What Do Evolutionists Fear? Bad Science!


      “What do evolutionists fear?” commentator Cal Thomas asks. “If scientific evidence for creation is academically unsound and outrageously untrue, why not present the evidence and allow students to decide which view makes more sense?” Thomas does not cite “scientific evidence” supporting creation, instead he quotes scientists who are theists, specifically Johann Kepler and Werner Von Braun. That neither scientist was a biologist does not trouble him, nor does the fact that neither quote seems to address the topic of evolution in any way; each quote merely affirms that speaker’s belief in God. Many scientists do believe in God, and find nothing contradictory in the theory of evolution; they simply believe slightly different things about God and his ways than does Cal Thomas. Johann Kepler probably did believe in the Creation story, living as he did four centuries ago; he had been dead over two centuries before Darwin voyaged on the Beagle. Kepler may also have been under some pressure to publicly affirm his belief in God, as he was a Copernican, advancing the theory of heliocentric planetary motion, a notion that led to his contemporary, Galileo Galilei, being summoned before the Inquisition. (In citing Kepler I assume Thomas is showing that he has advanced, scientifically, to the point of acknowledging that the earth revolves around the sun, if not much further.)

            Thomas claims that “there are only two models for the origin of humans: evolution and creation,” so why not present both and allow students to decide. There are more than two models. One fairly prominent group, the Scientologists, for example, believe that humans came to earth from a distant galaxy eons ago. Even among those who believe in creation, not all believe that it happened in the Garden of Eden; the details vary from religion to religion, and region to region. It is unlikely that Thomas would accept a class which offered to teach evolution versus all other theories, since his real aim is to have his brand of Fundamental Christian Creation dogma taught in the schools. “Why not present the evidence?” Here’s why: the “evidence” that man was created is already being presented to interested students in the version of their choice, by the church of their choice. If they choose not to attend a church (or choose one that embraces modern biology), that is up to them. But even the most liberal churches don’t try to teach the theory of evolution, they leave that to the schools, where it is hoped, the teachers are up to the task.

            Thomas claims that “both theories are accepted on faith by those who believe in them. Neither theory can be tested scientifically because neither model can be repeated or observed.” Sorry, that is not true. While we may never repeat or observe the development of humans from pre-humans (even if advances in genetic engineering some day render such a thing possible) we can observe the mechanisms of evolution all around us, and may test parts of the theory, discarding or modifying as we go along. To point to one example, instead of gradual, incremental changes – the view of natural selection taught when I was in high school - many scientists now believe that rapid mutation is the more common mechanism. The theory of evolution itself has evolved. When and if the central tenets of “Creation Science” can be modified by new evidence, as can the tenets of evolutionary theory, then and only then may we remove the quotation marks, call it a science, and award it a place in our schools.