According to evolutionary theory, every complex system evolves.

Consequently, creationism, as a memetic (cultural) phenomenon evolves as well. Note that memetic phenomena parallel to genetic phenotypes are self-regulating complex systems, as defined by Stuart Kauffmann (The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, 1993)

What does it mean for the creationists’ belief that science (geology, physics…) proved beyond every (?) doubt that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and that after the “Big Bang,” the Universe evolved “following” universal strict laws? (Note that according to that same theory also laws are subject to the same “law”, namely that laws also evolve, meaning that they change over time. But that is already another story).

If science confirms that the Earth is 4,5 billion years old, how could creationists give her only 6000 biblical years?

One should not be surprised by the persistence of creationists (that I will explain shortly) but by the blindness of evolutionary theoreticians taking creationism as the only system that does not evolve. Even creationism is a complex memetic system subjected to the same laws that evolutionary theory confirms. But there is another feature of creationism that is even less understood: that they know and accept laws of evolution and also physical laws, but they do not integrate them. inability to understand these baffles evolutionists constantly.

The explanation lies within the Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. In a rather simplified version, Gödel proved that there is always a statement in a system that cannot be explained by the system itself. Applying this theorem to our case, there should be a spot in evolutionary theory that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory itself. Creationism is one of such possible spot.

But this argument goes also in another direction. Evolutionary theory represents a blind spot for creationism. They are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without another. The first one (evolutionary theory) explains “what it is”, and the latter one (creationism) “what it means”.