Creation and Evolution Blog

Most people think that evolutionists and creationists are separated by a large gap. They think that everything creationists believe in are being countered by evolution and vice-versa. However, biologically, evolutionists and creationists agree on most things. Here are some of the many points of agreement:

1. Speciation occurs (I know that many uneducated creationists disagree with this, but this point is agreed upon by AiG, ICR, CRS, and ARN).


2. Many species can be traced back to a common ancestor.


3. The frequency of alleles within a population varies over time.


4. Mutations occur.


5. It is possible for a beneficial mutation to occur.


6. Most aspects of genetics (in fact, genetics was discovered by a creationists and used as a rebuke against evolutionary ideas).

So, with all of the agreement, where is the disagreement? The disagreement lies, primarily with three issues:

• The origin of life (which is, technically, not part of evolutionary theory anymore).


• Universal Common Ancestry vs Multi-Rooted Ancestries.


• Emergence of New Biological Systems by Undirected Processes.

The idea of "millions of years" is somewhat in conflict with some theories of creation, but technically, I think it belongs in the categories of geology and perhaps astrophysics, not biology.

Now, you see that there is actually very little that is disagreed upon. In fact, if you look on the list of agreements, #3 is used by some to be the very definition of evolution. Therefore, it is hard to say that creation is anti-science or even completely anti-evolution. The main differences are simply how many roots we perceive to be at the basis of ancestries, and whether or not complex systems can arise on their own by mutation and natural selection.

I've already dealt with most of the arguments about Universal Common Ancestry being way oversold.

I also think that the de novo creation of biological systems is quite disputable, but I don't have the time to mention it here. However, this is really a secondary point for creationists. I know for certain that Creationists would not be as livid, active, or vocal if Universal Common Ancestry and Origin of Life were removed, and only the creation of biological systems were left in. However, I think that biologists would have little reason for advocating the de novo creation of biological systems if multiple tree roots were allowable.

Really, creationists and evolutionists are nearly identical, with the primary difference being the number of roots of our proposed biological trees.