The following article appeared in the Neighborhood News
section of The Kansas City Star on September 22, 1999. The items underlined were
removed by the editors at The Star, but have been included by this editor
because they left out precisely what proves his point.
Evolution, Fact or Faith?
By Dr. Jim Anderson
I am compelled to respond to some erroneous assumptions
made by guest columnist Jay Sjerven in the Neighborhood News on Wednesday,
September 1. First, Jay states that the views held by Christian
Fundamentalists are, "based on faith, not fact," and assumes that the
views of evolutionists are based on fact, not faith. Before anyone swallows this
popular idea, hook, line and sinker, wake up to the fact that the
theory of evolution has been operating by faith from its creation. Charles
Darwin created a theory, not based on fact, but on his philosophy of life and
belief system. By faith he publicized his theory, figuring he would find support
and evidence for his theory. By faith he and his followers began excavating,
hoping to find his theory written all over the fossil record. By faith
evolutionists continue to dig, in search of missing links which would support
evolution from species to species (macro evolution). By faith artists were hired
to create head to toe drawings of missing links, from teeth, bone fragments and
skullcaps with multiple fractures. By faith evolution was promoted as the view
that should be taught in all public schools and universities. By faith it has
become the only option available to school districts and students in public
education. If you want to talk about faith, check out the origin and propagation
of Darwinism.
Now there is nothing wrong with faith. We all function
by faith. It’s all about trust, confidence and hope. Every time we go to the
mailbox, drive a car, fly in an airplane, eat food in a restaurant, we are
demonstrating faith or trust. However, faith is only as good as the object,
person, or philosophy we trust. Faith is not foreign to any of us. When it comes
to philosophy or world views, not even the atheist is without faith. Just as the
theist believes there is a God, the atheist has a faith there is no God deal
with, only matter to control. While the theist believes that the natural realm
is the result of intelligent design, the atheist has faith that the universe
came about without design or supervision. Don’t assume that people who scoff
at faith, don’t have any. As onetime atheist C.S. Lewis put it, "really,
a young atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully."
The second grandiose assumption is baited in the phrase
"science-based theory of evolution." Does it mean that all branches of
science support the theory of evolution? While biologist say, "All life
evolved from a simple living cell," microbiologists say, "There is no
such thing as a simple living cell." While all cells vary greatly in
complexity, all living cells are programmed with volumes of information
regarding digestion, development, reproduction, etc. For instance, molecular
biologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago stated in the National
Review that the Darwinian theory cannot explain molecular complexity,
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of fundamental
biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Likewise, Physicists such as Paul Davies, in God and the New Physics, are
replacing "big bang" terminology with "creation," just as
physicist High Ross speaks of "a creation event." Physicists and
cosmologists, alike, now recognize that there was a "beginning," for
which they have no explanation as to how something could come out of nothing,
other than to call it creation. Since biology has sold out to evolution,
censorship is a likely practice among the sciences: "We must not include
those kind of statements in our text books, students might get confused. Some
might even begin to think for themselves."
For that matter, does one have to believe in evolution
to be a scientist? What about scientists who have the same education/experience
as evolutionists, and do not believe in macro evolution after examining the same
evidence? In fact, the more advanced scientific research becomes, the more
suspect the total theory of evolution becomes. For instance, molecular
biologist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled "Darwin’s Black
Box." Behe explains that "scientists have begun to open the black boxes
of biology, and they have revealed a fantastically complex world of interacting
proteins and enzymes underneath...Evolutionary biologist have been able to
pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they
treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes
and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a
scientific explanation. (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, by Phillip
Johnson). Evolutionists and atheists, alike, must guard their faith very
carefully these days, since the theory is suffering from lack of fact. I’m
afraid that the hoax has persuaded many a student to equate evolution with
science, when in fact it is an ideology.
A third erroneous assumption is that evolution, as
taught in public schools, is compliant to the views of "moderate
Christians." The so-called "moderate Christians," which Jay seeks
to alter, should note that there is nothing moderate about the official position
statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers. Written in
1995, it states, "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of
evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of
temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural
selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."
Now for the granddaddy assumption, that the so-called
"Christian Fundamentalist Minority" have an agenda; and by giving
creation equal time with evolution will open the way for teaching, "faith
healing...that dinosaurs simply missed the boat...the influence of angels,
demons and divine visions on human events...God has favored Americans above all
other people...the obliteration of the separation of church and state,...how
current events were prophesied and are no more than the story of Armageddon as
related in the Book of Revelation," thus dismantling all the sciences,
disciplines, and traditional courses of education. I hesitate to call this gross
exaggeration an assumption. It is nothing less than a scare tactic, reflecting
the fear of those who have enjoyed for years the unrestrained proliferation of
their own agenda. Hey Jay, let’s stick with the issue. The issue is one of
educational freedom; to give or not to give school districts the option to teach
evolution, creation or both, in a country which states in its Declaration of
Independence that "all mean are created equal," and stamps "In
God We Trust" on its currency.
For years trends in education have moved away from
dictating to students what they must conclude, to letting them "think and
choose for themselves." Not so in the science classroom, where a gross
inconsistency has been sanctioned, so that only the faith of evolution is
presented. When it comes to evolution versus creation, each student should be
encouraged to look through a telescope, microscope or the naked eye and decide
for himself or herself, "Is this the result of random chance, or is it the
result of intelligent design?"
Jim Anderson, DMin..
Dr. Anderson pastors Grace Fellowship, An Evangelical
Free Church, in Overland Park, Kansas
