Let evidence on both sides of evolution debate be presented to challenge critical thinking skills
By Douglas Wellman, Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, 7/21/2013, original
Douglas Wellman
Al Kuelling’s column on June 27 on “Creationism” demonstrates his ignorance of the subject. He claims that many “Christian” denominations accept “evolution” as fact.
That doesn’t prove it to be true. Kuelling and his ilk attempt to denigrate “Creation Science by invoking the “flat earth society.” He is obviously unaware of Isaiah 40:26: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.”
Furthermore, most of the pioneers of the various scientific fields were creationists: Joseph Lister, antiseptic surgery; Louis Pasteur, bacteriology; Isaac Newton (who some claim to be the greatest scientist of all time), calculus and dynamics; Michael Faraday, electromagnetics and field theory; Lord Kelvin, energetics, just to name a few.
Kuelling’s canard about creationism being “anti-science” demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the same. He seems to think that “evolution” is “fact of science,” when nothing could be further from the truth. He also attempts to smear creation science by declaring that is only a religious concept: another canard.
Consider that since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, they have had over 150 years to find their “missing link,” thus far without success. Oh, they have made attempts and touted various finds in the press, all which have been found seriously lacking.
He claims that “evolution” is used daily to cure the sick, diagnose cancer and infectious disease and develop medical cures, without providing proof of one such instance.
“Evolution” is fast losing ground because the evidence is all based on circular reasoning. The evolutionists tout their “geologic column” and use their “radiometric dating” to support it.
There is no empirical evidence to support either, only supposition and their “religious” belief that it is true. Yes, evolutionism is their religion.
One thing needs to be done — that is to separate “historical science” from “empirical science.”
Historical science is the science of attempting to learn how things happened in the past by examining the geological evidence, paleontological evidence and history to determine what happened in the past.
Empirical science is the science that is the result of current experimentation and facts that can ascertained thereby.
Evolutionism and creationism are both historical. So the evidence has to be examined to determine which makes more sense. Evolution has fallen on some hard times lately. Sir Francis Crick, evolutionist and co-discoverer of DNA, realized that DNA was far too complex to have arisen by chance in 4.6 billion years, so he posited “directed panspermia,” which is to say that some alien culture out there somewhere in the universe seeded the building blocks for the DNA here on earth.
Evolutionists tell us the dinosaurs died out 60 million years ago. However, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, an evolutionist, discovered blood cells, blood vessels and collagen in fossilized dinosaur bones. If they had been dead for 60 million years this would be totally impossible.
Let’s look at the results of the spread of the doctrine of evolution. Lenin’s communism was built on evolution as was the governing philosophy of Mao-Tse Tung. Evolution was also foundational to Hitler’s Aryan race. Consider the millions killed as a result.
The claim that all “scientists” are evolutionists is another canard. At the website dissentfromdarwin.org there are 20 pages of scientists, most with Ph D.s, who don’t believe in evolution.
It is indeed funny that degreed creationists are unable to find evolutionists to debate them in a public forum anymore. Evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott encouraged her evolutionist colleagues to avoid debates with creationists. Why, pray tell? “And you would probably get beat.”
Sir Julian Huxley, founder of UNESCO and grandson of T.H. Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog,” was asked why the scientific community so readily embraced evolution. He responded: “I suppose the reason that we leapt at ‘The Origin of the Species’ was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”
Notice, it wasn’t the reliability of the science, but his world view. “Evolution” gave him a way to explain God out of the equation. And they have been doing it ever since.
Consider some of the following admissions by evolutionists. Dr. Francis Crick said: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe in Evolution from Space in 1984 said: “The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primordial soup on this planet or any other, and if the beginnings were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.”
Professor David Allbrook from the University of Western Australia said that evolution “is a time-honored tenet of faith.”
I could fill the editorial page with similar quotes.
The question that I have for the evolutionists is this: If the evidence for evolution is so compelling, why should you be concerned when “evidence” you contend is invalid is presented? Let the evidence on both sides be presented and challenge the critical thinking skills of the students. Surely, if their “theory” is so strongly supported by the “evidence,” it shouldn’t concern them.
As far as the creation science community, it boasts many fine scientists, some, of whom, were formerly evolutionists (Dr. John Baumgardner and Dr. Steve Austin, both geologists). They changed their views because of the evidence.
Other scientists include Dr. Russell Humphreys, physics; Dr. Jason Lisle, astrophysics; Dr. Andrew Snelling, geology; Dr. David Menton cell biology; Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, physical chemistry.
Evolution is only supported and believed in by the scientific community because they need to explain God away. With God out of the picture, they can live however they choose, without fearing any consequences.
Anyone who can look at life, the complexity of this world and the universe, the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life, and believe that it all happened by chance is delusional. Such a belief requires a much, much stronger faith than believing in a God who created it all.
Quite simply put, the best definition of evolution I have ever seen is: “Evolution: man’s attempt to make a monkey out of himself.”
Douglas H. Wellman is a resident of Fort Wayne.
Response
