Evolution survives on censorship
How can you claim evolution survives on censorship? Doesn’t science prove evolution?
John Morris said it best, "Most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. That's all they've ever been taught. If creation is mentioned, it's ridiculed and unfairly caricatured. Thus, evolution is assumed, not proved, and creation is denied, not refuted."
Most people equate evolution with science. Morley Schieffer, on the December 26, 1999 episode of CBS's "Face the Nation," made this assumption when he had renowned evolutionist Stephen J. Gould as his guest to describe what the New Millennium has in store for science.
The facts are that evolution is not science, and the creation model of origin better explains the facts. Darwinian evolution explains that changes from one species to
result from natural selection. However, scientists realized that this explanation alone could not explain the complexity of life on earth. Therefore, Neo-Darwinian evolution claimed that mutation further explains speciation.
Many evolutionist scientists realize that this is mathematically impossible. Thus, Gould developed a theory called punctuated equilibrium--large changes occurring in a short time--to describe the change from one species to another.
Let's address this problem of making new species from an old, like a bird from a lizard, in an objective and scientific manner. There are two possible scientific models we can use to solve this problem. The evolution model necessitates natural, continual processes which require lots and lots of time, blind chance, mutations, natural selection and/or punctuated equilibrium. All these explanations have very serious flaws.
Chance doesn't stand a chance statistically; mutations are an enemy of evolution; natural selection has never produced any such change; and punctuated equilibrium has never been observed in any way, shape, or form.
Time, then, becomes the hero of the plot. "With enough time, anything can happen." Or can it?
Now let's use the creation/biblical model to explain the problem. The Bible says God created birds on day five and lizards (alias land dwelling animals) on day six. It also says that God said for them to reproduce after their own kind. The wide variety of birds and lizards is precisely what one would expect if the supernatural, non-continual explanation of origin were correct.
We observe common characteristics (homology) between some birds and some lizards. This does not mean that they are evolved from each other, but that they have a common Creator.
The bottom line then becomes, "Do you want to have blind faith in chance, or objective faith in a supernatural creation?" Using objective science-biology and geology-which model fits what we see? If science is what we observe with our five senses in the present, then the creation model is a better explanation. The only way to get the evolution model to work is to redefine science, to write biology and geology textbooks with the evolution model assumed, and the creation model censored.
Religion is a "cause, principle or system of belief held to with ardor and faith." Evolution fits this definition and not that of science. Evolution is the wholehearted devotion to chance, requiring tremendous faith, while actively defying reason.
Creation, based on the revealed word of the Creator, is a much more reasoned approach. By presenting both views, we can teach children how to think rather than what to think. Interestingly, the battle cry for evolutionists in the Scopes trial was, "It is absolute bigotry to teach only one view or origin."
There are many examples of evolution surviving on censorship rather than science. The August decision of the Kansas State Board provided an excellent opportunity to censor the truth and promote the evolutionary propaganda. Even Time magazine (August 23, 1999) misrepresented the decision, which merely removed mandatory graduation testing over evolution on the state level. Hence, the very mild (but bold) attempt by the Kansas State Board to be fair by not requiring testing in evolution was distorted to appear as if they were imposing creationism.
Someone said if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes truth. Evolution requires continual support from the censors of our age to maintain its "fact" status. True science embarrasses evolution but true science has always confirmed the Bible.
Previous Table of Contents Next Article
Perhaps you could get my column in your local paper, too! Have your newspaper editor contact me. Also, feel free to email me with any of your questions, comments or disagreements.
Originally published in the Rockdale/Newton Citizen