Theory of Evolution should be studied carefully

What do you think about the controversy over the disclaimer Cobb County is putting in their textbooks about evolution?

What do you think about the controversy over the disclaimer Cobb County is putting in their textbooks about evolution?

The school board in Cobb County voted in March to include an insert in certain textbooks that reads, “This textbook contains material on evolution.  Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.  This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”  This has caused debate over the teaching of evolution, but more than that it has revealed a lot about the proponents of evolution.

The best way to refute evolution is to explain it clearly.  That is why during this debate the public has been presented with confusion and misinformation by much of the media and evolutionists who oppose it.  The debate is not between intelligent design and evolution or between semantics like the definition of theory and fact.  The debate is this: either there is a creator or there is not.  (If you want to be "politically correct" say "designer" instead of "creator.")

The reason so many are so extremely upset about this little insert has nothing to do with science.  Instead, the real reason is old-fashioned prejudice.  According to the American Heritage Dictionary prejudice is "a preconceived preference; bias" or "an irrational hatred of a particular group, race or religion."  Sometimes this hatred is obvious and they resort to name-calling like "religious zealots," "anti-intellectual," "fundamentalist Taliban Wannabees," and "flat-earth creationists."  Other times, the prejudice is more subtle but nonetheless powerful as it takes the form of censorship.  Evolution survives on censorship, not science.  This is why there is such a fierce outcry against a weak insert put in textbooks.  Only by suppressing any opposition to evolution can it stand the test of critical thinking.

Evolution is built on the framework of naturalism.  Naturalism, by definition, necessarily excludes a belief in a supernatural creator or an intelligent designer.  Thus, the least our government schools should do is to acknowledge that evolution offends many of its taxpayers because of its inherent anti-designer nature.  Unfortunately, fairness is being ignored when it comes to those who believe in a Creator.  Those who choose to believe in God are forbidden from having a voice in schools even when science overwhelming supports the idea of a creator over evolution.

Like a magician, biologists have been in the news presenting evolution as a fact of science while at the same time concealing their dirty little secret: evolution does not work.  Like a beautiful, new car with no engine evolution is being sold to an unsuspecting public and forced into the brains of school children.  Several times the public has been given examples by these biologists from natural selection and mutations that seem to be irrefutable proof of evolution.  The fact is, natural selection and mutations are explained much better with the creation model than with the evolution model. 

Natural selection was actually first popularized before Darwin by creationist Edward Blyth in the 1830's.  Natural selection is a fact of nature as Darwin observed with finches on the Galapagos Islands.  Natural selection, however, has never been seen to cause the vertical change required for evolution.  On the other hand, it is exactly what you would predict with a designer concerned about preservation of a species.

A classic example of "evolution in action" that has been used lately is antibiotic resistance.  Bacteria that are resistance to penicillin have been found to be so because of a mutation.  Thus, mutations cause evolution, right?  Not so fast.  In none of the cases of antibiotic resistance studied has new information been formed.  For example, penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to loss of information. These bacteria are resistant because they have lost the ability to produce a gene that determines the amount of an enzyme called penicillinase.  This enzyme will kill the penicillin and thus make penicillin ineffective in killing the bacteria.  This has nothing to do with evolution, the bacteria are still bacteria, and no new, higher form of life has been produced.  Evolution requires an upward movement of organization; mutations provide just the opposite.  In this case there has been a loss of genetic information; evolution, by definition, requires a gain of genetic information.  Mutations are the enemy of evolution, not an explanation of it.  Mutations explain the origin of death and destruction, not life.

To be continued in a later column…

Page 114

Previous Article   Table of Contents    Next Article

Perhaps you could get my column published 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.

©Tom Carpenter
This article was not published in the Rockdale/Newton Citizen