Birch and Ehrlich state that: | Our theory of evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.[2] |
Green and Goldberger, with reference to theories on the origin of life, havesaid that:
| ...the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture.[3] |
It seems obvious that a theory that is outside of empirical science, or atheory that lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis cannot qualify as ascientific theory. Any suggestion that these challenges to the status ofevolution as a scientific theory are exceptions can be refuted by a thoroughsearch of the scientific literature. Although these quotes are fairly old,they are still true and relevant.
It is evident that the major challenge to the status of evolution as ascientific theory comes from within the evolutionary establishment itself,not from creation scientists.
Creation and evolution are thus theoretical inferences about history. Eventhough neither qualifies as a scientific theory, each possesses scientificcharacter, since each attempts to correlate and explain scientific data.Creation and evolution are best characterized as explanatory scientificmodels which are employed to correlate and explain data related to origins.The terms "creation theory," "evolution theory," "creations science," and"evolution science" are appropriate as long as it is clear that the use ofsuch terms denote certain inferences about the history of origins whichemploy scientific data rather than referring to testable scientifictheories. Since neither is a scientific theory and each seeks to explain thesame scientific data related to origins, it is not only incorrect butarrogant and self-serving for evolutionists to declare that evolution isscience while creation is mere religion. Creation is in every sense asscientific as evolution.
The Relationship of Theories on Origins to Philosophy and Religion
No theory on origins can be devoid of philosophical and religiousimplications. Creation implies the existence of a Creator (a person orpersons, a force, an intelligence, or whatever one may wish to impute). Thecreation scientist assumes that the natural universe is the product of thedesign, purpose, and direct volitional acts of a Creator. It is untrue tosay that creation scientists are seeking to introduce Biblical creation intothe public schools. Their desire is that the subject of origins be taught ina philosophically and religiously neutral manner, as required by the U.S.Constitution as applied in recent decades
On the other hand, evolution is a non-theistic theory of origins which bydefinition excludes the intervention of an outside agency of any kind.Evolutionists believe that by employing natural laws and processes plusnothing, it is possible to explain the origin of the universe and of allthat it contains. This involves the acceptance of a particular philosophicalor metaphysical world view and is thus basically religious in nature. Thefact that creation and evolution involve fundamentally different world viewshas been frankly admitted by some evolutionists. For example, Lewontin hassaid:
| Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism. They are irreconcilable world views.[4] |
Thus, Lewontin characterizes creation and evolution as irreconcilable worldviews, and as such each involves commitment to irreconcilable philosophicaland religious positions. This does not imply that all evolutionists areatheists or agnostics, nor does it imply that all creationists areBible-believing fundamentalists.
While it is true that teaching creation science exclusively would encouragebelief in a theistic world view, it is equally true that teaching evolutionexclusively (as is essentially the case in the U.S. today) encourages beliefin a non-theistic, and in fact, an essentially atheistic world view.Indoctrinating our young people in evolutionism tends to convince them thatthey are hardly more than a mechanistic product of a mindless universe, thatthere is no God, that there is no one to whom they are responsible.
In their literature, humanists have proclaimed that humanism is a"non-theistic religion." They quote Sir Julian Huxley as stating:
| I use the word "Humanist" to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind, and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of evolution....[5] |
In his eulogy to Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the world's leadingevolutionists until his death, Ayala wrote that:
| ...Dobzhansky believed and propounded that the implications of biological evolution reach much beyond biology into philosophy, sociology, and even socio-political issues. The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage he often quoted from Pierre Teihard de Chardin: "(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is.[6] |
The above statement is as saturated with religion as any assertion could be,and yet it is quoted approvingly by Ayala and Dobzhansky, two of the mainarchitects of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
It is no wonder that Margorie Grene, a leading historian of science, hasstated that:
| It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men's minds. The derivation of life, of man, of man's deepest hopes and highest achievements, from the external and indirect determination of small chance errors, appears as the very keystone of the naturalistic universe.... Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.[7] |
Birch and Ehrlich have used the term "evolutionary dogma," Grene hasreferred to Darwinism as a "religion of science," an "orthodoxy preached byits adherents with religious fervor," and Dobzhansky and Teilhard de Chardinproclaim that all theories, hypotheses, and systems must bow beforeevolution in order to be thinkable and true. One could easily search theevolutionary literature to find many other examples that reveal thereligious nature of the evolutionary world view. It can thus be statedunequivocally that evolution is as religious as creation, and conversely,that creation is as scientific as evolution.
Creation and Evolution Are the Only Valid Alternative Theories of Origins
Evolutionists often assert that creationists have constructed a falsedichotomy between creation and evolution, that there are actually manytheories of origins. However, all theories of origins can be fitted withinthese two general theories. Thus, Futuyma, an evolutionist, states:
| Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.[8] |
No professionally trained teacher should thus hesitate to teach thescientific evidence that supports creation as an alternative to evolution.This is recognized by Alexander, who stated that:
| No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think. . . . Creation and evolution in some respects imply backgrounds about as different as one can imagine. In the sense that creation is an alternative to evolution for any specific question, a case against creation is a case for evolution, and vice versa.[9] |
Teaching Both Theories of Origins is an Educational Imperative
Thus, since creation is as scientific as evolution, and evolution is as religious ascreation, and since creation and evolution between them exhaust the possibleexplanations for origins, therefore a comparison of the two alternatives canbe excellent exercises in logic and reason. No theory in science should beallowed to freeze into dogma, immune from the challenge of alternativetheories. Academic and religious freedoms are guaranteed by the UnitedStates Constitution, and public schools are supported by the taxes derivedfrom all citizens. Therefore, in the public schools in the United States,the scientific evidences which support creation should be taught along withthe scientific evidences which support evolution in a philosophicallyneutral manner devoid of references to any religious literature.
