Basic HTML Version
which itself carne from an inor–
ganic form" (G. Kerkut,
lmpli–
cations of Evo/ution,
p. 157).
Another evolutionist puts the
same idea into these words: "The
first living organisms originated
vía ordinary physical and chemi–
cal processes." In other words,
life carne from nonlife without
needing a ny help from a Creator
God.
But Jet's also mark what evolu–
tion is not.
lt
is not " natural
selection." Natural selection,
when properly understood, is a
scient ific principie you can ob–
serve. For example, a certain
kind of insect is attacked by
insect icide . Most of the popula–
tion dies. But a few, who were
res ist ant to start with, survive
and reproduce. After a few gen–
erations of such hardy survivors,
that insect's population is now
made up of superinsects- im–
mune to that kind of insecticide.
The insect has not "evolved " –
the trait was there in sorne of the
popu lat ion. The fact that the
population traits changed s lig ht–
ly doesn't have anything to do
with where the insects carne
from in the first place.
It
's vital that you know the
difference between the theory of
evolution and observable natural
selection. Both scientists and the–
ologians have often carelessly
overlooked this important d ist inc–
tion.
l s Evolution Rea lly Pa rt of
Science?
Evolution is different from the
rest of "science." Evolution deals
with origins.
T hus, unlike physics, or chcm–
istry, evolu tion cannot be dupl i–
catcd in a laboratory (even a big
one!). Oh , you ma ke complex
amino acids, and you can do cute
things wi th DNA, bu t you ca nnot
ma ke life from inert matter .
The creation of life, whe ther
you believe in a Creator God or
evolution, was unique in history.
It
cannot be repeated by physical
mcans today.
Yet thc key element of scien–
tific "proor• is that you can
repeat something and observe the
results. Evolutionists cannot do
August 1980
this with their doctrin e. The
"evolution" of life from nonlife is
not occurring today. Thus evolu–
tionists are exercisi ng ·a great
deal of
human faith
when they
take certain physical evidence
(say, what they find in the foss il
record or the way certain amino
acids interact in a la bora tory)
and draw the conclusion from
that evidence tha t evolution
ac–
tual/y
happened. But they cannot
know for sure-strictly scient ific
proof requires the elimination of
every other conceivable explana–
tion. And there
are
other expla–
nations.
l t is then a bit arrogant to
claim that evolution is a "scien–
tific fact, " or as thc
Biology
Teacher's Handbook
says, "a
body of interrela ted facts." No,
evolution is a
conclusion
a person
draws
from
data. But if other
conclusions can be drawn from
the same data, then evolution is
not necessarily true. There a re
ma ny scientists- people who
hold Ph.D.s from secular univer–
si ties in biology- who do not
draw the conclusion of evolution
from "the facts." Therefore to
teach evolution as a fact-as if
no other conclusion cou ld be
drawn-is to take what sorne
people
believe- but cannot
prove- and
force it down every–
one's throats.
The " Church" o f Evolution
Evolution, then, is not science
because it cannot be scientifically
proved . But it is pa rt of religion.
Here's why :
The question of whether the
Bible is true is a matter of reli–
gion. If the Bible says anything,
it is that life originated from a
Creator God, not from "ordinary
ph ysical and chemical p r o–
cesses." But if you really believe
that life, as a his torical fact,
carne from "ordinary processes,"
then you don' t believe the Bible.
The Bible descr ibes specific cre–
ative acts of God at di s t inct
points in time. Evolution, on the
other hand , says there were no
actual distinct points of specific
creation.
When a school teaches evol u–
tion as a dogmatic fact, it is
therefore telling its students two
very
religious
things: 1) "You do
not have to believe in the exis–
tence of God because 'scientists'
can explain the existence of life
without a life-giver" and
2)
"The
Bible is not true, a t least in
certain places."
But that's n0t science. That's
religion!
The evolu tionist, Sir Julia n
Huxley, was plain about the reli–
gious implications of evolution :
" In the evolutionary pattern of
thought there is no longer either
need or room for the supernatu–
ral. The earth was ñot created, it
evolved."
Leaning Over Backwards
Yet so desperate is American
society to believe that the Bible
doesn't have any automatic a u–
thority that the courts have
leaned over backwards to keep
evolution in the schools. (At the
same time, they have gone out
of their way to keep the Bible
out.)
For example, one state had a
law which forbade the teaching
of evolution in tax-s.upported
schools. "Horrors!" said a ll the
enlightened intellectual people.
" How like the dark ages! Keep–
ing scientific truth out of the
schools all for the sake of sorne
obsolete ignorance-infested reli–
gion!"
Not rea lly. Think a bout it for a
while: Most of the people of that
state didn ' t want to pay taxes to
have their children taught some–
thing dircct ly contrary to their
own religion. Theirs was hardly
an unreasonable position. After
all, Donna Schempp's parents
didn't want to pay to have their
daughter instructed in the Bi–
ble-why should these parents
pay to have their children in–
s tructed in
beliefs directly con–
trary to the Bible?
You would think that a law
forbidding the teaching of a par–
ticular set of what are essent iall y
religious beliefs in public school
would be upheld as supporting
the separation o f church and
state. Why should, after all, the
state cram cvolution down the
throats of unwilling people? Ah,
11