Evolutionism: Religious Unbelief Posing As Science

Larry Hafley
Pekin, Illinois

Supreme Court justices must wince at some of the silly issues they are asked to decide. Fatuous matters, though, sometimes hold serious questions of law.

Thus it is with "evolutionism," and the attempt by a small number of people to get this set of beliefs included in the curriculum of public schools.

People who prefer to discredit the Bible entirely who insist that the creation story in Genesis is not a word-for-word description of how the world actually began-are discomfited by what has not been learned in the physical sciences since the 1820's. Knowledge that the universe and the Earth are not billions of years old, and that life on this planet was created in six days, somehow threatens their faith. Rather than adjust their understanding of science to accommodate Genesis, they deny the reality of Genesis.

Most people of evolutionary faith, and certainly the vast majority of atheists, long since have come to accept scientific theories and to incorporate them into their understanding of infidelity. If some people wish not to, that is their right. The trouble comes when they attempt to force their unbeliefs on everyone else.

Evolutionists have tried to get creation stricken from school textbooks. They have even tried to pass laws to that effect. They should be nullified by the Supreme Court.

Unable to get the teaching of creation outlawed, the evolutionists decided to do the next best thing: get their unbeliefs taught alongside creation.

Evolutionary theory has been created (if you'll pardon the expression) into something called "evolutionary science"--and the claims by illiteralists that evolutionary theory is just as scientific and valid as any other understanding of how the Earth began.

They have pressed this claim upon several state legislatures. A few have given in and passed what is called the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." It requires that evolutionist beliefs be taught in the state's public schools whenever creationism is taught.

The law says it's OK to teach neither, but if schools want to teach creation, they must also teach evolutionism. (Apparently some state lawmakers don't mind if their students are denied Bible teaching; they simply want to innoculate students against it should they be exposed to it.)

Federal district and appellate courts have ruled that the law violates the establishment clause. The Supreme Court probably will do the same because the law clearly is an attempt to get evolutionary doctrine taught in public schools in the guise of science.

Evolutionists say that "evolution-science" is not based on irreligious unbelief. That claim is false on its face. Evolutionism comes from unbelief and a particular interpretation of unbelief. It attempts to show that the events in Genesis (including Noah's flood) did not happen exactly as described.

Evolutionists say their ideas are scientific. They are refer to their beliefs as "The Evolutionary Theory."

A theory does not science make. You can theorize the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean the idea is scientific.

If you set out to prove the Earth is flat, you find that all the evidence points to the contrary. The same thing happens when you try to prove the Earth is only 5,000,000,000 years old and that all of its sediments, rocks, fossils, mountain ranges and river valleys have been formed since then.

That's why evolutionists never present any evidence for evolutionism. They don't have any, so they spend their time trying to pick holes in creationism. They pore over the research and writings of scientists, and point to the questioning and re-examination that goes on as indication of the supposed intellectual weakness of creation.

Science is not static. Knowledge advances all the time, and as new information comes along it is analyzed, studied and rigorously debated. The fact of creationism, was established long ago, but the processes of creation - how it happened and why - are matters of intense study and debate. Evolutionists seem not to understand this. They seize upon every subsidiary question posed, every dispute among scientists as to the details and pieces of creation, and present it as the Grand Flaw that disproves the entire concept.

It's odd. Evolutionists accuse creation scientists of being dogmatic, but they use the non-dogmatism of science as evidence that scientific knowledge is false.

Everything we see in nature contradicts evolution. If some people wish to close their eyes to the world for the sake of preserving a particular anti-religious belief, they are free to do so. But they should not insist that the rest of us follow them into the darkness.

Letter To The Asheville Editor

Dear Sir:

Your editorial cited above and my reply to it is being published in Guardian of Truth, an international bi-weekly magazine.

I readily recognize that my response overstates my case ' particularly the last four paragraphs. However, I am using your tactics (feeding you out of your own spoon) in order to show the lack of fairness and objectivity displayed in your editorial. For example, you surely know that the statement, "That's why creationists never present any evidence for creationism," is false. Have you heard every creationist's presentation for creationism? If not, the one you have not heard may have presented the evidence which you say they "never present. "

Are you aware that leading evolutionists would object to your statement that, "The fact of evolution was established long ago"? Whether you are or not, some would disclaim your presumption.

Were you "being dogmatic" when you said, "Everything we see in nature contradicts creationism"? Have you seen, or do you know, everything in nature? If not, the things you have not seen, or do not know, may be the things that do not contradict creationism, or, at least, do not substantiate evolution.

Again, I realize that my equally absurd and dogmatic statements do not establish my position. Now, assume, sir, that my "editorial" had appeared first. Would you not have waved it,,away as the prejudiced ranting of an uninformed Bible thumper? Perhaps. Likewise, when you so blatantly overstate your position, is it any wonder that similar sentiments arise from this perspective?

The answer? I am not sure there is a response that will resolve the issues that divide us, but even-handed, objective, fair discussion could not hurt. Is your paper open or closed to such proposal? Believing as firmly as you do, what risk do you run to have the evolution-creation controversy discussed on your pages? Our paper is open to you and to a study of our differences.

Since, according to you, all the facts and knowledge of science are on your side, what have you to fear from those whom you liken to the "Flat Earth" mentality? If your case is as solid as you aver and avow, I shall expect a favorable reply.

Be assured, though, that your assumptions and assertions will not go unchallenged in open discussion. You shall have to document your position. Condescending dogmatism and prejudicial (flat Earth) comparisons will not be allowed to establish your doctrine. Nor, may I add, will you have the Supreme Court justices to rely on. . .

Will you, therefore, work with me to create a discussion, or will you evolve from the bold, combatant editor of May 11, 1986, into a cowardly, passive editor who suddenly becomes afraid to bear arms when one is aimed at him?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, pp. 401-402
July 3, 1986