So much for A Common Misconception among Evolutionists andCreation Science

William Cumming wdc0636 at SILVER.SDSMT.EDU
Sun Oct 25 12:05:52 EST 1998

Richard Hall wrote:

> There are no misconceptions between Evolutionary theory and Creation "Science."
> Evolutionary biology is a systematic study of the possible mechanisms
> explaining the fossil record which shows tremendous changes in the forms
> and diversity of life on earth over the past billion or so years.  Many
> ideas have arisen, some fail and some succeed.  Human theories are
> susceptible to human foibles.  Still there is an abundance of evidence that
> changes have occurred.  These changes are not specifically addressed in the
> bible because the bible is not a scientific treatise.  The bible is a
> sociological history of humankind moving from animal to social animal to
> creatures forming a conscious society that values ethics, compassion, and
> understanding.  It is based on writings that a no more than 3,000 years
> old.   There was no biology, no science when the important documents of
> Christianity were written.  Thus there was no need for the ancients to
> address issues of science.

Is not the origin of man an issue of science?

> Biology is a discipline that found its origins in the mid-19th century and
> evolutionary theory is one of its greatest fruits.  Evolutionary theory is
> based on evidence that in some instances may be 500,000,000 years old.
> Humans (like us) have walked this earth for only 50,000-250,000 years and
> well organized, documentable human societies have existed for perhaps the
> last 7-10,000 years.  The bible addresses a brief, but remarkable period in
> the social evolution of mankind.  It is important, it is meaningful, but it
> is not a resource that needs corroboration from the fossil record,
> molecular biology, or evolutionary theory.  It finds corroboration in
> archeology, anthropology, and in the fundamental nature of humans who
> marvel at the wonder of fire, the sky, the seasons, and strive to find
> solace in strength of character and resolute confidence that there is more
> to life than sinew and grit.

Science does not require evidence? Since when? On what basis does a scientist put
his or her theory? On speculation? If the record does not exist than how could
evolution be anything better than a fantasy? And what is the difference between
this and God?

> Creation "Science" is an attempt by some very serious individuals to
> validate their faith with concrete evidence.  But the very definition of

Evolutionary "Science" is an attempt by some very unserious individuals to validate
their theory with unscientific evidence.

> faith is that beliefs do not require evidence.  Instead faith requires a

But the very definition of science is that theories do.

> large measure  trust in a belief.  True faith requires only faith.  One of
> the few weaknesses of the Christian faith is the reliance on miracles as
> evidence of the great power and love of God.  Perhaps there is a god and
> perhaps there is life after death.  For a believer to question either
> demonstrates doubt, a lack of faith.  In my humble opinion that is the
> fulcrum upon which reasonable doubt and unquestioning faith teeters.

But my question wasn't about people with poor faith. It was about people with poor

> In the eighteen hundred or so years of organized Christian religion, it has
> been the sociological impact of religion and its' emphasis on compassion
> and forgiveness that has contributed to its positive effects on humanity.
> There have been many great and near great scientists who were and are also
> believers.  For some, the apparent dicotomy was troubling, but for many it
> was simply irrelevant.  "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar..."  While
> science and faith need not be mutually exclusive, creation science is a
> powerful testimony to a lack of faith in its proponents.   In the hands of
> some, it is a way to make a living by playing to the doubts of many.  To
> some it is an excuse to attack non-believers.  In the hands of others, it
> is a sad admission that faith is sometimes not enough.

Where faith is not enough is where we find science. Its true that many of the great
discoveries in science were made by people who had a strong faith in a God, and
this confuses me. Because if they had a strong faith in a God then their motivation
to find cold and hard scientific fact was inspired by the irrational, by the
unscientific. What that tells me is that its highly possible their evidence is

> There is no misconception...if you believe in God, you do not need science
> to validate your faith.  If you doubt your faith, using bad science will
> not fill the hole in your soul.

I agree that there is no misconception. It's true that where you compare an
evolutionist's theory on the origin of man to a religion, you compare the apples of
science to the oranges of hope and miracle. But I'm setting that asside in my
question.Despite the fact that they both strive to answer the same question: the
origin of man. Faith is not the same thing as science, agreed, but not the point.
Faith is not a religiously prejudiced practice, but a human one. And where of the
two disciplines (religion and science) is the human tendency to "believe" more out
of place? In religion? No..

Bad science is something everyone has to be on the lookout for. If we don't, we run
the risk of turning the cold, hard, and therefore trustworthy objectivity of
science into nothing more than a religion. Faith is the unwelcomed guest, and I
think that it's tendency to leap into the realm of good scientific judgement leads
us to premature conclusion, particularly those who claim they're immune, they're
not even aware of it.


More information about the Bioforum mailing list