Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"Creationists should drop science envy"
In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response. To obtain a copy of original Dispatch article, click here.
excerpts from original article = blue
our responses = black
The Kansas Board of Education recently decided to eliminate biological evolution (and the big-bang theory of the universe) from its statewide science standards.
This may not be an accurate characterization of what happened. See Ken Ham's letter concerning the Kansas school board decision for a clarification.
Instead, what most students in Kansas will probably receive as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth will be biblical creationism and the type of superficial understanding of evolutionary theory that leaves most of them mumbling that they didn't come from no monkey.
Again, probably not a correct characterization. The teachers are free to continue teaching evolution.
Is this bad? For me, and, I believe, most Americans, it is.
"Most Americans" apparently disagree. According to a scientific Gallup Poll, 81% of Americans favor teaching creationism in the public schools.
Despite the tensions between science and religion, most parents want their children exposed to both. In fact, for many forms of biblical creationism and what is called the modern synthesis in evolutionary theory, it is not difficult to imagine belief systems that sensibly integrate them both. Unimaginative religious leaders and school teachers force us to choose.
The compromises that some well-meaning religious people have made with evolution are both bad science, and bad Bible interpretation. These two views of origins are so completely opposed to one another that they could not possibly be combined in any way. We do not believe that most parents would want their children exposed to evolution if they knew the full extent of the problems with it, and the extent to which atheists, humanists and agnostics are behind promoting the religion of evolution in the public schools. A good place to start to find out about how seriously parents have been misled about evolution is with a book called Refuting Evolution by Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D, F.M..
But these are not the themes I want to pursue here. My concern is with the desire of biblical creationists to shift Old Testament creationism into the scientific arena.
This is a favorite ploy of evolutionists. They try to cast the issue as one between science and religion. Evolution is religion. It has it roots in the religions of humanism and atheism. This statement also fails to recognize that science is subordinate to the Word of God. Science is the wisdom (so called) of men. God created the laws of nature that scientists study today. Science has been playing catch up to the Bible for years. Do these scientists really think they're as smart as God and that their work has equal footing with the revealed Word of Almighty God?
I believe this is a mistake and poses danger to biblically based religions that many creationists do not fully appreciate.
There is never any danger in presenting the truth that comes from God's Word. The real danger to society is for Christians to continue to allow evolutionists to get away with promoting the anti-God religion of evolution. It is doing tremendous harm to our society and we all need to step up to the plate and do our part in helping to expose it for what it really is.
Creationists raise two valid criticisms concerning the teaching of evolutionary theory. First, those who teach evolution often present the modern theory of evolution as if it is proven. No scientific theory can obtain this status.
Agreed. But most evolutionists aren't this honest about the issue. Evolution is usually presented as scientific fact in the public schools. Also, it's not enough to say "No scientific theory can obtain this status." Evolutionists need to go MUCH farther by clearly and honestly stating all the problems with the hypothesis. These things are usually swept under the rug and ignored in public school classrooms and the liberal news media.
No matter how much evidence evolutionists gather, it never is enough to allow them to say that their explanation of life on Earth is a fact. What we have to emphasize to students in teaching evolution is that what we are teaching is a theory and not a fact.
Evolution does not meet the scientific qualifications for being elevated to the level of a "scientific theory". It should rightly be called a "hypothesis", because it is that unproved. In order for evolution to have occurred the way evolutionist scientists claim it did:
1. Matter would have had to form itself from nothing. This has never been observed by any scientist.
2. Life would have had to arisen on its own from dead chemicals. This too has never been observed.
3. Living organisms would have had to add new information to their DNA by organizing themselves into higher, more complex forms of life (macro evolution). Scientists have observed microevolution, but not macroevolution. Creation scientists agree that microevolution occurs.
4. No evolutionist saw the big bang, or has adequately explained why such a big bang resulted in so much order when all explosions we see today always result in disorder.
These problems just barely scratch the surface of the myriad of problems with evolution. However, these are the foundational "beliefs", unproved as they are, that evolution is built upon. Until scientists can demonstrate with scientific experiments that all four of these events can be duplicated and observed today, it is bad science to elevate evolution to the level of a scientific theory.
Second, creationists complain that too little time is spent analyzing the weaknesses in the modern theory of evolution. This observation also is correct. All scientific theories have at least some "threads hanging" including the two, outside of evolutionary theory, that many scientists consider the greatest ever developed: relativity and quantum mechanics.
Major problems with evolution exist across all scientific disciplines. There are even major differences between evolutionists themselves. Consider these differences over the dinosaur-to-bird controversy for an example of this.
Given these characteristics, do we really want creationism taught as an alternative scientific explanation to evolution in biology classes? I do not think so. First, for biblical creationism to be treated as a scientific explanation, its adherents must state clearly what types of evidence would refute it. This is required for it to be empirically tested. I have yet to hear any biblical creationist state what this evidence would be.
Here again is a common tactic for evolutionists. Painting evolution as science, and creationism as religion. Both are science, both are religion. As far as evidence that could refute creationism, how about the claim by creation scientists that if the fossil record were full of missing links that this could be a real problem for creationism. But they're not full of missing links. In fact, no missing links have ever been found. The trail of alleged missing links is filled with fraud, deception and blunders. It starts with the "creative" interpretation of the object(s) found, and continues with supporting evidence from flawed dating methods of the fossils. The fraud is further propagated with intentionally misleading illustrations of alleged missing links in the textbooks.
In any case, is this really what we want to subject biblical revelation to? Second, and this is even more distasteful to me, biblical creationism as a scientific explanation must be viewed as being potentially wrong -- the burden all scientific theories bear.
Creationists have no fear of this whatsoever nor should they. Evolutionists are at a severe disadvantage when dealing with creationists, but they're too caught up in the religion of evolution, and often their own egos to see it. Christians have the revealed Word of God. They have an eye-witness account to the events that kicked off the creation of our entire universe. There are many reasons we can be confident in God's Word, the Bible. Among them are the tremendous amounts of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible that evolutionary scientists simply cannot explain. These compelling scientific statements in the Bible are absolute proof that the Bible was indeed inspired by God Himself, and that we are entirely correct to take God's word over the word of any scientists.
Third, once biblical creationism enters the realm of scientific theory, its adherents must be prepared to reject it if it is proved false. Do any of us look forward to the day when CNN announces that a professor at MIT has proved biblical creationist theory false? What will this do to the rest of our religious beliefs? I shudder at the thought.
This statement was most amusing. If the media and the public schools ever had the guts to allow creation scientists to present the evidence they have against evolution, it's evolution that would not survive, not creationism. Yes, there would still be some die-hard evolutionists who would cling to the religion of evolution no matter how compelling the evidence against it was. But overall, evolution would be exposed for the monumental hoax that it really is. The truth is that evolutionists are terrified of giving creationists the opportunity to present their case because they know how it's going to turn out if they do. Look at the Dispatch's cowardice towards letting creation scientists have equal space for an opposing view for an example of this.
Creationists have done us a favor by pointing to the false rhetoric employed by many teachers of evolution. Revealing to students the inadequacies of this theory is the intellectually honest thing to do.
This is not something most evolutionists are ever going to do on their own. It's going to take the public getting educated on this issue well enough to see that what they've been exposed to is a steady diet of propaganda for the false religion of evolution, not science. Only when there are enough people who realize this do we have any hope of getting these scientists to start practicing honest science.
But either substituting creationism for modern evolutionary theory or forcing its teaching as a science is a mistake. Creationism as a religious doctrine is too important to place in the realm of science, where all ideas risk a temporary life. Do we really want to have our children exposed to those who would dispose of the story of creationism as told in the Old Testament? This could very well happen.
There is virtually no chance whatsoever of this happening when honest science is applied to the study of the observable evidence. We challenge the Columbus Dispatch to give regular space in their paper for creation scientists to present their side of the argument. Give them equal space with evolutionists and see who wins in the long run. Right now it's 81% of Americans favor teaching creationism in the public schools. Watch that number climb even higher once people have the opportunity to hear the truth.
Creationists in Kansas and everywhere else should drop their envy of science. For many, religion is more important than science.
And what is the problem with that? Does Mr. Nadler believe that scientists should be elevated to the level of gods? Does he honestly believe that science has equal footing with Almighty God? The problem is that too many evolutionary scientists don't believe in God or are unwilling to submit to Him. Parents, do you really want our children to look to people like this as role models? Have you not read the warning God gave us concerning evolution, and fate that awaits many evolutionists?
If we are not careful we might end up losing more than we have bargained for.
This is precisely why the liberal news media and the scientific community continue to try to squelch creation scientists in their efforts to get the truth out. Evolution would lose big, real big! Careers would be down the tubes. Reputations would be ruined. Many of the atheists and humanists who used their positions in the public schools and the media to promote their false religion are afraid of having their personal agenda's exposed. Also, many of the scientists and media elite who believe in evolution are not Christians. They would have to concede that they are indeed accountable to an all knowing God who created them. This is a thought that is so distasteful to so many of them that they will cling to evolution no matter how compelling the evidence against it is.
Mark A. Nadler, an associate professor of economics, is an adjunct fellow at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University. Mark A. Nadler
To the editors at the Dispatch, where is the opposing view to the evolutionary propaganda that appeared in this article? What are you afraid of that you refuse to allow creationists equal time?
Contact us with your comments or questions.