Multisides

The Perpetuation of a False "Creation/Evolution" Dichotomy in Oard and Reed (2009)

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

Like many young-Earth creationists (YECs), Reed and Oard (2009a, pp. 11-14) and Reed (2009, p. 211) try to portray the conflicts between young-Earth creationism and “evolution” (i.e., actualism, biological evolution, geochronology, etc.) as a spiritual struggle between two opposing good versus bad (“us vs. them”) “worldviews”, namely: “Christianity” versus “atheistic naturalism.” As Gould (1987, pp. 8-9) correctly points out, such dichotomies are usually misleading and unrealistic simplifications. While Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 11) quote Rudwick (2005, p. 116), Rudwick (2008, p. 5) and others to expose the simplistic myth of the 19th century “war” between science and religion, these YECs have created their own equally false dichotomy between what they consider to be atheism and Christianity. Only on pp. 15-16, do Reed and Oard (2009a) finally begin to recognize the diversity within the creation/”evolution” (i.e., creationism/actualism) debates when they mention the extensive opposition to Flood geology within Christianity.

Within the creation/”evolution” conflicts (plural), there is actually a diverse and complex panorama of competing “worldviews”, which includes advocates of:

• different secular origins,

• various kinds of theistic evolution,

• highly diverse forms of Hindu creationism,

• various forms of Muslim creationism,

• different intelligent design beliefs,

• various Jewish, Protestant, Roman Catholic and other brands of young-Earth creationism,

• old-Earth Judeo-Christian creationism,

• Mormon creationism,

• Scientology,

• various pagan beliefs,

• the diverse religions of the Natives of Australia, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere,

• claims of extraterrestrial creators,

• New Age beliefs, and

• even a small number of geocentrists and flat Earthers.

In contrast to the actual situation, Reed (2009, p. 211) provides a very simplistic creation/”evolution” spectrum, which consists of only two opposing “worldviews” (“Christianity” and “atheistic naturalism”) and their derivative hybrids, such as Christian theistic evolution (also see Figure 1 in Reed and Oard, 2009, p. 12). Hundreds of millions of Hindu creationists do not even fit into Reed’s simplistic spectrum, since they do not belong in either the Christian or atheist categories, or any hybrid of the two.

Each of the above creation/actualism groups claims to have a better grasp of reality (truth) than all of their competitors. Interactions between the various groups are often complex and very conditional. To really see the complexities of how these various camps interact with each other, one only has to look at how old-Earth Judeo-Christian creationists typically align themselves with young-Earth creationists in criticizing biological evolution and abiogenesis, but strongly support geologists in refuting Flood geology and a 6,000 year old Earth (e.g., Young, 1982). While the Creation Research Society Quarterly has published papers from geocentrists (e.g., Hanson, 1977; Bouw, 1977; Bouw, 1982) that join heliocentric YECs in automatically opposing any scientific evidence that supports an ancient Universe, heliocentric YECs rely on some very imaginative and far-fetched reinterpretations of Bible verses to argue against their YEC geocentrist brethren.

Reed and Oard (2009b, p. 260) also try to portray their evangelical opponents of Flood geology as “intimidated victims” of “naturalism.” However, considering how many of these “victims” sincerely and vehemently oppose secular biological evolution (here and here), it would be foolish to consider them lapdogs for anyone. Similarly, geocentrists could unfairly accuse heliocentric YECs of being “intimidated victims” of “heliocentric naturalism.”

References

Bouw, G. D. 1977. “The Rotation-Curve Of The Virgo Cluster Of Galaxies,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 14 n. 1.

Bouw, G. D. 1982. “Cosmic Space and Time,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 19 n. 1.

Gould, S.J. 1987. Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 222pp.

Hanson, J.N. 1977, “A Simple Geometrical Model For Comparing Pre-Flood And Post-Flood Geomorphology,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 14 n. 3.

Reed, J.K. 2009. “Fossil Distribution in the Flood,” chapter 12 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 207-215.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009b. “Conclusion”, chapter 16 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 259-261.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2005. Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 708pp.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds Before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 614pp.

Young, D.A. 1982. Christianity & The Age of the Earth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 188pp.