The document discusses the debate between creationism and evolution, emphasizing the importance of scientific reasoning and indirect testing in understanding human existence. It argues that rejecting the theory of evolution, which relies on indirect evidence, undermines the legitimacy of many scientific theories and can hinder societal progress. The author believes that adhering solely to creationist views limits human advancement and intellectual inquiry.

1. Vibhansh Gupta
17BCS059
5 October 2020
Creationism against Evolution
Assignment for “Metaphysics of the Human Existence”
“Where did we come from?” The ability of reasoning and trying to understand the
world around us has been one of the most fundamental attribute that makes us human.
Perhaps an even more fascinating point is that Humans are so far the only known ultimate
product of this very complex and continuous process that the scientifi c community across the
world calls “Evolution”.
But wait, what in fact is the debate against evolution at its root? And why are we trying to
bring in the context of Creationism against it? Let’s take a deeper dive in it.
Creationism believes in the existence of a creator who has used his abilities for the
formation of this world and every living being that is a constituent of it.
Sometimes people believe a statement because they are told it comes from a source that is
unquestionable: from God, or the gods, or some other supernatural power.
Seekers of advice from the Greek oracle at Delphi believed what they were told because they
believed that the oracle received information directly from Apollo; similarly, Muslims believe
the contents of the Quran were revealed to Mohammad by God; and Christians believe the
New Testament is true because the authors were directly inspired by God.
A problem with revealed truth, however, is that one must accept the worldview of the speaker
in order to accept the statement; there is no outside referent. If you don’t believe in Apollo,
you’re not going to trust the Delphic oracle’s pronouncements; if you’re not a Mormon or a
Catholic, you are not likely to believe that God speaks directly to the Mormon president or
the pope. Information obtained through revelation is dif
fi
cult to verify because there is not an
outside referent that all parties are likely to agree upon.
PAGE OF1 3

2. A way of knowing that is highly reliable is logic, which is the foundation for
mathematics. Among other things, logic presents rules for how to tell whether something is
true or false, and it is extremely useful. However, logic in and of itself, with no reference to the
real world, is not complete.
Science does include logic. Statements that are not logically true cannot be scienti
fi
cally true
but what distinguishes the scienti
fi
c way of knowing is the requirement of going to nature to
verify claims. Statements about the natural world are tested against the natural world, which
is the
fi
nal arbiter.
What about the theory of evolution? Is it scienti
fi
c? Some have claimed that because no one
was present millions of years ago to see evolution occur, evolution is not a scienti
fi
c
fi
eld. Yet
we can study evolution in a laboratory even if no one was present to see zebras and horses
emerge from a common ancestor. A theory can be scienti
fi
c even if its phenomena are not
directly observable. Evolutionary theory is built in the same way that theory is built in particle
physics or any other
fi
eld that uses indirect testing and some aspects of evolutionary theory
can be directly tested.
So, the notion to keep in mind here is that rejecting the theory of evolution means
rejecting all scienti
fi
c theories that use indirect testing as a method of proof.
If that is indeed the case, we have quite a large number of problems at our hand.
Rejecting proofs and thus, theories themselves, based on indirect testing would mean
that the theories in particle physics can be/should be rejected.
Such theories can indeed be rejected if we decide to. But, perhaps we have been looking at
the question in the wrong way. If we were to reject all scienti
fi
c theories that are dependent
on indirect testing as a method of proof and adopt the knowledge of religion as the
fundamental and only truth in this world (as creationists do), how successful can we be then as
a society and as Humans ? How can we, then, answer the questions about the understanding
of our existence? Why would we ever pursue any goal to develop or to progress if we already
have the answers to our curiosity?
I
fi
rmly believe that while the question of evolution versus creationism remains quite
individualistic, the most important aspect of the debate is that under no circumstance should
humanity be stripped of the motivation and the desire to progress and cure diseases, achieve
new technological milestones, break new barriers and uplift everyone around us.
PAGE OF2 3

3. Believing that a written testament of the words of a supernatural presence will not only
prove to be incompetent for many other questions that the testament may not have an answer
to (as seen in the 16th century when Nicolaus Copernicus challenged the biblical authorities
on the claim of the bible that “Earth is the centre of the Universe” and was met with
extremely harsh consequences) . This will not only result in a waste of intelligence but also a
loss in opportunities in the advancement of the specie.
I claim that entertaining or using creationist beliefs instead of scienti
fi
c ones like Evolution
will result in absolutely nothing at all.
PAGE OF3 3