Creation, God and controversy

Well, not to disappoint, we are taking a brief look at another "hot topic" in our society. Who hasn't heard someone spout, "Creationists are not scientists" and other such language. Again, the debate comes down to interpretation, but this time it isn't interpretation of Scripture (at least on the surface), but of observable facts, at least in the sense of operational science (historical science always includes a presupposed philosophical point of view).

Of course, this does have to do with which authority one considers to be in charge. If God is in charge, then we should take His Word to be the authority in matters, including our view of science and the origins of the world. But if (fallible) man's authority is in charge, we had better be ready to change with the wind, because that is what has happened with man in charge, even since the beginning.

Not everyone wants this 'debate' to be so open, however. As Dr. David Menton shows us in the below article, many, especially those in charge at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), want to squash any attempt at scholarship in our culture. It is quite interesting that we want to have all the information (as the intelligible scholars we are here in America), yet only wish to disseminate a certain part of it for others. I call that brainwashing. Who's brainwashing you? It is sure to be happening, unless you are filtering information as is seeps in. And what is your filter? If you haven't guessed, the answer should be God's Word. Hey, the author of the Bible (God) who spoke through many prophets and apostles along the way, was the only one there! I would go with that witness any day. Besides being all-powerful, all-knowing and the like, He tells us over and over again that He loves us and wants us to be with Him for eternity. But there are some who do not want people hearing any message that might sound like that. Here is one of the places you should watch in the future. We thank Dr. Menton (professor emeritus from Washington University, Professor of the Year twice) for this insightful tool of discernment for future generations.

A Battle for Men’s Souls
David N. Menton

The 172nd national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) met in St. Louis on February 16-20, 2006. I had the opportunity to attend this convention on behalf of AIG, and what I heard and saw is of great importance to all who are concerned about Biblical Christianity and the future of public education in America. Christians be warned! – Evolutionists in the name of “science” so-called have challenged us to nothing less than a battle for men’s souls.

“Science” under attack!
The AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society and their annual meetings comprise well over a hundred different seminars and symposia covering every imaginable field of science and pseudoscience from “Stem Cell Research” to “Astrobiology” (the “study” of life forms around distant stars!). A major theme this year was the growing battle between Creationism and evolutionism in our public schools. In several different symposia with titles like “Anti-Evolutionism in America” and “Science under Attack,” dozens of speakers raised a strident and angry denunciation of Christian “fundamentalists” who they claim seek nothing less than the end of all science!

Lawyers are ensuring that our science classes remain God-free zones
In one session titled “Constitutional Principles and Legal Strategies in the Creation and Evolution Debates” sponsored by the American Bar Association, lawyers crowed over their victories against “intelligent design (ID)” and “Creationism” in recent court battles with school districts in Dover, PA and Cobb County, GA. Apparently the AAAS is counting on lawyers to continue to keep our public schools a God-free zone.

Ray Eve from the University of Texas at Arlington reported on how a belief in Creation and a young earth correlates with many politically “incorrect” views such as opposition to homosexuality. Eve evoked disdainful laughter from the audience when he mentioned such matters as the “fundamentalists” belief in God, angels, the devil, prophecy and the return of Christ. Eve’s biggest concern in future court battles, however, is not the “fundamentalists,” but what he calls “ratchet evolutionists.” These are people who accept evolutionism but reject “strict naturalism.” Presumably, even a belief in evolutionism is not enough for our legal defenders if it is not accompanied by an unquestioning belief in a philosophy of crass materialism.

Diffuse the Creation/evolution controversy by “teaching about religion”
Jay Wexler from Boston University declared that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional because it’s “religion,” though he conceded that the Supreme Court has yet to define religion. Still, Wexler felt that we could “defuse” the Creation/evolution controversy if our public schools were to “teach about religion.” What he has in mind of course is that all religions would be granted equal coverage and taught as mythology. While Wexler applauded the decision of Federal Judge Jones in the Dover PA case that “intelligent design is breathtaking insanity” and is “not science,” he was leery of judges deciding what is science and what is not, lest it “come back to haunt us.”

Teachers “have no academic freedom”
Steven Gay of Florida State University exhibited anger and sarcasm against ID and Creationism as he spoke on “Field Strategies: What Proponents of Evolution Need to Know.” Gay insisted that we don’t even have to decide what is and is not science when it comes to ID, since “everyone agrees that whatever science is this ain’t it.” Gay warned that one of the strategies the ID proponents are now trying in the courts is to ask that high school teachers be permitted to critically evaluate the evidence for evolution, but he insisted that teachers below the University level “have no academic freedom” to do this, and angrily declared - “You do not have the academic right to be incompetent.”

The lawyers “scare the hell out of the school boards”
Gay said that the decision of Federal Judge Jones against teaching ID in Dover, PA was “great because it scares the hell out of the school boards.” He said that school districts can’t afford to go to court over teaching ID because when they loose they will have to pay for all the legal expenses and quipped that “lawyers make $500 an hour” and “eat at expensive restaurants.”

“Why are you a Baptist?”
Like Wexler, Gay also proposed that teachers should be taught how to “teach about religion” in our public schools in the hope of preventing a conflict between religion and evolutionism. His solution is that we teach how religion itself evolved and ask our students questions such as “Why are you a Baptist?”

Science Under Attack – People are relying on religious explanations and prayer!
The program description for a symposium titled “Science Under Attack” reports with alarm that “Recent data indicates a growth in public support for biblical explanations and a growing reliance on prayer and religious explanation.” Several speakers in this symposium implied that this will have to stop if there is to be any hope for science and, indeed, the future of America.

The leadoff speaker in this symposium was Eugenie Scott, head of the anticreationist organization pretentiously called the “National Center for Science Education (NCSE)” and the darling of evolutionary dogmatists everywhere. Scott lamented that education policy and curriculum is decentralized in over 1700 school districts in the United States and proposed that the science curriculum be centralized. No doubt her NCSE stands ready to set the guidelines for such a national curriculum.

Scott asks, “What other designer other than God could have made all this complexity?”
Scott lashed out against the suggestion of the ID movement to “teach the controversy” regarding evolutionism, insisting that there is no controversy among those entitled to an opinion. She regards all scientific criticism of evolutionary dogma in the classroom to be “religious” because “if you denigrate evolution then God did it” so you are really “sneaking creationism into the curriculum.” Although most evolutionists have in the past argued that evidence against evolution does not imply evidence for Creation, incredibly Scott asked; “What other designer other than God could have made all this complexity?” Those in the ID movement who ingenuously deny that they have God in mind as the designer could learn something from Scott - what other designer after all is there that could have made the heavens and the earth and all its inhabitants? We may be certain it wasn’t the mindless and purposeless process of random evolution that Scott imagines.

Christian fundamentalism is behind the rejection of modern science
Jon Miller of Northwestern University spoke on what he called “The Erosion of Public Acceptance of Modern Science in the United States.” Having convinced himself that the public support for science in America has been waning over the last several years, Miller puzzled over the incongruous fact that for the last 60 years America has been a leader in science and that Americans in fact generously support science and eagerly adopt new technology. He conceded that the reservations that Americans have for “science” are largely confined to evolutionism and embryonic stem cell research. Still, he said, it was shocking that only about 13% of Americans are convinced that evolution is true and lamented that no other country in the world rejects evolutionism to the degree that Americans do. Miller concluded that “fundamentalism” is behind this rejection of “modern science” (i.e. evolutionism). He defined “fundamentalism” as the belief that the Bible is the Word of God and that there is a personal God who hears the prayers of individuals.

We must reach young children with evolutionism
Shirley Malcom, head of AAAS Education and Resources believes that Americans are willing to accept science until it involves a “clash of values” or has “politically unacceptable implications.” Along with others, she proposed that we must reach the young children because early education in science (i.e. evolutionism) is essential for “adult literacy.” Roger Bybee, head of the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) that over the past 40 years has developed evolution laced biology textbooks, agreed suggesting that “School programs should introduce concepts fundamental to evolution beginning in elementary grades.”

Teachers have done a poor job of teaching evolutionism
Gary Wheeler, head of the National Science Teachers Association and a strong advocate for evolutionism admitted that “every time I support evolution I get hate mail.” Wheeler declared that “teachers lack knowledge of evolution” and that colleges are “doing a dreadful job of teaching science (i.e. evolutionism) to teachers.” Despite the heavy indoctrination in evolutionism that most students get in the course of their education, many conference participants blamed teachers and those involved in teacher training for the failure of Americans to believe in evolutionism. Wheeler says that the two messages he tries to get across to his Creationist critics are: 1) “evolution is necessary for America to remain competitive” in the world, and 2) “it is not fair to teach students about nonscientific ideas.”

Anti-Evolutionism in America – All criticism of evolution is religion!
In yet another anti-creation symposium titled “Anti-Evolutionism in America: What’s Ahead,” the venerated Eugenie Scott once again took the lead to explain the different varieties of anti-evolutionism and how to combat them. She described the two types of Creationism as being Bible based Creationism and Design based Creationism, commonly known as the ID movement. She said that Creation science is actually the richer and more scientific of the two because it makes more “fact claims” than ID. Creation science, for example, has a “historical narrative” while ID has none. Finally, she encouraged evolutionists to “not stop using the peppered moth” as evidence for evolution (despite the fact that it has been shown to be based on fraudulent data). In fact, Scott encouraged her audience to ignore all evidence against evolution because “any time you hear any evidence against evolution assume creationism is behind it.”

Evolution on the Front Line – an outreach to school teachers
A special session titled “Evolution on the Front Line: An Event for St. Louis-Area Teachers” was open to teachers at no cost (as opposed to a $350 fee to attend the rest of the conference). Throughout the conference, teachers had been accused of their dismal failure to teach science (i.e. evolutionism), but in this special session with many teachers in attendance, teachers were warmly praised for their noble efforts.

“Questioning evolution threatens all of science”
The leadoff speaker was the Missouri Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan who said “the best day of his life was when we passed the (embryonic) stem cell research bill in the house.” He assured the teachers that he was totally opposed to ID and insisted that “questioning evolution threatens all of science.” He urged teachers to show conviction when teaching evolution and assured them that “evolution is compatible with religion.”

“If God is a scientist He is a poor one”
A consistent theme among nearly all the speakers in this session for teachers was that “there is no conflict between evolution and religion.” In an apparent effort to prove this point a noted Jesuit astronomer was invited to address the teachers, but he was less than reassuring. Indeed, no speaker was more controversial and irreverent than the Reverend George Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory in Rome.

In his address, “Is God a Scientist? A Catholic Look at Evolution,” he declared that “if God is a Scientist, He is a poor one.” He quipped that if God were a scientist, “I would want an eye with 360 degree vision.” He assured his audience that “God is not an engineer or a designer of the universe,” and that indeed if He were, “that would belittle God.” Coyne explained that “the Scriptures were written before science was developed” and that its authors “couldn’t have known the future.” According to Coyne, “God let the Universe participate in its own creation.” In a concluding statement that seemed to embarrass just about everyone except Coyne he said “I’m sorry to be so emphatic about fundamentalism, but the literal interpretation of Scripture is a plague in our midst.”

Take Home Lessons from the AAAS Convention for the Christian
What may the concerned Bible believing Christian conclude from the AAAS conference and how might we respond to its challenges? The first lesson is that we cannot look to the courts to support the teaching of ID or Creation in the public school. Perhaps the most that can be accomplished is to get the protection of the courts for those teachers who elect on their own to critically evaluate the evidence for evolution. But even this will be vehemently contested by evolutionists and their lawyers.

Evolutionists are not winning in the minds of most Americans
While it may well be true that ID is dead as a legal maneuver to force change in the public schools, Creation and ID are not dead in the hearts of most Americans. Even the evolutionists concede that while they are winning in the courts, they are not winning in the minds of most Americans. Because they do not understand why this is so, they will continue to try to correct the problem in the schools by crushing all descent and teaching evolution ever more frequently, stridently and dogmatically. Even some of the secular press covering the AAAS convention commented on the zeal and dogmatism of the evolutionists.

Evolutionists are now taking their battle into the church
Evolutionists understand that most Americans believe in a Creator God, and they also understand that they cannot win the battle for men’s souls as long as the public understands that there is a deep conflict between Biblical Christianity and evolution. The AAAS tries to obscure this fact and intends to take the battle into the church where they hope to convince both clergy and laymen that “evolution is compatible with religion.” But this is a meaningless claim because while evolutionism is compatible with some religions it is certainly not compatible with others. Almost anything could be said to be compatible with some religion.

Throughout the conference there were appeals for “people of faith” to speak to the news media to show the compatibility of evolutionism and “faith.” Some evolutionists are even getting into churches to preach the “gospel” of evolutionism often under the guise of titles like “The Preservation of Biodiversity.”

In 1995 the AAAS established the program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DSER) to establish communication between scientific and religious communities. In a notice for an upcoming meeting sponsored by DSER called “The Evolution Dialogues,” the questions are asked: Does evolutionary theory deny the existence of god as Creator? Must Christians choose between evolutionary science and their faith? They insist that “the answer all of these questions is a resounding, NO!”

How can the AAAS make these claims when by their own estimates over half of all Americans reject evolution in favor of the Biblical account of Creation? The answer is really quite simple though they are reluctant to put it on the table for all to see. It is OK to believe in a “God” as long as you do not claim that this God actually does anything physical like create natural things by the power of His Word or physically answer the prayers of an individual person. In other words it is OK to believe in a God who doesn’t actually do anything because the physical world (all of reality in their view) is the exclusive domain of science.

A warning to Bible-believing Christians – Do not let the schools “teach about religion”
Christians should be very wary of any efforts on the part of the public schools to “teach about religion.” Some Christians naively think that this sounds like a good idea but evolutionists and the courts will insure that all religions be given equal status and all be considered to be mythology. Evolutionists can hardly wait to teach young students how religion evolved in the mind of primitive man and puzzle over its adaptive value. They know that when the students are confronted with a bewildering array of religious myths many will conclude that none of them is worth their belief or devotion.

Challenge the teachers of evolutionism
Finally, many teachers of evolution at the conference said that the thing that troubles them most are the students and parents that complain about evolution undermining Biblical truths and Christian beliefs. The teachers are also troubled by the scientific challenges and criticism of evolution from both students and parents and that they often do not have the answers to respond. This tells us that we should stay informed about Creation and keep the pressure on the teachers who try to indoctrinate our students on evolutionism.

In conclusion, we would do well to consider the warning of Paul to the Colossians: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.” Colossians 2:8-10 NKJV

For more important information, click the link here or to the right at www.answersingenesis.org