“…students who do not understand evolution cannot be said to be scientifically literate”- Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of
the National Center for Science Education, Inc.
“Students who understand the problems inherent in the theory of evolution are
more scientifically literate than those passive recipients who accept it unquestioningly.”- Website Author
In the mass media
and in public education, the evolution/creation debate appears to have been decided in favor of evolution. The above statement made
by Eugenie Scott, executive director of the
The question is, do the
mass media and public education give a fair and balanced presentation of all of the facts, or are they essentially censoring key information
from the public?
Would you be surprised to learn that there are scientific laws and discoveries which pose significant problems
for scientists who advocate for the theory of evolution?
Or, that selective reasoning, combined with a sloppy use of language,
is obscuring important facts from the public?
In order to truly understand the evolution debate, you must understand the following
three terms: micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and abiogenesis.
Micro-Evolution describes changes of certain traits within an
animal species. Individuals within the species may be larger, smaller, more colorful, faster, etc., but they are still genetically
compatible with (are able to produce fertile offspring with) other members of their species who have not experienced a change.
Macro-evolution describes
a change from one species to another. Members of the new species have undergone a change in genetic structure great enough that they
would be genetically incompatible with (unable to produce fertile offspring with) members of the original species (obviously, this
definition does not apply to organisms that reproduce asexually).
Abiogenesis refers to the formation of living organisms from
non-living matter.
There are two “sleights of hand” used to convince the public that the theory of evolution is a better description
of physical reality than creation:
#1 Use of the word “evolution” to describe micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and abiogenesis,
even though these phenomena/ideas are not interchangeable: Micro-evolution has been observed, abiogenesis and macro-evolution have
not been observed.
There are many instances of micro-evolution that have been observed. The word “evolution” simply means “change”,
and animals have been observed to change in order to adapt to their environments. Does micro-evolution, in itself, prove macro-evolution
and abiogenesis?No.
Abiogenesis describes the theory that over billions of years, pools of nonliving matter formed living things.
The theory of macro-evolution assumes that these things then changed drastically to form altogether new species, until eventually,
humans were formed.
Read a few articles defending evolution and watch the magic unfold. You will probably see something like
the following:
“Technically, evolution is described as only a theory, even though there are numerous instances in which it has
been observed to occur.”
Well, yes and no. Micro-evolution has been observed, that is absolutely true, but macro-evolution and
abiogenesis have not been observed, they are only assumed to have occurred. The use of the one word “evolution” to describe these
very disparate concepts is confusing indeed. It can easily mislead the public to believe that scientists have observed non-living
substances form themselves into living organisms, or that they have observed species evolving into different species. This is simply
not true. It is intellectually dishonest, or, at the very least, sloppy science.
Explain this problem to someone who advocates
for abiogenesis and macro-evolution, and you are likely to uncover another twist of language (and logic), which is sleight of hand
#2:
Use of the words “science” or “scientific” to mean “reasonable” or “logical”, although these terms are not interchangeable.
Read
a few more of those articles defending abiogenesis and macro-evolution, and you are likely to see something like this:
“Creationism
is simply not science.”
The impression that you are likely to take away from that statement is that creationism is not logical
or reasonable, or that it is contradictory to the evidence.
That’s not what that statement means. The word “science” refers to
physical phenomena in the physical universe, that can either be observed directly or that leave behind some type of physical evidence.
Creationism, by definition, says that somethingoutside of the physical universe was the cause of the physical universe. It doesn’t
mean that creationism isn’t logical or reasonable, it means that it’s not confined to the physical universe, and is therefore outside
the realm of strictly physical phenomena (“science”).
Well, why don’t the writers just say that? They could easily say that it
simply falls outside of the parameters of the strictly physical universe, instead of implying that it’s a dumb idea.
Here is
where the biases and faulty logic of the Abiogenecists and Macro- evolutionists come in:
It is their OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEF that
there is nothing outside of the physical universe, even though it is impossible to DISPROVE a supernatural realm.
In The Grand
Miracle , C.S. Lewis makes the point that it is not possible to rule out a “spiritual” or “supernatural” realm or plane. If there
is something outside of the physical realm, beyond the natural, (hence “supernatural”, and being not contained within or defined by
the physical plane) physical laws would not necessarily apply to this plane.
Lewis, C.S., The Grand Miracle (Ballantine, New York,
1970) pp. 48-49.
Well, on the other hand, we can understand why scientists might be biased against considering a supernatural
plane, and why they might let their personal opinions impact their outlook on this subject. After all, we cannot necessarily observe
things outside of the physical realm, but we can observe the physical universe, so it makes sense to lean on the side of the physical
universe. One we know exists, and the other may or may not exist…
But here’s the problem: there is some evidence of something
beyond the physical realm. This evidence is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) states
that energy always naturally goes from a more organized state to a less organized state. Here’s an example of how it works:
“For
modern physics, as you have heard before, the universe is “running down”. Disorganization and chance is continually increasing. There
will come a time, not infinitely remote, when it will be wholly run down or wholly disorganized, and science knows of no possible
return from that state. There must have been a time, not infinitely remote, in the past when it was wound up, though science knows
of no winding up process.” [emphasis added] (Lewis, C.S., The Grand Miracle, 1970) p.9.
How did the universe get “wound
up” in the first place? Science has only observed the universe running down, it has not observed the universe winding itself up. Even assuming
for a moment that scientists are correct to rule out supernatural causes and insist on natural ones, within that premise things within
the physical universe can only arise from other things in the physical universe…If we go back in time to the moment of the Big Bang,
we are dealing with an immensely dense material object that is about to explode and become the physical universe as we know it, but…where
did this object come from and how did it get there?
Science doesn’t know. How does something come from nothing?
C.S. Lewis makes the point that if the universe had a beginning, it would essentially be like “creation”, but if the universe did
not have a beginning and is something that just goes on an on- that also would be difficult to understand from a “scientific” viewpoint.
“Science, when it becomes perfect, will have explained the connection between each link in the chain and the link before it. But the
actual existence of the chain will remain wholly unaccountable.” (Lewis, C.S., The Grand Miracle, p. 53).
In his book, God and
the Astronomers, Robert Jastrow explains how frustrating this is for scientists. The beginning (or lack of a beginning) of the universe
is a point beyond which science cannot retrace it’s steps in a rational “cause and effect” fashion.
“The scientist’s pursuit
of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians…. For
the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have
been sitting there for centuries.” Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers (1992,