Creationism vs Evolution

Note: For the purposes of this post, when I say evolution, I am lumping it in with abiogenesis (life from non-life). Technically that's not true, but culturally, these terms are conflated constantly.
 
Creationism doesn't necessarily deny evolution, but it does have a different starting point than evolution. This is where the source of the debate starts and where the concepts of micro and macro evolution originate. Intelligent design on the other hand can agree with evolution except it will deny the abiogenesis claim and still believe that some sort of intelligence crafted the first cell.

A depiction of the antediluvian (pre-flood) world.

As opposed to intelligent design, creationism more points to the Bible as an explanation for the origins of the world and mankind. I have never personally verified the validity of the 6000 year claim, but if you do accept a Genesis account, it is really hard to believe that mankind evolved over millions of years from single celled organisms. Noah's flood is also used to help explain certain problems such as dinosaurs, geological features, and other matters that are hard to explain with such a small timetable. I don't want to get too in depth into this, but there are some fascinating theories. The problem with all of these theories is that it is virtually impossible to substantiate these theories (like the world having an ocean of water in the sky), and that all of their "evidence" is derived from the Bible. If you don't accept the Bible as an authority, there's no reason to take these theories seriously. Although the theories will compel you to take a closer look at Genesis. There are some details that were certainly skipped over in Sunday School.


To be totally blunt, the biggest issue with creationism is that it simply isn't scientific; however, this doesn't make their claims untrue - just nearly impossible to prove. In order to be scientific, there has to be a falsifiable claim. Interestingly, both intelligent design and abiogenesis are not scientific either for this same reason. Evolution does not have this problem and thus is a compelling argument, but I do have some issues that I have yet to receive a satisfying answer.

1. Dating. How does any dating work? I understand that it uses radioactive decay and the equation is as follows:

D = D₀ + N(t) (e^λt − 1)

where t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D₀ is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = N_oe^-λt, and λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope. But how can you possibly know D₀? If t is what we are trying to solve, λ can be found experimentally (although that can be debated), and everything else is measured at the time; but none of that explains D₀. It seems like one equation with two unknowns. How do they know there weren't contaminants? And how do they know this technique works past a certain point? If the dating cannot be verified, then the fossil record cannot be verified which is arguably the biggest evidence for evolution (at least in the macro sense).

2. Abiogenesis. I already alluded to this before, but as of right now, there is no credible theory to support abiogenesis. We have only observed life from life. The shear complexity of life seems to lean more to the intelligent design hypothesis.

3. The Meaning of Life. This is more metaphysical than scientific, but it's just hard for me to accept a fully naturalist explanation when humans are just so different compared to other creatures. We have music, art, architecture, and the appreciation for aesthetic value which has absolutely zero survival benefit. Certain axioms of mine seem predicated on the necessity of a human soul too which obviously cannot have occurred naturally.

These reasons compel me toward a creationist viewpoint despite the serious problems that creationism obviously has. I think the hardest aspect of creationism is that the explanations to get around dinosaurs, age of the Earth, and the like are very imaginative but are entirely based on the Bible. If you don't believe in the Bible, then there is no way you would be convinced of it. Truthfully, if it weren't for my metaphysical reason, I would have a hard time believing it myself. In the end, I just accept it as a mystery.