Creation and Evolution “Research Programs” (And Why It’s So Hard to Change Perspectives) | The BioLogos Forum

In a previous two-part series on this blog, I wrote about the interplay in science between hypothesis, data, and theory, focusing on Lakatosian epistemology of science. Lakatos is but one philosopher of science who wrestled with how to aptly describe “how science works” from the individual scientist’s perspective and how different scientific disciplines progress as entire fields. Lakatos coined the term, “research programmes,” for the former and argued that competition between programs drives the latter. Briefly, research programs are composed of a core hypothesis (akin to a theory, this encompassing statement is an a priori, unchangeable commitment if you are to remain within the same research program), auxiliary hypotheses (akin to explanations, which aim to connect the core hypothesis with data as it is acquired), and a positive heuristic (akin to the guiding principle that describes the methodology and principles used by the researcher; this is the fuzziest of the research program components).,, The most important aspect of the research program for this discussion is that, in practice, two or more research programs are in competition when their core hypotheses are mutually exclusive.

In today’s post, I want to return to Lakatosian epistemology of science, but focus more clearly on issues directly relevant to creation and evolution. If Lakatos is correct and science progresses via the competition between different research programs, it stands to reason that focusing solely on the data will not lead to fruitful discussion. Because competing groups can interpret data in different ways that are entirely consistent with the structures of their disparate research programs, true dialogue (atypical of common discussions in creation and evolution in which people talk “past each other”) will require dissenting parties to somehow “enter” the program of another, which is epistemologically painful and pragmatically near impossible. Thus, while competitors go back and forth, arguing that this data point means x instead of y, there is no real arbiter of who is correct because everyone participating in the discussion possesses their own program “baggage” that is not easy to shed.

To put it more simply, better and more accurate explanations of the data are not enough to convince people of the truth of evolution! It doesn’t matter how good Dennis Venema is at teaching evolution (and he’s REALLY good at it!), one must go beyond the data to reach someone who doesn’t share the same research program.

For many of my Christian colleagues, they are baffled to find out that I was once an avid proponent of young-earth creationism (YEC). That’s not abnormal in the U.S., as polls routinely show 40% of Americans are in this category and there has been minimal change over the last three decades. What’s unusual about me is that I didn’t grow up in the church and I adopted YEC (and fundamentalism) while pursuing a Ph.D. in Biological Chemistry at a prestigious institution. While my conversion story could be a post itself, I was not “indoctrinated”, and since leaving YEC have no animosity or bitterness towards my previous church (or my previous self for that matter). That said, I grandly took the cues of the verses provided at the outset and believed that my personal “mission field” was atheistic scientists. I didn’t want to explain evolution away for its own sake (though I fully believed it was false and its teaching was detrimental to society), but sought to remove the intellectual stumbling block that was so obviously hindering them from accepting the Gospel. All the while I was excelling in my field, receiving an NSF fellowship for my graduate studies, a NIH award for my postdoctoral work, and working in the lab of Nobel Prize winners. I spent my time rationally solving intellectual puzzles, including those related to YEC.

Lest you think this is just my story and a single anecdote, I have taught at two Christian institutions where a large number of incoming students have come in with a YEC background. Has explaining the data helped them to see the scientific errors of their ways and moved them towards an acceptance of evolutionary creation (EC)? Sure! But only in the context of the rest of their education, which has provided them with the other important and related tools, namely, philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, and intellectual humility. You would be surprised how many biology majors I have taught who have said that the data supporting evolution had little impact on their decision to leave YEC. Similarly, when I asked my friends if they would be willing to share their “conversion to evolution” stories, if they had them, one quipped, “I went to college.” He wasn’t joking. Those of us in higher education know about and greatly appreciate the conceptual changes that come about via the structure of college life. These conceptual changes are akin to changing your research program.

But back to the anecdote. When I was a proponent of YEC, would reading the excellent books of Darrel Falk, Francis Collins, and others have changed my mind and moved me to evolutionary creation? Hardly. In fact, when I first read a review of Collins’ book The Language of God I thought Collins was a “sell out.” It was only after I had a better understanding of philosophy, theology, and hermeneutics that I was “ready” for the evolutionary creation interpretation of the scientific data. Then and only then did Collins’ book along with Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk, beautifully and elegantly explain the data of evolution to me. Prior to the philosophical change or change in my research program, I would have always had a counter-answer to the data. But after my research program changed, I didn’t feel the need to formulate the counter-answer any more. The data just made sense in light of everything else.

I feel I am doing a disservice to how difficult it can be to move from one research program to another. Leaving YEC felt like I was turning my back on God and a ministry he was specifically preparing me for. It was intellectually painful, and in the case of the creation-evolution discussion, socially and emotionally disturbing as well. I’ve lost many friends since I left YEC, and some that are still close to me are only half-joking when they utter the word “heresy” around me. By far, the most difficult aspects of leaving YEC for EC were the mental and spiritual ones. It’s not as simple a transition as many make it out to be.

And that is why I am compelled to tell my story. The vast majority of the folks that write on science and theology have never been in the other person’s mental shoes (i.e. research program). One common complaint of YEC proponents is that they are seen as irrational or unscientific, whereas EC supporters complain of being portrayed as liberal or worldly. As Pigluicci rightly notes in his book Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science, those who espouse YEC are not irrational—far from it. The idea of apparent age (i.e. God made the Earth look old) is completely rational when you are committed to the YEC research program. My capacity for rationality didn’t increase when I left YEC, nor did my ability to rationalize ideas that seem crazy on the surface (such as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ). Instead, what changed was my epistemological commitment to foundationalism, but that’s a post for another day.

To provide a better context to the reader, I have taken the liberty of constructing what I see are the three main research programs that are most relevant to the creation-evolution discussion for Evangelicals (see table). As a reminder, the “core hypothesis” is a thesis that is unchangeable and to which the researcher commits at all costs. Everything else within the research program is designed to connect (or protect) the core hypothesis to data that supports (or refutes) the central theory.

A cursory glance at these three competing research programs reveals that they have some things in common with each other. However, each program has its own core hypothesis and positive heuristic and these are mutually exclusive between the programs. Furthermore, and this is what separates my work from that of others, research programs are borne out of their core hypotheses and positive heuristics, which as we have seen above are only peripherally related to the actual data. Thus, no matter how many rows of the table are the same, the research programs are very different from one another when you get down to it. Proponents of the YEC program will always accuse the other groups of not reading the Bible as it should be read. And how do you really know that the Earth is old? Are you willing to stake your life on the assumption of scientists that decay rates haven’t changed or that natural selection is powerful enough for microevolution to jump the species barrier into macroevolution? Meanwhile, proponents of EC will say that the other groups are not taking the science seriously enough and yes, thank you, we are reading the Bible as it should be read. Do they take into account different genres in the Bible and have they ever wondered why different groups who all say they read the Bible literally disagree on so many fundamental points?

You may wonder why I haven’t included a fourth research program for intelligent design (ID). The reason is that it is not a unified program. If one were to construct a program around it, the core hypothesis would be “evolution via natural selection is insufficient to generate the diversity of life on this planet.” But this isn’t enough to build a research program, and it explains why so many people who fundamentally disagree on key aspects of science and theology can still claim to fall under the intelligent design “umbrella”. For me, ID served as a stopping point along the journey from YEC to EC; for others it may add to their understanding of one of the three research programs described here. On its own, it fails as a research program in a Lakatosian sense.

For many evolutionary creationists, science and religion are separate, independent entities; however, for young-earth creationists (YEC) this is impossible. While many believe that YEC is exemplified by a warfare model of science and religion, this is inaccurate. Instead, YEC sees science and religion as disciplines that should be integrated together, just not mainstream science (or mainstream religion, for that matter). To be consistent with proponents of YEC and due to space constraints, the three research programs that I describe contain both scientific and religious dimensions, though in reality there are two (or more) evolutionary creation research programs that differ in how they view the relationship of science and religion.

This helps explain why evolutionary creation has not gained converts as quickly as its adherents would like. Unlike the clear core hypotheses that comprise the YEC and OEC programs, it is not so clear that the one I have proposed for EC encapsulates the beliefs of all who espouse this research program. For instance, many evolutionary creationists believe that science and religion ask different questions and are independent endeavors, while others believe that science and religion should be in dialogue with each other on methodology, boundary questions, etc., still others espouse an integration model of science and religion a la the work of Teilhard de Chardin. Thus, there could really be multiple research programs for EC, which equates to a dilution of proponents. There’s a reason only one Democrat and one Republican are allowed to run for president.

Nevertheless, I happily promote the EC research program because I believe it does the best justice to the Bible, philosophy, theology, and scientific data. I feel there are a great number of interesting lines of inquiry within it that remain to be investigated (teleology, convergence and emergence; what it means to be human; the nature of the soul; Divine Action and God’s Providence, etc.) and it is clear to me that it is a better alternative to the other two Evangelical creation-evolution research programs. Others will disagree with me and that is fine. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to leave the YEC or OEC programs. Be it the loss of what I call “Biblical geometry,” the feeling that I left “my mission field,” or the “what to do with Adam” anxiety that pervades evangelical conversations about evolution, it was a long and arduous journey out of YEC and into EC. I imagine others have made the reverse route and will have weak knees from the hike as well. No matter the direction of the journey, I hope this post will serve as encouragement to all participants and illuminate why the discussion is often so difficult. May we proceed with grace and humility.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at
1 Like

Thanks for reading my post. I trust it was helpful and informative, whichever “research program” you claim as your own. I am available to respond to thoughtful comments and questions related to my ideas.

It was both helpful and informative. It describes a journey that I have never taken. My time in YEC lasted for the duration of about 1.5 books on YEC. Then my broader understanding of both the science and the scripture took over. I was already in graduate school and I had also been a Christian for several years before the idea of YEC was even placed in front of me. About half way through the second book I bought on the topic, the fundamental dishonesty of the writers started to come through.

As I was reading, I found myself wondering about the degree to which a lack of honesty and a desire to be confrontational is present among those at the ends of the spectrum that runs from YEC (as espoused by Ham et al) and metaphysical naturalism (Dawkins et al). I find Ham to be far different in character from Henry Morris or Kurt Wise. Similarly, I find Dawkins to be far different from writers like Stephen Jay Gould or Michael Ruse (or even Eugenie Scott).

Can you explain the distinctions you made in your table regarding the three research programs’ perspective of “the Creeds”? I don’t fully grasp the meaning of the phrase “sufficient for Christian faith,” nor the distinction between “Essential, but not” versus “Essential and.”


Hi Jacob,

What I mean is that there are other beliefs added to what it means to be a Christian or person of faith when you are in the YEC camp. So the beliefs described in the traditional creeds are essential, yes, but not sufficient in that more is required (usually, a belief in scientific creationism, for example). Certainly, this row of the table could be expanded though.

Hmm, the table disappeared…

I think the table is an honest effort, but when distinguishing the three camps, not entirely clear. YEC do believe that there are Christians in the other two camps, so in that the creeds are sufficient. The OEC think the same thing, but obviously, to be in the OEC camp means that some parts of scripture will not be interpreted the way the YEC interpret them, thus the creeds alone do not define OEC. This also applies to the TE or EC. The second two are not necessarily more scripturally unifying than YEC, although they believe they are being more harmonious and less restrictive.

I appreciate your statement here.

Hi John,

Thanks for the feedback. It seems like I will need to be clearer on the creeds and hermeneutics moving forward. I only hope that is is possible given constraints and categories.



I enjoyed the perspective, especially given that my journey was somewhat different though perhaps no less painful. I was aware of YEC from an early age, and accepted it by default. But as I learned more about science and started studying for degrees in various aspects of ecology, I seemed to be able to transition without internal conflict to an EC-type position, although many years before I heard of the term. The pain came, of course, when I shared these “heretical” thoughts with the Christians with whom I worshiped and served God.

Your discourse is valuable in this application to the evolution-creation discussion, but the framework would work equally well, I think, for the Christianity versus atheism discussion. Have you considered that discourse in this same Lakatosian light?

I’d like to contact you privately. I wrote you at what I thought was your Gordon email.

Did it go through?


This sounds like a rather more elaborate way of saying something that YECs commonly say - “the conclusions you reach depend entirely on the assumptions you make.” This follows from “the ‘core hypothesis’ is a thesis that is unchangeable and to which the researcher commits at all costs.”

No good scientist regards a hypothesis as an irrevocable commitment. The whole business of hypothesis testing exists because the hypothesis may be wrong, and, if it is you want to know so you can move on to something better. It is certainly true that many people function primarily on a deductive basis, assuming that they can reason from some “doctrines” to what must be true, ignoring the fact that the doctrine may be wrong or their reasoning from it may be faulty. Many Christians think that way and no doubt some scientists do, too, but it is a failure of reasoning for either one.

If it were really true that the results of our science depend entirely on our assumptions, there would be no reason to go to the time and expense of doing the experiments or observations. We could just assume what we prefer, draw the conclusions, be content with the “answer,” and go entertain ourselves in whatever way we prefer. But the world isn’t so simple. You have to do the science (or try living the belief) to find out how things really are.

I’m not sure that conclusions made depend entirely on assumptions, but no doubt a-priori assumptions do limit the range of possible conclusions. If the assumption is that everything can be explained materialistically, then certain possible conclusions will be ruled out. If the assumption is that there is no divine interference, then certain possibilities will be ruled out. If the assumption is that God’s written word takes precedence over his word in nature, then certain possibilities will be ruled out, and other possibilities become accepted.

However, we make many assumptions, usually based on experience or on previous testing, such as the number of replications required for a reliable conclusion. (Statistical analysis). We make assumptions about the reliability of radiometric dating, or the historical rate of natural processes such as layering of ice, tree ring formation, ocean salt content, rate of uplift, rate of continental drift, etc. These assumptions are correlated to observation of present rates and other factors, but in the end they are assumptions, not repeatable, nor replicable. We also make assumptions about the reliability of mathematics, consistency of mutation rates, erosion rates, and climate variation. Many of these assumptions are related to hypothesizing about the paleontological past, beyond the written record horizon, and much beyond even the artifact horizon. This makes historical science considerably different from experimental science.

I see. Thanks for the clarification!

Hi @jtopp,

I would disagree slightly on the definition of ID. Instead of “evolution via Natural Selection is insufficient,” it should be “evolution via Natural Selection acting upon random mutation is insufficient…” Michael Behe, for example, who was a Theistic Evolutionist, came to the conclusion that it was very unlikely that random mutation could produce Irreducibly Complex systems. William Dembski’s work has been to show that a random walk is unlikely to produce a large enough level of Complex Specified Information to account for living things.

I think ID does produce a research program. If we compare ID to SETI we see a very similar proposal. Based on the supposition that natural processes are unlikely to produce electro-magnetic emissions of a narrow frequency, SETI proposes that if we found such emissions, then they were produced by an intelligence. Their research program is to try to find such emissions. Similarly, based on the supposition that natural processes are unlikely to produce Irreducibly Complex systems, or Complex Specified Information of a certain amount, ID researchers propose that such occurrences were produced by an intelligence. Their research program is to try to find such systems or CSI.

1 Like

the reason it is so hard to change minds about evolution,is very simply because evolution is NONSENSE and has NO truth to it at all!

Hi David,

My Gordon email no longer works since I am Endicott now. A Google search with my name and Endicott reveals my email address.


Hi Peter,

This is not accurate of a Lakotosian philosophy of science. Core hypotheses CAN be changed, but they are not every time an experiment doesn’t work. They are given “time” to develop as hypotheses are constructed to connect them to the real-world data. If hypotheses must be constructed repeatedly that are ad hoc and don’t offer novel predictions themselves, the core hypothesis is deemed a failure and replaced with one that better explains the data.


Hi Bilbo,

I understand where you’re coming from and I’m not attempting to discount ID’s scientific potential in this post. Rather, because people ranging from YEC to OEC to EC espouse it, ID is not a unified program in a Lakatosian sense. Instead it could be considered an add-on to other existing programs. I feel this will hurt ID in the long run and also believe EC could suffer similarly if it does not become more unified as well. The opposite of this is the case with YEC and that is one of the big reasons why it is an attractive position to some.


Thank you for the chart. It helps clarify things. I am almost in the EC column, but I am actually and concordist. If the text of Gen1 is properly interpreted, it fits modern cosmology perfectly. Of course, the trick is in the proper interpretation. But even so, I don’t understand why there is so little interest in this approach.

1 Like

Hi @jtopp,

I wouldn’t know if ID is unified in a Lakatosian sense, but it does seem to offer a way of exploring the biological world and determining what should be attributed to intelligent design. If I may continue to use the SETI analogy, a scientist may not have a theory on whether there are ETs, but does have a specific criterion for identifying intelligently designed signals (narrow-band radio emissions). That seems to be all that is needed in order to do research, doesn’t it? Likewise, a scientist may not have a theory on whether God or someone else designed living things, nor when or how the designing took place. However, if Michael Behe’s argument in The Edge of Evolution is sound, then they do have a specific criterion for identifying a biological system that has been intelligently designed: any irreducibly complex system that has at least three different proteins. And that seems to be all that is needed in order to do research, doesn’t it?

I moved 17 posts to a new topic: The validity (and testability) of Michael Behe’s theories