By Mary E. Traeger
“For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities, all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16-17)
Taking away the Biblical foundation from public education opened the door to the secular humanism so rampant in our society today. Dismissing the truth of our God-created origins by accepting the theory of evolution has corrupted our cultural and moral conscience.
Having had the opportunity for a beneficial parochial grade school and high school education, I never was indoctrinated with the scientific fables of evolution that public school students are subjected to today. Many are now beginning to see the flaws inherent in the evolutionary theory as taught in the public schools. Some scientists openly disagree with the scientific community’s practice of limiting scientific knowledge by shutting doors to what more could be known. They say science
standards
should allow teachers to discuss the logical explanations of science rather
than only the natural ones, broadening what teachers may discuss with students
in the classroom. In real science, there is much more to know than what students
currently are learning.Looking closely at what Charles Darwin believed about the origins of life, its deficiencies become apparent. It is not possible to prove Darwin’s theory of origins as there are too many missing pieces and it is not possible to scientifically recreate evolution in a laboratory. Yet, students are being taught the theory of evolution as if it were fact and they are being deprived of an education in which they are exposed to differing ideas about the origins of life.
I liked what President Bush said recently when asked a question by a reporter about whether Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in public school science curriculums. The President replied, “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is, yes.” His generic statement on teaching ID theory in public school has led to a deluge of talk shows, articles, and editorials on the topic. The president’s endorsement of “academic freedom” created a secular firestorm of academic and scientific disapproval. The liberal media jumped into the frenzy. The Washington Post suggested that the president was “indulging in quackery” for political gain. The Los Angeles Times called his comment “one more example of the extreme right’s attempt to create a Taliban-like society.” The pro-evolutionist proponents in the liberal press certainly overreacted to the President’s reasonable statement.
Recently 400 scientists critical of Darwin signed a statement calling the theory of evolution “the great white elephant of contemporary thought.” More and more credentialed scientists are questioning Darwinian evolution because of the holes in it. Holes that Darwinists are not willing to discuss. They are averse to discussing any other theory of the origins of life because it would then make debating evolution legitimate. They say that Darwin’s theory is a “matter of science, not a matter of faith.” But what takes more faith to believe: a theory that all living matter somehow, some place in time, came up from primordial ooze, or to realize from the complexity of created matter that there must be an Intelligent Designer?
Regarding the spiritual reality encircling the evolution debate, some Christians say ID maybe too secular for them, but please remember that while it is not faith-based, the ID theory doesn’t close any doors as to the nature of the designer, it simply argues that design can be detected in the natural world.
According to a Zogby poll, 71 percent of the public favors allowing teachers to acknowledge the scientific controversy surrounding the origins of life. The results of a Pew Research Center poll published on September 1, 2005, show that nearly two-thirds of the people polled, 64 percent, said they believe Creationism should be taught along with evolution. Proponents of ID say that, for now, they merely want to teach that the theory of evolution has problems and gaps in its evidence. They want the scientific community to acknowledge valid criticism of Darwinism.
Darwin’s theory of evolution asserts “species originate by descent, with variation, from present forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.” This theory is taught today as fact in science classrooms throughout the country and attempts to label evolution as a ‘theory only’ have encountered strong resistance. However, many established scientists are skeptical of the humanistic claims of Darwinists for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the vast variety and complexity of life.
Dr. Michael Behe is professor of biology at Pennsylvania’s Lehigh University. His concept of “irreducible complexity” proves the fallacy in Darwin’s theory. In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe illustrates that an interdependent system such as a mousetrap needs all components interlacing in order to function as a mousetrap. If only one component is changed, the entire system would cease to function. Living things do not change one piece at a time in isolation, as Darwin’s theory would have you believe; whether a single cell or an entire organ, each system has many interdependent components. The ID theory which uses scientific findings to say we see evidence of design in the natural world explains this irreducible complexity.
The heart of matter rests in the fact that evolutionists strongly oppose even the discussion of the ID theory. This is very strange behavior from a group of secular atheistic humanists who say they do not believe in absolutes, laud academic freedom of thought and embrace the concept of choice. Their adamant aversion to even discuss some other answer to the origins of life, shows their ineptness to debate their Darwinian belief. Instead, the scientific community has established a sacred tenet, an unwritten rule, claiming science cannot look at design because it is outside the realm of naturalism. Timothy Lamer writes in World Magazine, May 21, 2005, “Darwinists, the critics said, are in effect trying to encode into the scientific method the religious belief that nature is all that exists. The result is ‘methodological naturalism’ that, when promoted in public schools, has government favoring naturalistic religions over theistic and non-naturalistic religions. The second part of the controversy thus involves religious rights: Is the presentation only of Darwinian belief the type of ‘establishment of religion’ that the First Amendment precludes?”
Open-mindedness, critical thinking and careful study should be the badge of scientists. But today in the public schools, this is not the case. The ingeniousness behind the Darwinist public school evolution curriculum is to ridicule Creationism and the Christian faith. Chuck Colson writes in How Now Shall We Live, “Creation is the first element of the Christian worldview, the foundation on which everything else is built. It is the basis of human dignity, for our origin tells us who we are, why we are here, and how we should treat one another.” Darwin’s theory of evolution can answer none of these fundamental human questions.
