If you think "maybe there is" and you explain why in class, will you get in trouble with school administrators who fear the threat of an expensive lawsuit?  But if you don't, will you get in trouble with parents?  What is the best way to survive and thrive in the current climate of controversy?
      • you are the friend of a student who is a Christian, who has been taught by her parents (and by her pastor and all of the teachers in his church-run school, which is the only school she ever attended) that the earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is scientifically proposterous and is an evil idea invented by atheists who hate God.  She is very smart, has excelled in learning science and is enthusiastic about it, and will soon enter college.   /   How do you think she will respond — and what will happen with her interest in science, her views about creation, and the quality of her faith — in each of these situations:   A) she attends a private college that teaches the same ideas as in her K-12 school, but then she leaves this safe haven for a graduate school where conventional old-earth science is assumed;   B) she goes to a public college where her first science teacher is an aggressive atheist who ridicules Christians and tries to destroy their faith;   C) in her public college most of the science teachers (for astronomy, geology, and biology, plus chemistry and physics) just "teach the conventional science" with no apparent worldview bias;   D) same as C, but her geology teacher is a devout Christian who hosts a Bible study for college students in his home, and is a respected elder at her new church in the college town; or   E) she attends a private college where the teachers, who are all devout Christians, think there is no conflict between their faith and the old-earth science they teach, and are sensitive and thoughtful in their interactions with students who have other views.

      Eventually these questions will be examined in Section 8, which (since it isn't yet written) currently just links to pages that are now available:  a links-page for ORIGINS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS and Critical Thinking (about Creation, Evolution, and Design) in Public Schools.  I wrote the first page as a web-editor (so it's intended to be objective, and I've tried to be approximately neutral), and the second page as an author who is freely expressing personal views, similar to the page you're now reading.

As explained earlier, "if you want more completeness and clarity, you can read the corresponding part of the Overview-FAQ."