THE FORCE BEHIND THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBBATE AND MUCH MORE
The question must be asked: Why is there a creation-evolution debate? Actually, it is not a debate in the strict sense. It is not like intellectuals sitting at their gentleman’s club with brandy and cigars quietly deliberating the pros and cons of the issues. Rather is it like adolescents in a verbal street fight hurling names at each other. I can understand the emotions that drive the Creationists. Evolution by natural means requires that somehow, we got here without a God and that is a direct affront to the faithful. It’s personal. However, it does not become an emotional issue until “Godless evolution” is taught as a science in the public schools – at that point, “Godless evolution” becomes fighting words. I understand that.
But why are the Evolutionist even bothering with the fight? They are supposed to be the cool-headed, rational scientists. There is no room for emotions in hard science – is there? Yet, if a person of faith complains about evolution being taught in the schools, the Evolutionist shouts them down and hurls labels at them. Superstitious fools. Ignorant. Backward. Why are the Evolutionists even bothering to enter the fray? They have won the battle in the media and the courts. Evolution is taught as fact in the public schools, the Discovery and National geographic channels, and there is nothing Creationists can do about it. Why not just ignore those “superstitious ignoramuses”? Yet there are thousands of blogs defending evolution – with considerable emotion. I suspect that the emotional outbursts are based in insecurity and are a defensive posture.
AN INCOMPLETE SCIENCE
Evolution, as a hard science, may not be ready for prime time. The scientific method consists of 7 steps: 1) Observation, 2)Articulate a question the observations raise, 3) Formulate a hypothesis to answer the question and explain the observations, 4) Test the hypothesis, 5) Analyze the test data, 6) Publish the results of the testing and analysis for peer review, 7) Once the hypothesis is verified by peer review and replication, it can be considered a theory. Note the terms hypothesis and theory are usually used interchangeably in common use but have specific meaning within the scientific method. While there have been thousands of observations over the past 150 years and much modification to the original hypothesis proposed by Darwin, there are no published tests or observations of any evolution hypothesis that establishes the modification of an organism from one species to another. Adaptations – many. Species change – none. Moreover, there are 4 major gaps that evolutionary scientist admit as yet they have no answers: spontaneous emergence of life, eukaryotic cells, animal consciousness, and human intelligence. So, from the strict requirements of the scientific method, step 4 has not yet been achieved.
Even Einstein’s theories of relativity were not accepted until experiments proved them correct. Many hypothesis that sounded good on paper failed when the testing, analysis, and peer review proved them wrong. Scientists are a conservative lot and the relish the idea of jumping all over a new hypothesis to prove it wrong – that is what makes science work and assures accepted theories are, in fact, true. Without completing the required rigor, evolution does not have the proper credentials.
CREATIONISM IS POOR SCIENCE
Creationists have attempted to challenge evolution in the schools by proposing various “scientific creation” theories. But they also fall short of the rigor required by the scientific methods. “Creation” does not belong in the science classroom because it is a subject of theology/philosophy. The major impediment to Creationism as a science is that it is not “falsifiable”, a condition imposed by the scientific method for a proposal to be considered as science and subject to the scientific method. Creationism should not be subject to scientific criticism, either pro or con. So, when Creationist join the “debate” they are on untenable ground if they try to defend creation through science. They should not try – it is their job to “spread the word” and draw people by faith.
SCIENCE OR PHILOSOPHY?
And this raises the question: Why? Such rigor is required of other hard sciences. Why not with evolution? And why, with these deficits is evolution readily accepted as fact? Where are all those conservative (not in the political sense) scientists when you need them?
There would be no problem accepting evolution as a philosophy. Philosophies need not comply with the empirical proof required by hard science. As a philosophy, Evolutionism can be accepted as is. In fact, Evolutionism (as opposed to evolutionary science) meets all the requirement of the definition of a philosophy. That may be why Evolutionism has been incorporated into several modern philosophies such as Marxism and Secular Humanism. Twenty-five percent of the Humanist Manifesto is devoted to opposition to religion and theism, and the establishment of evolution and atheism. For the Humanist philosophy, evolution is the cornerstone of its premise. Humanism cannot be easily maintained, however, if there is a God and, when Darwin proposed his ideas on evolution, it gave Humanists their “missing link”. Evolution could explain how we got here WITHOUT a God. Humanist confiscated the science of evolution and pressed it into their philosophical service – prematurely. As a philosophy, it is not necessary to prove, with hard science, that evolution is true. It is sufficient that it APPEARS to be true, or that the “people who really count” accept it.
As a result, evolutionary scientists have been manipulated like puppets on a string. The philosophical principles of Secular Humanism are implemented by progressive politics. When Humanists control the politics, they have the power to control tenure, grants, and publications. Any scientist that suggests that there are gaps in the theory and does not whole-heartedly support the “fact” of evolution can forget his tenure, his grants, and will never get his papers published. (By the way, this is the technique used by Darwin and company in the decade after publishing Origin of the Species.) Having silenced the opposition, the scientific journals, classrooms, and media are flooded with the “fact of evolution”. And Secular Humanism has, through its “dancing puppet scientists”, eliminated God from the philosophical equation. Evolutionist can claim “unanimous consensus”.
The Evolutionists bias is demonstrated by their reaction to the fact that, of the 6 major theological positions on creation, 3 accept evolution, albeit with a divine influence. The four gaps that scientist cannot fill, mentioned above, Creationists say, are explained by the intervention by God. Evolutionist become very agitated by this. An evolutionary scientist would respond by admitting there is no scientific explanation for the gaps as yet and dismiss the influence of God as something outside the purview of science. The Evolutionist philosopher, however, becomes extremely agitated at the mention of God because Evolutionism is about atheism, not science.
FAITH AND SCIENCE ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE
The Creationists are being controlled by the strings of the same puppet master. As they try to oppose atheistic evolution taught in the schools, they are drawn into positions untenable on the battleground of science. As a result, there is a backlash against them and, again, the Evolutionist puppets hurl insults. Creationism is not a subject to be defended by science. Nor is it appropriate to criticize Creationism on scientific grounds. Creationism is a matter of faith, philosophy, and theology. Anyone who attacks creationism does so as a philosopher Evolutionist, not as an evolutionary scientist.
So why not kiss and make up. Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Teach evolution in the schools, but include discussion on the gaps and what is necessary to complete the process. This is good science and will challenge young minds to complete the process required by the scientific method. Creationists will find their strength in their evangelism. As they draw others to faith in God, their acceptance of creation will occur – in the heart, if not the head.