SECULAR
Evaluate the view that scientific theories of creationism are more reliable than religious
This essay will evaluate whether scientific theories of creationism are more reliable than
religious theories by examining these scientific views, comparing them to religious ones as
well as other scientific views offered.
Evaluating this question falls under the topic of science versus religion. Religion and science
are often viewed as mutually exclusive. However, religion (based on faith and belief) relies
on holy scripture with non-literalists arguing the Bible should not be taken literally and
instead we should understand the morals and messages behind the scripture, and
literalists/creationists arguing that the Bible is the word of God and should be taken literally.
This links to Ethics as the normative ethical theory of Divine Command Theory explains that
an action is moral if it is commanded by God, and God’s commands are found within the
Bible. Contrastingly, science relies on empirical evidence and needs to be tested to prove it
is factual. Science relies on empirical evidence found through the scientific method, which
contains three main stages: observation, hypothesis and experimentation. The two main
scientific theories of creationism are the Big Bang and evolution, which will both be
examined based on reliability. This refers to if the theories beliefs are justified and
trustworthy.
Firstly, the Big Bang theory explains how everything in the universe was created from a one-
off, unique explosion called “Singularity”, which occurred around 13.7 billion years ago and is
still ongoing. This explanation is supported by Georges Lemaître, a French Catholic
astronomer, who argued that if we go back in time, we can observe the universe originating
from a single point. Moreover, explanations and evidence are provided to support this
theory. Lemaître’s argument is supported by the current observable expansion of the
universe, so we know that everything must have originated from a single point. The rapid
eruption from this single point to become the universe is the Big Bang. As well as this, we
can also observe radiation in the universe. This radiation is known as the cosmic microwave
background which is thought to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang. Therefore, the Big
Bang as a scientific explanation for creationism may be seen as reliable as there is evidence
and explanations to support this theory.
The second key scientific explanation for creationism is evolution. This theory is proposed by
Charles Darwin and is explained as the gradual adaptation of species to adapt to certain
environments. Evolution occurs through natural selection,which is the process of offspring
inheriting successful genes from parents which then get passed on to the following
generations. This process is gradual and is also explained through recombination. This
refers to the process where genetic material is broken down and re-joins new genetic
material.Through recombination, genes are shuffled, leading to the successful genes being
passed on (natural selection) and ultimately the development of species (evolution). Fossil
records are used as evidence to support the theory, therefore, evolution as a scientific theory
to explain creationism may also be seen as reliable.
To understand whether these scientific views of creationism are more reliable than religious
ones, this essay will compare these two views as well as compare these scientific views to a
possibly more reliable one.
Literalism, also referred to as creationism, is one of the most influential religious views to the
beginning of the universe. It criticises and disagrees with scientific views for ignoring the
existence of God. The literalist view looks to the Bible and the book of Genesis to explain the
beginning of the universe: God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.
, Literalists, such as Ken Ham, would reject and criticise any scientific methods, referring to
scientific theories as ‘false teachers’ that will try to discredit God’s truth, as the Bible is
believed to be complete and accurate. However, this literalist view is criticised for using
circular reasoning, as Ham states that the Bible is complete, accurate and truthful because it
says so. Moreover, literalist explanations are incompatible with empirical evidence, such as
evidence from the big bang theory that shows the universe took millions of years to form and
evidence from evolution that shows the development of human life took approximately 6
million years which contrasts the Bible claiming God created the world and everything in it in
6 days. To further counter literalism, it is shown how both scientific methods can coexist with
religious beliefs. Polkinghorne, an Anglican Priest, explains how Genesis should be used to
argue how things exist and occur because of God’s will. This means that the Big Bang and
evolution could have occurred and can be accepted religiously, but should be explained to
happen through God’s will. Therefore, Literalism cannot successfully undermine scientific
views as it does not explicitly reject it, and since scientific views have empirical evidence to
support them, it may be argued that scientific views to creationism are more reliable than
religious ones.
A strength of the scientific theories of the big bang and evolution is that they are supported
by other scientific arguments on the basis that God is not needed to explain creationism,
making scientific arguments possibly more reliable. Einstein aimed to show how the universe
was non-expanding through looking at the interaction of mass and light in the universe.
However, through his equations, he instead found that the universe had to be either
expanding or contracting. This cosmological constant is used to support scientific theories
such as the big bang or evolution as it explained how there is no need for God to explain
creationism. If these scientific explanations all support this claim, this could possibly show
how scientific arguments are reliable. However, scientific arguments as a whole, including
the cosmological constant, are criticised through looking at the religious theory of intelligent
design. It is explained how the universe has order, purpose and regularity and that the
complexity of the universe shows evidence of design. Such design needs a designer and the
best explanation for this intelligent designer is God. Behe, a Biochemist, rejected scientific
theories by proposing irreducible complexity. This is the idea that life at a molecular level is
so complex that it could not have come about by gradual changes (e.g. through evolution).
Instead everything had to function at the same time, meaning it had to be designed. Hence if
this irreducible complexity needed a designer, the best explanation is God. This provides a
religious explanation for God creating and designing the universe. However, this religious
theory is also criticised. It is argued that a key feature of a reliable theory is that it is testable,
yet intelligent design is criticised for being untestable and pseudoscientific. This criticism
uses Karl Popper’s theory of falsification, meaning that a scientific statement must allow the
possibility of an observation to disprove the statement. For the theory of ID to be testable,
statements must be falsifiable, hence be tested against other competing hypotheses. Using
an example of animals having eyes, ID states that animals have eyes because an intelligent
designer must have created this but evolutionary theory states that the animal eye has been
evolved. But there is no observation of the animal eye that can distinguish the two, showing
how the theory of ID is not testable. Therefore, since ID itself is not a reliable theory, it
cannot successfully criticise scientific theories for being possibly unreliable, leaving
cosmological constant as a possibly successful and reliable scientific theory for creationism.
Alternate theories using the scientific method have been used to explain creationism such as
steady state theories, which can be used to support other scientific theories such as the big
bang and evolution, in the sense that they all agree that there is no God involved in
creationism. Hoyle, an English astronomer, put forward the idea that the universe has
always existed. The universe has no beginning nor end, and stars die and form at the same
rate, explaining the steadiness of the universe. Everett, an American physicist, goes further
to explain multiverse theory, in which there are multiple universes that exist. If it were to be
