The current debate regarding creationism versus evolution is falsely formulated for the man of faith. A more appropriate debate is between science and freedom.

By science I mean a formalization of the common human experience which is based on a presumed system of natural laws. By freedom I mean the capacity to act independently of any such laws, but not chaotically or according to whim but rather in accordance with principles which each person would seriously have to wish to be laws of nature,* e.g., that all people speak the truth; and which principles are called right.

[* It is, of course, possible for me to wish for a world where I possessed all power and could utilize other people according to my whim and fancy, but it is not possible that I could unilaterally and unconditionally wish for a world where another possessed such power over me. And so therefore the only world which could simultaneously be wished by all people, and seriously so, would be a world in which all people, everyone, counted equally and without measure. And that is the basis of all morality.]

If there is no freedom, then creationism makes no difference. If there is freedom, then evolution doesn’t matter.

A further observation: science demands a preceding event (a cause) for every given event (an effect), but that in turn means that that preceding event was also an effect of an even earlier event, and so on back forever. But this means that no freedom is possible, for accordingly every action would be the result of a previous condition, and so also so on forever.

One of the most common of all experiences is that of having overlooked something during a search of some area. I miss my glasses and look about my room and do not find them; unable to accept this fact, I look again and lo! there they are, and I (and all others with me) insist: they were there all the while, only I overlooked them. The necessary, foundational principle for this experience is the absolute prohibition against matter coming into and going out of existence. Premising that we then utilize the principle of cause and effect to conclude that in my original search for my glasses I was preoccupied and/or careless and simply did not see them. Hence, to deny the insistence of science upon the eternal preservation of matter and the eternal regression of causes and their preceding causes is to deny our own experience, and this we cannot do. Hence we must conclude with science: no freedom is possible, and so it does not matter about creationism.

But nevertheless each of us individually recognizes our own ability to act in utter freedom, i.e., in accordance with principles of right conduct and independently of our feelings, e.g., it is wrong to act deceitfully in friendship, even if advantageous.* The proof lies in the universal human penchant for justifying wrong behavior by asserting some circumstance, e.g., I cheated my friend because of some fear. But only a person who were truly free, would engage in what would otherwise be absurd, private rationalizations for his actions. We do not justify our behavior in refraining from jumping off a cliff, for sanity itself restrains us from so jumping, and we do not justify sane behavior to each other and most certainly not to ourselves. But if the human were not truly free, it would be insane not to betray a friend for some personal gain. Therefore the fact that I and all people engage in these internal justifications for what each of us perceives to be a moral transgression (and about which each person need merely examine his own conscience/heart) proves that we are free and that we know it. And so evolution does not matter.

[* As a matter of fact every person simply presupposes his freedom, for it is only in that presupposition that we would seriously engage in the discovery of a rational action, by reasoning our way to a choice. Without the assumption that at that moment we are free to choose A as we are to free to choose B, we wouldn't seek to decide between them. See Kant's Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Moral, Book III, section 2.]

Preliminary summary: while it is impossible for us to deny the enabling premises of science and so consequently while it is impossible for us to incorporate the notion of freedom in our common, objective experience, each of us, including the professor who teaches science, knows, albeit only internally and for himself alone, but still indubitably, that we are free. Hence while evolution may be the modern application of science, neither evolution nor creationism is of any meaningful importance to the man of faith.

Incidentally, since nature (the object of science) and freedom are at such loggerheads, how can this contradiction be reconciled in our minds? The answer: through the reality of the bad conscience. We know that we do what we perceive to be of advantage either with regard to some benefit on earth or what we might expect as a reward in a subsequent life, and at the same time we know that we are wrong to do so when we seek that advantage at the expense of what is right, and if we do so we will suffer pangs of conscience. When someone acts to avoid a bad conscience, science is satisfied that heshe is acting from perceived advantage, for a bad conscience is no fun, and yet the justification of the bad conscience is only possible as a consequence of valid, moral reasoning, as was just discussed above. Hence the reconciliation is really quite simple: science explains the human in terms of a being who dreams up a moral realm and is taken by that dream and who feels bad when not living in accordance with that dream; and so science is perfectly satisfied. But with regard to freedom we also know that it is impossible for us to have the bad conscience (as opposed, say, to mere embarrassment) except that we perceive an action to be a violation of this moral law (which we dream up and which, having once dreamed it up, we cannot dream it away, for it is thoroughly rational), and this moral law, since it is otherwise inane, can only be meaningful if we truly are free (for otherwise we would literally have to consider ourselves and each other as insane).

Postscript: the knowledge of our freedom comes about from our recognition of right and wrong, and this knowledge does not originate in the scripture as is often thought, but rather is presupposed by it (Genesis 3:22).

To contact the author, please e-mail: pmr**kantwesley.com (note: the ** must be replaced by @)

To The Table Of Contents on Kant Studies