Why Creationism Isn’t So Crazy After All
A case for the soul’s designIn today’s intellectual climate, the concept of the soul, along with any serious notion of creationism, is often dismissed as a relic of a bygone age. Materialism, the belief that all phenomena can be explained by physical processes, dominates public discourse. In places like Scientific American and throughout the broader scientific establishment, the soul and creationism are treated as laughably outdated. The general consensus seems to be that these ideas were debunked long ago by the progress of science. In fact belief in the soul and its creation is often dismissed out of hand as fairy tales, not suited to an age of modern science.
And yet, as we dig deeper into questions about the nature of consciousness, personhood, and the origins of subjective experience, the materialist view is beginning to show cracks. As Joanna Leidenhag and I explore in our edited volume, The Origin of the Soul: A Conversation (Routledge 2024), there is growing recognition that material explanations for certain phenomena — particularly the existence of the soul — may be insufficient. If so, then perhaps the idea of a created soul, an idea tied to a form of creationism, deserves a second look.
A growing discontent with materialism
For decades, materialism has been the reigning paradigm in much of science and philosophy. According to this view, everything can be reduced to physical processes. Your thoughts, desires, and even your sense of self are nothing more than brain activity. For materialists, consciousness is an emergent property of brain matter—a byproduct of neurons firing in complex patterns. In this framework, the soul doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit into this physicalist model.
But recent discussions in philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology have begun to expose the limits of materialism. The so-called “hard problem of consciousness” — the question of how subjective experience arises from purely physical processes — remains unsolved. No matter how much we learn about brain chemistry and neural networks, the qualitative experience of being a person — what it feels like to be you — seems to elude explanation. This gap has led to renewed interest in alternative explanations for consciousness, including the idea that there is something non-material about us—something like a soul.
The soul as a simple entity
One of the central challenges to the materialist worldview is the question of personal identity. What makes you the person you are? Materialists argue that your identity is a product of your brain and body. But this view overlooks something crucial: your soul is not just a collection of generalizable features like thoughts, personality traits, or memories. There is something unique about you — something that sets you apart from every other person who has ever lived.
In philosophical terms, this leads us to the principle of sufficient reason, which states that everything that exists must have an explanation for its existence. If we assume that souls are contingent — that they exist but didn’t have to — then we are forced to ask: what is the cause of the soul? If the material world can’t account for it, we are left with the possibility that souls were created.
But why can’t materialism explain the soul? After all, modern neuroscience has mapped large portions of the brain, and we can now explain many aspects of human cognition and behavior in terms of brain activity. Isn’t it just a matter of time before we fully explain the mind in physical terms?
Not quite. The soul, unlike the brain, is a simple entity in the philosophical sense — it isn’t made up of parts that can be broken down and analyzed. The brain is a complex organ, with neurons firing in intricate networks, but the soul is not reducible to its parts in the same way. It’s a fundamentally different kind of thing. As I have explained elsewhere, the soul isn’t the kind of thing that can be duplicated in a lab. It’s not made of smaller, physical parts. It’s simple—unique. You can’t break it down like a brain, an organ, or even a machine. To create a soul is to call forth something fundamentally different from anything material.
Because the soul is simple, it doesn’t depend on physical processes the way other parts of the body do. This is why the soul can’t be explained by material causes alone. And if it can’t be explained by material causes, then we must look elsewhere for an explanation. Enter creationism, or at least a version of it that focuses on the soul’s origin.
The limits of materialist explanations
The principle of sufficient reason tells us that everything needs an explanation for its existence. This principle is a cornerstone of philosophical thought and has been used for centuries to argue for the existence of God. It suggests that things don’t just happen without cause. If the material world can’t account for something, like the soul, then we need to look beyond the material world for an explanation.
One version of creationism posits that God creates each soul. This view aligns with the principle of sufficient reason because it provides a cause for the existence of souls — namely, God’s creative act. Unlike the more controversial forms of creationism that deal with the physical world, this version focuses on the spiritual aspect of human beings. It suggests that while evolution may explain the development of our bodies, it cannot explain the origin of our souls. For that, we need a Creator, precisely because the soul is the type of thing that is non-generatable and cannot be reduplicated in a lab. It is simply not that kind of thing! And there is something altogether unique about the soul as the core of personal identity. It is the type of thing that is non-complex and fundamentally different from physical bodies.
But what makes this explanation so compelling is that it doesn’t require us to reject science. Instead, it asks us to recognize the limits of materialist explanations. Science is incredibly powerful when it comes to explaining the physical world, but when it comes to explaining the soul—something non-material—it falls short. This is why creationism, in this context, is not as outlandish as it might first appear.
As our book explores, there is a growing recognition among philosophers and theologians that the soul’s origin cannot be fully explained by natural processes. If the soul is non-material and simple, as philosophers argue, then we need a different kind of explanation — one that points beyond the natural world to something or someone capable of creating souls.
Revisiting creationism in light of new arguments
This version of creationism — the creation of the soul — is not just a throwback to old religious ideas. It is a serious philosophical and theological argument that deserves attention in today’s scientific discourse. In a culture that often dismisses creationism as anti-scientific, it’s important to remember that not all creationist views are the same. Some, like the view that God creates souls, offer a plausible explanation for phenomena that materialism struggles to account for — as I argue in The Creation of Self: A Case for the Soul (IFF Books 2023).
It is worth highlighting that if materialism fails to account for the origin of the soul, then creationism — not as some fringe theory, but as a viable explanation — deserves serious consideration.
This is where the conversation becomes particularly interesting. In light of the growing discontent with materialism, the idea of a created soul seems less crazy than it might have seemed a few decades ago. If the brain alone can’t explain consciousness, personhood, and the sense of self, then maybe we need to look beyond the brain to something more fundamental. And if the soul is contingent — if it requires a cause for its existence — then the idea of a Creator also starts to make sense.
Conclusion: Science and creationism, not in conflict but in conversation
The soul is a mystery that has puzzled philosophers, theologians, and scientists for centuries. As the limits of materialism become increasingly clear, the door is opening to alternative explanations—explanations that point beyond the material world to something more. The idea of a created soul, rooted in a form of creationism, offers a plausible way to understand one of the deepest mysteries of human existence.
Far from being in conflict with science, this view suggests that science itself needs to be revised in light of the evidence. If materialism can’t explain the soul, then perhaps it’s time to consider the possibility of a Creator — one whose intentions and creative acts provide the true explanation for at least some aspects of our nature. As the conversation around consciousness and the soul evolves, creationism may find itself back at the center of the debate, not as a relic of the past, but as a compelling explanation for the future.