CREATION VERSUS
EVOLUTION AT UCF
An editorial appeared in the Central Florida Future on
A lot of conservative parents are
causing a stink about the teaching of it in science classes. According to the
religious community, it goes against the concept of a God who created
everything on Earth in one week.
People have been calling for the
elimination of evolution teaching in schools since it was implement-ed….
The debate on the conservative side
is essentially attempting to slow the march of science, just as the Catholic
Church tried to excommunicate Galileo Galilei for
saying the Earth revolved around the Sun. It took the church hundreds of years
to forgive him for that one. That was also hundreds of years after his theories
were proven to everybody who didn't attempt to forcibly blindfold their entire
culture….
Regardless of the outcome of the
creation versus evolution debate, we're just going to be laughing at the dead
idea years from now. The evidence of an evolutionary biological history has
been piling up for more than 100 years. It may eventually be superceded by a
more precise theory, but until then, it's the best scientific theory we have to
explain how we came to be….
One of our
first-year college students, Michelle Walker, wrote a response to this
one-sided presentation of the topic. Her
letter follows.
“Christianity Does Have Scientific
Support”
As a Christian who is well aware of
the evolution versus creation debate, I was appalled by the bias in your recent
article “Evolution Debate Needs Compromise.” You insinuate that Christianity
and science have nothing in common and that the conservative side is
“attempting to slow the march of science.”
I find this ironic, because over 90%
of all the technological breakthroughs that have benefited humans came from the
30% of people who claim some belief in Christianity. I’ve listed just a few for
your benefit: Sir Isaac Newton (Physics, Calculus, Mathematics, Astronomy, Gravity), Johann Kepler (Founder
of Astronomy), Blaise Pascal (Theory of Probability,
Hydrostatics, Differential Calculus), Robert Boyle (father of modern
Chemistry), Louis Pasteur (Germ Theory), Gregory Mendel (Gene-tics), Sir
Ambrose Fleming (pioneer of electronics), The Wright Brothers (airplanes), and
Michael Faraday (experimental physicist).
The example citing the Catholic Church’s
persecution of Galileo was a poor example of religion “forcibly blindfolding”
society. First, the Catholics were not the only ones who opposed his theory. At
the time his theory was an affront to the popular “scientific” opinion by
Aristotle and Ptolemy, the theory that the earth is the center of the universe
and that everything revolves around it. The Catholics had misinterpreted the
Scriptures. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Earth is flat or the center of
the universe. In fact, it says the opposite in Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions
God as “he who sits above the circle of the earth.” The word circle here comes from the Hebrew word chuwg, which literally
means “roundness” or “sphere-like.” There are plenty of examples of science
catching up with the Bible, not vice versa.
Evolutionary theory is full of
errors, and if people would actually look at the “evidence,” they will see
that. Check out:
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp
or www.apologeticspress.org/examinetheevidence/index.html and see for
yourself.
We certainly
commend Michelle for a well-written, well-thought-out, concise reply. As one might expect, there were responses
from others. One was from Luther Setzer, titled “God Doesn't Exist.” Below are a few excerpts from his message,
which was published:
God is fiction, not fact. Man invented God in his own image.
Christians such as the author claim that God is the Creator of the Universe.
To quote Atheist author Charles Schisler: "The infinite universe is eternally
uncaused! We should not look under every rock or behind every galaxy for an
ultimate creator, or for any other logical contradiction such as square
circles. Gods are simply the product of defective thought. We need not remain
lifetime fools; we must begin affirming that that religion is not only false, but
morally repugnant and harmful."
The second
letter, published the same day, is by Charles Eugene; excerpts are provided
below from his editorial, “Science Versus Religion.”
Of the three scientists that the
author mentions [the newspaper deleted all but three that Michelle had listed, gws] (all of which were strongly indoctrinated as
children), two of them denounced their religion during adulthood and none of
them were able to use their scientific knowledge to support religion.
Science is a method of reason and
study that requires testing and verifiable proof. The great thing is that all
scientific theories are open to being proved wrong. The longer a scientific
theory is able to stand up against challenging theories, the stronger it
becomes. The scientific theory of evolution has stood a long test of time, and
to this date offers the best explanation of our origin.
Religion requires no testing and no
proof. Also, religion will not tolerate questions or investigation of itself.
There is no scientific evidence or proof supporting religion. This is why
religion is based on belief and faith.
The Bible…is nothing more than a
story, a fairy-tale that should be rated "R" for violence, adult
language and sexual content. The Bible is full of errors, contradictions, and
absurdities.
Here certainly is
a prime example of someone who speaks words without knowledge. Michelle responded to these letters in one
final column.
“More Scientific Christian Evidences”
Due to the strong written responses
regarding my article, I felt the need to explain my point further. I was
saddened by the arguments made. One student felt that God does not exist and
the other that Christians follow a book of errors. In today’s society I’m not
surprised by their doubts; religion is constantly portrayed as a pointless
pastime in all branches of media. Even people who claim to be Christians don’t
always follow God’s will. But to say that it’s “morally repugnant and harmful”
is over the top. A book that contains
passages about loving your neighbor, respecting parents, etc., is not evil.
Nevertheless, like the website quoted, any passage can be taken out of context,
and be misunderstood.
However, upon further examination and
proper context, Biblical “errors” are easily explained. The point that religion
is based on faith alone is wrong. No one in or out of the Bible has been asked
to believe in the absence of evidence. What do you think all those miracles and
signs were for? John 20:30-31 states: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in
the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these
are written that you may believe....”
I do agree with one point made—that
all scientific theories are open to being proved wrong. So why should evolution
be any different? The Creation theory has never been given a valid chance, due
to many misconceptions and prejudices against religion. Therefore, I challenge
anyone who wants to be truly objective to seriously consider our scientific
arguments (www.apologeticspress.org)....
Michelle’s
response was excellent. She had only so
many words allowed her that the paper could print. Fortunately, we are not so restricted
here. Therefore, we would like to add a
few comments about the allegations made in these two student responses.
God Is Fiction, Made in Man’s Own
Image
This charge is so
trite and obviously false on the face of it that it scarcely needs a
response. If the writer had ever read
Romans 1, he could have arrived at the truth of the matter, instead of
parroting some professor. Romans 1:18-20
explains, first of all, that we created beings can use the reasoning ability
that God gave us to come to a knowledge of the
existence of God. The vastness and
orderliness of the universe demand an intelligent Creator. Not a product comes forth but what, when we
look at it, we know that an intelligent designer was be-hind its inception. Yet when it comes to the universe, the
response is, “Oh, that just happened.” How logical is that?
Not only does the
Creation itself proclaim the existence of God, so does the Revelation that God
gave to us. He explains how things
really happened and how we got to where we are now. The facts verify the truth of His revelation.
Romans 1,
speaking of the time after the Flood, states that, “although they knew God,
they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their
thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened” (v. 21). Man did not invent God; He already knew Him. Unfortunately, he did not like what he knew
about Him—namely that He was pure and holy.
So, “Professing
to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God
into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed beasts” (vv.
21-22). In other words, they did not
like God the way He was; so they decided to change Him. They invented idolatry. Why would they do that? Man has a need to be religious; He will
worship some-thing, whether it is the true and living God, an idol, nature, money,
power, or himself. All manmade religions
have one thing in common: they allow people to do certain things that a Holy God
would not sanction. Cited in Romans 1 is
the sin of homosexuality.
For this reason
it is ludicrous to assert that man in-vented the God of the Bible. When man creates a god, he is as corrupt as
his author. Consider the antics of the
gods in Greek and Roman mythology: they behave just like human beings, only
they are assigned greater powers. Such
is typical of human design and desire.
Even with the Bible,
look at what has happened in the past fifty years. Divorce was once relatively rare, but those
claiming to be Christians do not have enough backbone to tell people that divorce
is unauthorized and that adulterous unions are wrong. We have a society of people who are consumed
by alcohol, and who dares to suggest that there is something sinful about
it? Immodest clothing seems to be the
norm; how many have stood against this trend?
Thirty-two years ago abortion was not legal (as a whole) in this nation. Even today many “Christians” think that God
is not all that upset with the slaughter of innocent lives in the womb. Living together outside of marriage has be-come
commonplace and even some so-called famous “reverends” refuse to condemn that
sin. And now those following the
homosexual agenda have just about got what they want. Religious denominations refuse to condemn the
sin and are even ordaining practitioners as “priests.” MAN
HAS DONE ALL THESE THINGS IN THE FACE OF GOD’S REVELATION! When one considers how our culture has
influenced “the church,” the charge that man invented a holy God is
absurd. The facts tell us that man wants
Divine approval for all the sins he enjoys practicing.
Atheistic Logic
Concerning Schisler’s quoted statement, “The infinite universe is
eternally uncaused!”—is this what is passing for intellectual genius
today? It is nothing more than romantic
nonsense. Such a statement violates
every principle we know and, if applied consistently, would destroy scientific
inquiry. Are we supposed to suspend
belief in “cause and effect” upon his word?
Pasteur certainly believed there was a
cause for the appearance of organisms.
How sad if he had simply concluded, “I guess they were just eternally
uncaused.” We are inquisitive souls; we
want to know why things are the way they are—why things happen the way they
do. For that reason, science was
developed in the first place. Schisler is only ready to depart from logic be-cause it
brings him to God, a conclusion he does not want to reach; therefore, he will
choose to be irrational over the Truth.
Gods (the manmade
variety) are the product of defective thought, but the one who rejects God
is the fool, not vice versa (Ps. 14:1).
While false religions exist, they do not negate the possibility or the
reality of true religion, just as false scientific theories of the past do not
invalidate true science. Schisler should also ex-plain how something can be morally
repugnant without God’s objective system of morality.
Length of Time
Mr. Eugene says
that the longer something stands without being disproven, the greater the
likelihood that it is right. How long
was putting leeches on people to suck out the bad blood practiced as science
before it was disproven? Evolution has never
been proven, which a few of its honest proponents have even admitted. After nearly 150 years, some still go to
sleep each night dreaming (we would say praying, but…) that they will be the
one to find the definitive evidence for it.
Perhaps Mr.
Eugene should consider that people in the first century believed the evidence
for the Deity of Christ {John
Investigation
Where did Mr.
Eugene get the idea that “religion will not tolerate questions or investigation
of itself”? He did not get it from the
Bible, in which God said, “Come now and let us reason together” (Isa.
Since the Bible
deals with human behavior, it does describe violence, but it is not
glorified. Language does state certain
facts, but the difference between it and pornographic prose is obvious to MOST
people. Sexual misconduct is mentioned
but not in a lurid manner, nor is it ever endorsed or included to titillate the
reader. If the Bible was as raunchy as
Mr. Eugene pretends, more people would be reading it. These charges pro-vide nothing new. To even discuss them is like chewing on stale
bread. We much prefer the true manna
from Heaven.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please
refer to this article as: "<title> (
Return
To Article Index