Young Earth Creationism vs Evolution (What the Bible and Science Really Say)
How does the theory of evolution actually work and why Bible-based Young Earth Creationism actually doesn't....
SCIENCE
So there you are sitting puzzled yet again, talking to your creationist friend who just can’t see reason. You browse through different articles to try to find the perfect one to flex your epistemological superiority and finally after much searching you come upon this one. You show this to your creationist friend and....uh, hold on, wait, now my audience swit-
So there you are sitting puzzled yet again, talking to your darwinian friend who just can’t see reason. You browse through different articles to try to find the perfect one to flex your epistemological superiority but your friend stops you shoving this article in your face. „READ IT, READ IT AND WEEP!“ screams your idiot friend, making you question why you’re even having this conversation, or why you’re even reading this article.
Honestly, yelling your beliefs at someone and insulting them until they either agree or shut up doesn’t strike me as the most effective way to change someone’s mind. Then again, what do I know, a lot of people seem to do it about the most important of issues so it must work.
Now I won’t hide my agenda: The point of this article is to present why Young Earth Creationism isn’t a coherent worldview and what the theory of evolution truly is in a way that will be utterly pointless and won’t convince a single creationist what so ever. Thought you were so smart and there was no way you’d get convinced by my arguments? Great, we’re on the same page!
With that out of the way let’s start with...
The primary source of Young Earth Creationism
So on top of being an evolutionist...
*GASP*
...I’m also a Christian
*DOUBLE GASP*
Which denomination? The one with the correct beliefs, of course!
What I’m trying to say is that I in no way shape or form intend to disrespect the Bible here. Great book, awesome story, 10/10 would recommend with commentary. But facts are that this is the primary source of young earth creatonism, no matter what scientific explainations get added on top of that.
Have you ever noticed how there is not a single atheist materialist that rejects evolution? By “materialist” I mean someone who believes the reality consists only of matter and physical forces, and by „rejects“ I mean thinks that the whole theory is bogus. Sure scientists argue about details of how evolution works (because it will forever be a work in progress), but wholesale denial simply doesn’t happen among materialist atheists (MAs). This might not seem like a great argument at first, but hear me out, because you don’t understand precisely WHY it’s not a good argument.
So among Christians there are some that believe in evolution and some that don’t, what this means is that the Bible isn’t explicit on the issue. Like it doesn’t say „Thou shalt not evolve“ like it says „Thou shalt not murder“, so it leaves room for different interpretations and a Christian can go either way.
Materialism, like Christianity, doesn’t explicitly say anything about evolution. So, you would expect a similar diversity of views. What we have instead is a unanimous consensus - all MAs accept evolution. No exaggeration, all of them do.
No, those people google and chatGPT gave you don’t reject evolution they just disagree on aspects of the theory. No, that guy isn’t an atheist materialist. Seriously, I tried so hard to find JUST ONE and I couldn’t find any when I looked into it thoroughly.
This would mean that once Christianity is out of the picture, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to reject evolution. One would think, if the science and logic based arguments YEC present were truly so strong they would be able to make at least someone abandon their belief in evolution while still maintaining a belief in materialistic atheism. But no, religion and YEC always go together. Even when someone switches camps on evolution they always do it on religion too, even though belief in evolution isn’t a necessary component of the belief in MA.
Do you know how rare it is for every single person of a group to agree on something? Us Christians can’t even agree on the meaning of the ressurection.
Now it’s time to go straight to the Bible. I just might show you some things you’ve never noticed before...
Enjoying the read so far? Go ahead and subscribe to the newsletter you’ll get more of this straight to your email. (And a quick shoutout to Kevin, one of our readers, who suggested I slip this reminder right here in the middle of the text. Yes, I actually listen to feedback.)
Subscribe to the newsletter
Get updates on new posts, projects, and occasional thoughts and reflections! Basically, whatever's on my mind straight to your inbox.
Why the literal reading of the Bible doesn’t lead to YEC
Because it doesn’t lead to anything. It leads to atheism. Word for word, scientific reading of Genesis would make any honest, critical person throw the book into the trash upon reading the first two chapters. I, as a Christian, have plenty of reasons to think that’s not how these chapters were intended to be read, but I’m not a YEC. So, let’s establish the rules of the creationist Bible reading shall we!
We’re simply taking the account as it’s given. If it isn’t explicitly mentioned, it didn’t happen. Otherwise, anyone could toss in whatever they like. God spelled out, word for word, how He created the world, so our job is just to read it and not add anything extra. In other words, treat Genesis like a lab report. Understood? Excellent!
So riddle me this....
What came first plants or man?
And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. (Genesis 1:11-13, ESV)
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.(Genesis 1:26-31, ESV)
So plants were made on the third day, man on the sixth. So good so far. But then Genesis 2 hits us with this banger.
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:4-9, ESV)
So, first God creates man and then he creates a garden with plants. Again, refer back to the rules. We’re just reading what’s in the text and we can’t rationalize it by inserting something which isn’t in the text. This is simply a logical, literal reading and if you can’t save your interpretation without adding to the text something which isn’t in there then your interpretation is simply bad or the writer is. So, which one is it?
What came first animals or humans?
Genesis 1 clearly says:
And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So, God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-23, ESV)
But then Genesis 2 says:
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (Genesis 2:18-19, ESV)
Evidently, man was made first THEN the animals were made and presented to him to name them. I mean, seriously, if you can square these two please, I beg, apply for your country’s gymnastics Olympic team!
What came first the land or the water?
Genesis 1 would have you believe it’s water:
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:6-10, ESV)
So, water on the second day, land on the third day. Genesis 2 says...
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground (Genesis 2:4-6)
So, the land was already there when the magic mist started watering the land. You don’t have to believe me, just look it all up. And once again, let’s refer to the rules: You may not add something that’s not in the text to justify how it might have happened because it’s not in the text and that’s not how textual interpretation works and who are you to alter the word of God just to save your inadequate interpretation and ideology.
How does evolution actually work?
Now that we’ve got that out of the way let’s see why so many people believe in evolution. What is so compelling about it?
Most people know evolution as the survival of the fittest. The strong survive, the weak die. As you can clearly see the fact that you’re still alive completely disproves such a notion. Sorry lol. In reality, there are four factors involved in evolution, yet most of the discourse about the topic makes it sound like those factors are:
1. Natural selection
2. Natural selection
3. Natural selection
4. Natural selection
That’s actually not the case. Natural selection is just one of them and what it actually means is that traits that increase survival or reproductive success in a particular environment tend to become more common in populations. If the environment changes, the traits that promote survival and reproductive success can also change.
For example, you know what really helps in cold environments? Being a fatash. And so, polar bears are very chonky bois. Not because the cold magically made them that way, but because specimens who couldn’t store enough fat often weren’t able to survive long enough to have offspring. So, when the thinner ones mostly die...It makes sense right? Such is the power of chonk!
On the other hand, in hot environments we have another species of bear, the sun bear. In comparison to polar bears these guys look like anorexic infants. Again, this is because of the climate. In hot environments having more fat just heats you up more and slows you down. Again, no magic involved. Sun bears that are more prone to storing fat are certainly born, get fat, eat hot chip and die...due to overheating or being easier to catch by predators. This ensures that the majority of the population stays thin and agile.
Now let’s put a bit more emphasis on this: It’s not that fatter specimens don’t exist in hot environments or thinner ones in cold environments but they are rare and mostly die before reproduction. But the reason they even come to exist in the first place are mutations. Mutations are another evolutionary factor.
As good as DNA is at replicating itself sometimes mistakes are made and we get something that was never intended to be there. This can be positive for our survival and reproduction, negative or neutral. Which one it will be depends, again, on the environment because nothing is „positive“ „negative“ or „neutral“ by itself. Very philosophical. If a mutation is positive for our survival natural selection will work so that it multiplies in the population, if it is negative natural selection will work against it and if it’s neutral it just won’t care. Very insensitive indeed.
This is a part that shocks many people, but it is also possible for undesirable genes to become the most dominant in the population. So imagine your beautiful country, okay? People with muscular dystrophy are surely a minority. However it is possible for a certain natural disaster to hit wiping out everyone you know and love apart from, by accident, people with muscular dystrophy. Lets say that people with MD had a trip to a neighbouring country and simply weren’t hit. Suddenly, the population of your country constitutes of solely MD people and it had nothing to do with natural selection or the desirability of MD. This is called genetic drift.
Same is true if for whatever reason a group of people with certain traits decides to move away and start its own civilization. This is precisely how the Amish came to be and today they all look very similar.
You know how the immigrants come to our country to „steal our jobs“? Shakes the ironic patriotic fist in the air Turns out they also sometimes take our men and women. When a speciman from population A moves into population B and has offspring there, their genes get added into population B’s gene pool. This is the fourth and final evolutionary factor – gene flow. This mean that sometimes random gene variants can be integrated from a whole different population of the same species.
So now that we have all 4 pieces of the puzzle, let’s see how they all work together on a totally noncontroversial example of a human being:
Every step forward started with random DNA mutations: slightly larger brains, changes in jaw structure, better endurance for walking upright. Traits that improved survival or reproduction tended to stick around. For instance, in colder regions, lighter skin became common because it allowed people to make more vitamin D from limited sunlight. In some populations, adults who could digest milk gained a steady nutritional advantage, which helped them live longer and raise more children.
When small groups of early humans got isolated, by rivers, deserts, or migrations, random fluctuations in which genes got passed on dramatically shaped the populations (watch out Eminem). At the same time, humans were rarely living in sealed-off bubbles. Different groups often met, interbred, and swapped DNA. This is why today many of us still carry a small percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestry. All of this together created humans as we know them today.
And, of course, the main idea of evolution, which I almost forgot to mention given how well-known it is, is that all living organisms share a common ancestry and have changed over time through aforementioned evolutionary mechanisms.
Now of course there are many objections you will have to this, dear Young Earth Creationist and I can’t adress them all. So, I’ll tackle just one major one, because I think even many evolutionists don’t know the answer to this question.
What would it take to disprove the theory of evolution?
Obviously, a scientific theory should be falsifiable, and there are several ways the theory of evolution could, in principle, be disproven. Here are two major examples:
1. If we were to find fossils that are completely inconsistent with the geological record, such as a fully modern rabbit in Precambrian rock or a modern human in layers dated hundreds of millions of years before primates evolved, it would seriously challenge the theory. A single anomaly might be dismissed as contamination or misdating, but consistent and repeated discoveries like this would fundamentally undermine evolutionary theory.
2. If any species was shown to have been “poofed” into existence with no continuity to earlier life forms. That is if its DNA were entirely unique and not derived from ancestral sequences or even if it used completely different nucleotides, amino acids, or other molecular building blocks. It would directly contradict the principle that all life shares a common ancestry.
Final Thoughts
So basically, that’s evolution for you! Love it or hate it, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon… kind of like young earth creationism. I hope I’ve fulfilled my purpose of not convincing anyone of the opposing view. And I hope both you online evolutionists and creationists stop arguing and touch some grass.
With love...
Euralēthia
Subscribe to the newsletter
Get updates on new posts, projects, and occasional thoughts and reflections! Basically, whatever's on my mind straight to your inbox.