Why is privilege given to evolution theory in schools?
is seen as the only scientific explanation of how life began and developed on
earth. Creation, by contrast, is regarded as only a religious belief and therefore
as unscientific. The theory of evolution, allegedly supported by much scientific
evidence and containing very few questions still in dispute, is represented
as complete truth. It must (so the argument goes) be universally accepted and
therefore it alone deserves a place in science textbooks as the explanation
for the origin of life. Creation, if it is to have a place at all in school
curricula, belongs with religious education.
discussing this further, it will be useful to define our terms. By �creation
theory� is meant something like this: the Creator, by an act of will which occurred
outside of the cosmos, directly willed into being the first plant and animal
species, separately and independently of each other. Any subsequent changes
or mutations were accomplished only within the species boundaries. No essential
modifications or evolution (such as of more complicated species from simpler
ones) occurred after that. In the past the earth was at least once flooded extensively.
Geological investigations show clearly that this extensive flooding led to the
destruction and extinction of a large number of living creatures.
to the modern �evolution theory�, all life evolved from one simple primitive
cell, which came out of dead, lifeless matter by chance, then hit upon a method
of replication and adaptation which (again by random trial and error over vast
periods of time) led to the many varieties of living species each fitted for
competitive survival in its particular niche in the environment. The whole process
of evolution took several hundred million years. Large geological events are
explained as natural phenomena occurring in specific periods of time and without
a world-wide destruction of the earth by flood.
creation of man was not observed by man; it is an unrepeatable historical event,
unsuited to �testing by experiment�, the standard procedure in modern science.
Further, creation cannot be disproved: it is impossible to devise or conduct
an experiment that could falsify the claim put forward by the creation theory.
It is for that reason unacceptable as a scientific theory. That does not mean
it is false; nor does it mean it is true. However, it is clear that the creation
theory shows good co-relations with the results of fossil investigation. To
some extent, it can be tested in the same way as other historical claims are
matched and tested with appropriately corroborative historical documents.
theory likewise does not fulfill all the criteria which would justify calling
it a scientific theory. The great modifications of evolution were never observed;
the claims of the theory fall outside of experimental and scientific methods.
Nobody has ever observed or could ever observe how a fish became a frog or a
monkey became a human; no human witnessed or could ever witness the origin of
the cosmos or of life.
bit of evidence often used to argue fore evolution theory is the case of the
moth Biston betularia. The moths of this species found in England before the
industrial revolution were predominantly white. The effects of industrial pollution
blackened rocks and tree-bark. The number of white moths in the population,
now fatally exposed to their predators, fell drastically, while the number of
black moths rose. Today in the industrialized regions of England, 95% of the
moths are black: they had better camouflage and therefore a higher survival
rate, eventually dominating the population. Thus, the environment �selected�
or favored the black over the white variety.
this case clearly illustrates adaptive evolution within a species, it equally
clearly does not illustrate evolution from one species to another. The latter
kind of change or �macro-evolution� is never observable. As a famous supporter
of evolution, Dobzhansky, put it � evolution can never be repeated or reversed
(no life-form ever evolves back to what it allegedly had once been); the time
periods reckoned for major changes to occur exceed by far the life-span of mankind
as a whole; it is impossible to test the theory scientifically and therefore
it cannot be presented to anti-evolutionists in a way that would force them
to change their position.
evolutionist scientists are objective and honest enough to accept that evolution
theory is no more scientific than the creation theory. For example, providing
a short list of the theory�s weaknesses, Harris pointed out that creationists
demand from the evolutionists an explanation of (a) how random mutations led
to adaptations, (b) why natural selection acts only for the benefit of some
species, (c) why natural selection allowed the survival of organs which are
obviously not used. We now understand, Harris maintains, that neither theory
is rational, that both depend on axioms.
Preface of the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin�s The Origin of Species,
Mathews, pointing out that the evolution of the animals has never been demonstrated,
asks: Is biology now a science or a belief system?
not follow from the fact that neither theory is �scientific� according to the
strict criteria, that either is necessarily wrong. However, since evolution
theory claims that evolution occurred according to natural laws, these laws
must be valid at the present time (as in the past), and the theory may not contradict
those laws. But the evolutionists insist that the non-demonstrability of evolution,
its central weakness as a scientific theory, must be accepted as a consequence
of the enormous slowness of evolutionary processes. They further insist that
creation theory should be removed from scientific textbooks, it should not be
investigated scientifically, and certainly not presented as an alternative to
evolution. But their argument that creation theory cannot be scientifically
tested applies equally to evolution theory. Similarly, their objection that
creation theory promotes religion and belief in supernatural agency, applies
equally to evolution theory which promotes atheism as a belief system and accords
to random �natural� processes the role of supernatural agency. If it is wrong
or improper to teach the former, it must be wrong or improper to teach the latter
evolution theory has become an unofficial state-supported religion sponsored
directly by its exclusive place on all curricula; a dogma that binds students
of biology to the closed horizons of evolution theory in schools, colleges and
universities. However, more and more scientists are finding the courage to assert
that grave inconsistencies between evolutionary theory and scientific laws or
experimental results exist. Also, many scientists are arguing that the creation
model is free from such inconsistencies and offers a better explanation of the
established facts about the origin of living organisms. Even some followers
of evolutionary theory are admitting to being dissatisfied with it and to seeking
a �better� theory that fits and explains the known facts in a properly scientific
claim of modern evolutionary theory is that the processes of evolution resulted
from natural selection of the coincidental mutational modifications in the genetic
code. This selection was realized in relation to modifications of the environment.
Natural selection is an agent, acting through coincidences and working in mutated
genes. But that does not explain (as it was once thought and hoped it would)
very much at all. There is a fatal circularity, a fatal self-validation, in
the theory of selection. Which living creatures survived? Answer: those that
adapted to the changes in their environment. Which living creatures adapted?
Answer: those that survived. There is no explanatory effectiveness in this kind
impossible to explain, why some species only live until they produce the next
generation. We only know that because they were created in that way. Scientists
who support the creation model believe that natural selection leads to species
extending modifications towards ever-increasing complexity. Natural selection
has the merely negative function of eventually removing from the environment
species that have failed to realize their potential to adapt.
modern evolutionary theory, all processes of change are initiated by mutations.
Mutations are random, heritable modifications in the chromosomes or genes, which
are complete functioning elements. Whatever happens randomly can nevertheless
be calculated according to known and established mathematical principles. Therefore,
it should be possible to calculate and predict the numbers of mutations necessary
to effect a change in the organism. In short, if we really believe that evolution
resulted through coincidence, then the time period needed for the transformation
of a protozoon to a human can be worked out. One group of mathematicians who
support the evolution theory did compute the time needed. The results of their
calculations were that it would take one billion times longer than the five
billion years that the world has existed. In sum, it is impossible for evolution
to have happened by chance. Why then do we allow that impossibility to be taught
in schools and presented in textbooks as if it were truth? It is impossible