Voices for Evolution

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©2000

Read what those who support evolution have to say about the theory in which they have placed their “faith.”

(Excerpted from Darwin’s Leap of Faith, Harvest House, 1998)

Introduction

As an example of how modem naturalistic science can damage the name of science, consider the book Voices for Evolution, published by the National Center for Science Edu­cation (NCSE) in Berkeley This text contains the official statements of some 70 scientific, religious, educational, and civil liberty organizations who virtually demand the teaching of evolution, almost always as fact, in public schools, and who demand we reject or strongly oppose the teaching of creation science as a legitimate second theory for an explanation of origins. This text is so full of distortions one hardly knows where to start. The NCSE states its goal plainly enough in the foreword, “The short-term immediate goal of NCSE… is to keep ‘scientific’ creationism from being taught as legitimate science in public schools.”^[1]

What is so disconcerting is that this text offers an accurate representation of the views of the scientific establishment, mainline religion, and numerous educational organizations in America. Yet it shows an ignorance as to the true nature of science, the true nature of

creation science and the undeniable facts of science as they relate to the creation/evolution controversy. Worse yet, it clearly shows a naturalistic bias which serves to distort science. We have elsewhere cited experts relative to the “evolution is a fact” bias. Consider other examples:

Distortion One: Creation Is Not a Valid Scientific Theory

Abundant documentation exists proving that creation can be a valid scientific theory. But apparently some people don’t want the public to know this. If the evolutionary estab­lishment is properly informed on the nature of science, then they are misleading the public by the following pronouncements. If they are not properly informed as to the nature of science, then they should not make pronouncements as to what is or isn’t scientific.

Isaac Asimov in the introduction to Voices for Evolution—”There is no trace of anything scientific in creationism….”^[2]

Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada—“…. ‘scientific creationism’ has nothing to do with science or the scientific method.”^[3]

American Association for the Advancement of Science—“… the theory of creation is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the roles required of scientific theories. … ‘Creationist Science’ has no scientific validity….”^[4]

American Society of Parasitologists—”Creationism is not a science and cannot become a science.”^[5]

Iowa Academy of Science—”Creationism is not science and the Academy deplores and opposes any attempt to disguise it as science.”^[6]

University of California Academic Senate—“… a description of special creation as a scien­tific theory is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of scientific inquiry.”^[7]

Georgia Citizens’ Educational Coalition—”We oppose the teaching of ‘creationism’ as science in Georgia’s public schools. Creationism is based on… religious belief… not on scientific theory.”^[8]

American Civil Liberties Union—”ACLU also opposes the inculcation of religious doctrines even if they are presented as alternatives to scientific theories. ‘Creation science’ in all guises, for example ‘abrupt appearance theory’ or ‘intelligent design theory,’ is just such religious doctrine.”^[9]

New York State Education Department—“… ‘scientific creationism’ is not accepted as science by the majority of experts working in those fields of science related to origins.”^[10] American Humanist Association—”Creationism is not scientific: it is a purely religious view held by some religious sects and persons….”^[11]

The above are only a few examples of the scientific, educational, and civil liberties organizations making such statements. Indeed, virtually all of the organizations cited are opposed to the teaching of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution in public school classrooms. However, if scientific creation is legitimate, as it is, then these organizations are more concerned with scientific indoctrination than scientific education. And recent history has shown how perilous this can be. In this particular case, here is why they are wrong.

Many noted scientists and experts on the nature of the relationship between science and religion have attested to the scientific case for creation. For example, the volumes by Bird, Moreland (ed.), and Geisler and Anderson are only some of those demonstrating that creation can be scientific.^[12]

Bird also points out that, “Seven of the fifteen judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed that the theory of creation is ‘scientific evidence’ that ‘has no direct religious reference whatever;’ and two of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. They correctly point out that concepts of creation always have been a basic part of science, and are still a vital part of cosmology….”^[13]

In What Is Creation Science? Morris and Parker also demonstrate that creation can be scientific.^[14] Morris has a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota with a major in hydraulics and hydrology and minors in geology and mathematics. He is a full member of Sigma Xi and Phi Beta Kappa and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Morris has published dozens of research papers in refereed scientific journals, and has spent 28 years on the faculties of five major universities and partaken in scores of debates with evolutionists. Gary Parker earned his Ph.D. in biology with a cognate in geol­ogy (paleontology) and has several academic awards including election to the National Universities Scholastic Honorary Society; Phi Beta Kappa, and a Science Faculty Fellow­ship from the National Science Foundation. His research in amphibian endocrinology earned his election to the American Society of Zoologists.

Dean H. Kenyon, Ph.D., professor of biology and coordinator of the general biology program at San Francisco State University wrote the foreword to the above text by Morris and Parker. Dr. Kenyon is one of America’s leading non-evolutionary scientists and has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University.^[15] A former evolutionist and co-author of Bio­chemical Predestination, a standard work on the evolutionary origin of life, Kenyon now believes that the current situation where most consider creation science simply a religion in disguise “is regrettable and exhibits a degree of close-mindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.”^[16] Kenyon is only one prominent scientist who has “extensively reviewed the scientific case for creation” and finds it legitimate.^[17]

In Volume 1 of his The Origin of Species Revisited, W R. Bird presents scientific evi­dence for what he terms the theory of abrupt appearance, similar to the theory of creation. He offers seven lines of evidence in support of abrupt appearance: “These lines of evidence are affirmative in the sense that, if true, they support the theory of abrupt appear­ance. They are not negative in the sense of merely identifying weaknesses of evolution. Nor do they depend on any assumption that the theories of abrupt appearance and evolu­tion are the only scientific alternatives, except for the probability argument in part.”^[18]

These seven lines of evidence include : 1) the empirical evidence of systematic abrupt appearance; 2) the empirical evidence of systematic gaps; 3) the argument from compara­tive morphology involving empirical evidence of systematic similarity and stasis of organ­isms; 4) the information content argument relating to natural laws of information science; 5) the probability argument dealing with the laws of statistics; 6) the genetics argument deal­ing with the natural law of limited change; and 7) the comparative discontinuity argument dealing with empirical evidence from comparative anatomy, comparative biochemistry, and classification.

In essence, “The theory of abrupt appearance is scientific. It consists of the empirical evidence and scientific interpretation that is the content of this chapter. The theory of abrupt appearance also satisfies the various definitions of science in a manner comparable to evolution, as discussed in chapters 9 and 10. Its many testable and falsifiable claims are summarized in sections 10.3(a) and 10.4(a). The theory of creation similarly can be scien­tific, as a number of its opponents concede.”^[19]

W. R. Bird demonstrates that the theory of abrupt appearance is not only scientifically evidential, in Volume 2 he shows it is scientifically testable and refutable. In the area of biology; he shows that the affirmative evidence for abrupt appearance in paleontology; comparative morphology; information content, probability; genetics, and comparative dis­continuity not only have testable claims but they affirm the theory of abrupt appearance. In the area of biochemistry, he shows that the argument from information content, probability, isomers, biogenesis and thermodynamics are not only testable, but also affirm abrupt appearance. And in terms of cosmology; he shows that thermodynamics, information content, the anthropic principle, heterogeneity; star and galaxy formation, and radio halos are testable and provide evidence for abrupt appearance.^[20]

Dr. Wilder-Smith also presents a scientific creation alternative to Neo-Darwinism in his A Basis for a New Biology and The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information Sources and Structures.^[21]

The scientific case for creation is also ably marshalled by several leading scientists in J. P. Moreland’s (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis (InterVarsity; 1994). Some of the contributors include : William A. Dembski who holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and has con­ducted doctoral and postdoctoral research at Cornell (math), MIT (math), the University of Chicago (math and physics), and Princeton (computer science) and has been a National Science Foundation doctoral and postdoctoral fellow. Stephen C. Meyer has degrees in physics and geology and a Ph.D. from Cambridge in the history and philosophy of science. Charles Thaxton has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Iowa State University and was a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University as well as a postdoctoral appointment in the molecular biology laboratory at Brandeis University. Kurt P. Wise has degrees in geophysi­cal science from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University.

Collectively, the authors in this volume alone have published hundreds of scientific articles in refereed scientific journals. They are only nine examples of thousands which make the evolutionists’ claims amusing: “No reputable scientist believes in creation.”

Finally, if creationism is really only a religion, why do evolutionists consistently lose their scientific debates to creationists? Such debates have been held since 1970. In 1979, The Wall Street Journal for June 15 reported, “The creationists tend to win” the debates. Six months later a report in Bioscience for January 30, 1980 agreed: “Why do creationists seem to be the consistent winners in public debates with evolutionists?”^[22] In an ICR letter of August 1979, Henry Morris could report: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on cre­ation/evolution.”^[23] One wonders why if evolution is a proven scientific fact and creation only a religion?

By 1993, creationists were still leading, even according to the evolutionists. Evolution­ists had 20 years to improve their debating record and yet did not. Today; these debates are “almost always won by creationists, according to evolutionists…”^[24] and Dr. Morris says of Duane Gish who has had over 300 formal debates, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”^[25] In conclusion, in all these debates that “have been conducted throughout the U.S. and in other countries during the past 20 years, cre­ationists have carefully avoided all references to religious concepts and literature and have based their arguments strictly on scientific evidence, such as the fossil record, the laws of thermodynamics, the complexity of living organisms and probability relationships, etc. The fact that evolutionists themselves admit that creationists have won most of the debates does seem to be saying something important.”^[26]

Perhaps all this helps explain why, despite erroneous and biased legal decisions, polls indicate most people favor the idea of schools teaching the theory of creation in addition to the theory of evolution. This includes more than 85 percent of the national public, two thirds of lawyers nationally (who also find it constitutional), most university presidents at secular universities, and two-thirds of public school board members. One poll indicated 42 percent of public school biology teachers now favor the theory of creation over the theory of evolu­tion.^[27] Yet very few schools actually allow their teachers the option of a two model ap­proach. Something would certainly seem to need addressing here.

Notes

1. ↑ The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution, p. iv.
2. ↑ Ibid., p. x.
3. ↑ Ibid, p.16.
4. ↑ Ibid., pp. 24-25.
5. ↑ lbid., p. 37.
6. ↑ lbid., p. 46.
7. ↑ The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution: Addendum, rev. edition, 1995, p. 19.
8. ↑ The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution, p. 130.
9. ↑ Ibid., p. 159.
10. ↑ The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution: Addendum, p. 11.
11. ↑ The National Center for Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution, p. 162.
12. ↑ J. P. Moreland (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis; Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vols. 1 & 2, passim; Norman L. Geisler, J. Kirby Anderson, Origin Science: A Proposal for the Cre­ation-Evolution Controversy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987); Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (San Diego, CA: Creation Life, 1982).
13. ↑ Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 6.
14. ↑ See the discussion in Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?
15. ↑ See the biography note in Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 1, p. xvi.
16. ↑ Dean Kenyon in the introduction to Morris and Parker, What Is Creation Science?, p. 3.
17. ↑ lbid., p. 3.
18. ↑ Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 44.
19. ↑ Ibid., p. 45.
20. ↑ Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 2, pp. 104-07.
21. ↑ A. E. Wilder-Smith, A Basis for a New Biology (Einigen/Schweir: TELOS- International, 1976) and his Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Information, Sources and Structures (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFP Publishers, 1987), cf., p. v.
22. ↑ Dennis Dubay, “Evolution/Creation Debate,” Bioscience, Vol. 30, January 1980, pp. 4-5.
23. ↑ Available from the Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA.
24. ↑ Gish, Creation Scientists Answer, p. ix.
25. ↑ Ibid., p. vi.
26. ↑ Ibid., p. 63.
27. ↑ Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 8.