Evolution vs. Creation

In a recent op-ed section of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times (Sunday, Sept. 22, 2002) Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, took opposing viewpoints in addressing the question, “Should schools be allowed to teach creationism?” In answering “no” to that question, Mr. Lynn made the following observations: “We do our children one major disservice by pretending there are controversies in science when there are not…As far as the mainstream scientific community is concerned, the issue is settled: Evolution happens and is a cornerstone of modern science.” Well, well, so there are no controversies and the issue is settled. Let’s see about that.

Evolutionists Make Our Case

The lead article in the October, 1988, issue of National Geographic asks the question, “Where did we come from?” The last phrase in the first paragraph says, “…but in truth no one knows,” p. 434. So much for certainty.

The next article, p. 439, is entitled “The Search for Modern Humans”. Note the language used as they discuss the evidence: “We can say pretty certainly…most probably…I would postulate…a stunning hypothesis…They are believed to be…the dating  is indirect, not perfect…they theorized…they opined…not all scientists agree---not by a long shot…”,  etc.,  etc. An “hypothesis is a “supposition…something not proven by assumed for the purpose of argumentation” and to “postulate” is “to assume without proof to be true.”  So much for the issue being settled.

Or maybe you want examples from more recent editions of National Geographic.

In February, 1997, in an article entitled, “The Dawn of Humans”, Rick Gore says, “Some scientists are now even questioning Lucy’s position as the mother of us all…Peter Schmid and Martin Hausler, anthropologists at the University of Zurich, recently proposed that Lucy might have been male”, p. 80. To further bolster our confidence in the theory of evolution the article goes on to say, “The fossil record for early Homo, however, remains scanty, and specialists argue over how many species existed…. Paleoanthropologists---like philosophers---will no doubt continue to argue about the basic nature of our ancestry”, pp. 96-97. And on the final page of the article is a picture of a broken skull from Swartkrans, South Africa. But it seems there is some controversy about the skull. After saying, “Some researchers suggest…” one thing, and that “Others argue…” for another, the author concludes with the following words of reassurance: “The evidence is equivocal and energetically debated by scientists, who continue searching for the origins of distinctively human life.”

In the August, 2002, edition of National Geographic an article appears discussing “the face that’s changing a thousand minds. It could be the face of the first human to leave Africa. And it’s not what anyone expected…Along with other fossils and tools found at the site, this skull reopens so many questions about our ancestry that one scientist muttered: ‘They ought to put it back in the ground.’” So much for no controversies in modern science.

But there is more. G.A. Kerkut, an evolutionist and author of The Implications of Evolution, has the following to say in the preface of this book: “I believe that the theory of evolution as presented by orthodox evolutionists is in many ways a satisfying explanation of some of the evidence. At the same time I think that the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of evolution from a unique source…is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence…The supporting evidence remains to be discovered…I for one do not think that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt…It is very depressing to find that many subjects are being encased in scientific dogmatism.” He then adds, on p. 175, “The evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong enough to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis.”

Conclusion

And yet this is the sort of theory that Mr. Lynn and many others claim has the exclusive right to be presented in the classrooms across the country. We agree with Mr. Sekulow: “Why do the defenders of evolution feel so threatened by other theories like creationism and intelligent design, which teaches that a force greater than man created life? Students should be permitted to examine all sides of an issue---and that includes the origins of life. Don’t put up roadblocks to knowledge. And, don’t make the mistake of thinking this is about teaching religion.”

 David Smitherman