“The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines.” (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition).
Creationism is not “against” modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to “subdue” the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. “Creation Science” is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is “all there is”).
No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called “micro-evolution” (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin’s finches, the “peppered moth”, or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that “micro-evolution” is a misnomer, as it implies that “a little” evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.
Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called “macro-evolution”, is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a “research issue”. Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
The “geologic column”, which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of “fully-formed abrupt appearance” and “stasis” (that is, no change over time).
The belief that the atoms of a “Big Bang” eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be “running down” yet evolution postulates it is “building up”. Atoms to people evolution is much more a “religious belief” than a scientific fact.
There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis! (Creation Science homepage)
Four years into the 21st century, CBS News conducted a poll to determine what Americans believed about evolution and creation. In the heady dawn of this new technological, internet-oriented age, surely the citizens of the world’s last great superpower understood and had embraced evolution. This theory of life’s origins and diversity had been promulgated vociferously (oooo, how do you like that?) through the 20th century, much to the concern, dismay and alarm of Christians and other world faiths.
However, the 2004 CBS survey showed that perhaps evolution was more of a hard sell than its proponents had realized. Of course, many of these same proponenets had walked away with billions of dollars in government-funded research throughout the 20th century, so their continued claims of science paled in comparison to the benefits and paychecks being distributed in the name of science. In addition, more recent polls continually show that the majority of Americans favor creationsim being taught in school alongside evolution, in addition to widely-held convictions about the involvement of God in the origins of life.
In addition, it showed that Republican voters at the time were far more likely than Democrats to support the idea of a divine creation as opposed to evolution. Interesting. It doth appear that God hath leaked out of the Donkey Party.
More through intuition than anything else, I suspect that most Christians in America today have opted simply to not think about creation vs. evolution. They stay out of the whole discussion. They feel like it’s over their head, and perhaps by ignoring it, they hope that it will go away.
However, I think it’s the responsibility of every person, whether Christian or not, to examine deeply tenets, theories and beliefs that may challenge their assumptions and religious beliefs. As an example, I offer the Mormons. Here is a supposed Christian group (many of us would say they’re a refined, successful heresy or cult) who claims that their fonder, Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni and shown golden plates upon which a divine revelation was given to him. Of course, these plates have been “lost,” and of the vast civilizations that this revelation claimed existed on the continent of North America, no evidence has, as yet, been found. If I were a Mormon, living in one of the most highly advanced cultures in the world, I would allow myself to be challenged and begin to look at whether there is any evidence for my beliefs. After all, Joseph Smith didn’t live 2000 years ago. Rather, he lived 150 years ago.
It would be hard for me to be a Mormon and unquestioningly swallow the teachings of a church that emerged little more than 150 years ago, has no empirical evidence or archeology to back its claims, and who can, by simple fiat of its leaders, change its beliefs.
Back to evolution. Do you see why it would be important to study, research, read, and assimilate information about evolution? As Carolyn and I visited the Museum of Natural History in D.C. earlier this week, we had to patiently endure the fact that evolution was splashed against every wall. Two years ago in NYC, it was the same way in the musuem there.
The quote I started the article with is key:
The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines.
What does it mean that all our modern scholarship is based on the theory of evolution being true? As the information from the Creation Science homepage above makes clear, few people argue that microevolution takes place; however, what is highly questionable is whether macroevolution has taken place. There is good evidence to suggest that it hasn’t (and even more, the lack of evidence suggests that it hasn’t).
If evolution is “the central unifiying concept of biology” and a “critical component” of other sciences, and only 13% of Americans believe that evolution occurred purely as a biological phenomenon, then there is obviously a great disconnet between science and commonly held beliefs. I would also suggest that there is a great void in our wallets as a result of evolution being touted and promulgated heavily for the past 80-90 years.
However, just last April a Canadian university professor was denied a $40,000 grant by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council because he based his entire premise for research on evolution’s being proven fact.
“The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers. Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results. In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. In view of its reservations the committee recommended that no award be made.”
Janet Halliwell (a chemist, and SSHRC’s executive vice-president) said the scientific world’s understanding of life is “not static. There’s an evolution in the theory of evolution.” Bravo to the Canadians for resisting this unbelievable juggernaut of scientific arrogance that has drained governmental (and private foundations’) checkbooks for too long.
For example, consider the fact that the budget of the National Institute of Health is more than $28 billion annually. There are dozens of institutes housed underneath this. It appears that President Bush’s administration have demanded more accountability for scientific funding, according to this article:
many in the life sciences community, not used to high levels of scrutiny during the years of massive NIH funding increases, are now chafing because they are experiencing what scientists in other fields have experienced all along. As Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, noted in McCook’s article, “So far, most of [biologists’] experience with Congress has been showing up and asking for money and going home.” Daniel Kevles, science historian at Yale University, says in McCook’s article, that politicians now spend “more time debating issues related to climate science, biodiversity, reproduction, and molecular biology. So for biologists, it’s natural to wholeheartedly believe that politics is interfering more in research, because it’s something they largely have not encountered for years.” Couple this with the NIH budget transition from flush to flat and the increase in biologists seeking positions and the perception is that they are somehow under assault and the situation seems dire, but this is merely a matter of adjustment that other fields have had to accommodate. As Kevles, put it “there’s nothing written in the laws of man or nature that says funding appropriations have to go up in proportion to the demand.” Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the AAAS, was more blunt saying that, “[m]any other disciplines have a hard time sympathizing about [an NIH budget of $28 billion] not being enough.” (emphasis mine)
The NIH does not necessarily endorse evolution. Let me qualify that. However, with such overt propaganda for evolution on the walls of our national museums of “natural history,” it sickens me that our tax monies and government funding is being used in such a specious and deceitful way to convince us of a theory that is itself continuing to change and adapt to new findings. Perhaps the science establishment would feel more at home in the Mormon church where official pronouncements from on high are swallowed hook, line and sinker.
I take some comfort, at least, in the observations that most Americans aren’t buying it. Unfortunately for them, they really are. Each time they pay taxes.
I think it would be at least a person’s time and investment to buy a book here or there, or spend some time doing some Googling and cursory research to examine and sustain their beliefs/opinions rather than playing ostrich with an issue. Here’s one book that looks interesting.
I’d be interested in knowing where you fall on the spectrum:
- • Informed conviction
- • Naive ostrich
- • Loosely stitched assumptions
- • Dogmatic defender
Nuff said for now.