This paper is being released by the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) in response to the 2008 publication by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled “Science, Evolution and Creationism”. The publication being discussed here is available for free download from the NAS web page http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/.
The purpose of the NAS publication is to discredit the concept of creation as being “non-scientific”, and to suppress any teaching of creation alongside evolution in the classrooms of our educational establishments.
CSI believes that many of the opinions put forth by the NAS:
are biased by atheist-driven motives
-
are scientifically flawed
-
are misstated or worded in such a way as to mislead the reader
-
are incredibly disrespectful to the Christian, Jewish and other faiths
-
fail to acknowledge the beliefs on which our great nation was founded and our fathers of science held to be true
-
fail to recognize the vast body of scientific research that points in another direction
-
ignore and disenfranchise the growing number of scientists who do not support these views.
Introduction
Before we begin reviewing the NAS publication, it is necessary to make a few general points about this publication and about the position being upheld by the NAS.
Who is the National Academy of Sciences?
The NAS is a body of elected members and was established by a charter granted by an Act of Congress in 1863. It is the foremost body that advises the United States Government and the nation in general, in matters of science, technology, engineering and medicine.
An formidable organization indeed, but let's look a little deeper at the composition of the NAS membership from the perspective of the world views they espouse. A 1998 survey published in the Nature scientific journal, revealed the following alarming statistics about the NAS membership:
That leaves only 7% of their membership who believe in God, in stark contrast to 90% of the general US population, whom this self-elected body of scientists is supposed to serve!
This begs the question: did science influence their theological beliefs, or did their theology influence their scientific beliefs?
Why do we Take Issue with their Publication?
The Bible declares that God created the heavens and the earth, and that God created man in his present form. The NAS publication is basically declaring the Bible to be untrue on this matter, one of its most basic tenets. This presents a major and troubling dichotomy. Our nation was founded with the concept of a Creator God inherent in our Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance and in the beliefs and testimony of most of our founding fathers.
Despite the inclusion of some quotes from religious leaders designed to appease people of faith, the NAS publication amounts to a thinly-veiled promotion of the atheist views that seemingly pervade their organization. Those 90% of Americans who profess a belief in God (presumably, in most cases, as Creator) should be very alarmed, even outraged, at this disgraceful corporate stance by our National Academy of Sciences which amounts to nothing short of blasphemy against the Word of God.
A Conflict of “World Views”
Arguments about Creation versus Evolution inevitably boil down to what is called one's “world view”. There is one “camp” who believe that life as we know it was created by a superior being, a deity which most would call God. There is another camp who has bought into the concept of “evolution”, popularized by the works of Charles Darwin in his 1959 book “Origin of Species”.
The creationist camp believes that life started “high” (in terms of complexity and function) and has gradually deteriorated over time through disease, destructive mutations and extinctions. The evolutionist camp believes that life started “low” (chance combination of chemicals) and evolved through undirected forces of nature and beneficial mutations to become ever more complex over eons of time. There are many confused people somewhere in the middle who perhaps want to believe the former (after all, the existence of God gives us a sense of purpose in this life and a hope for eternal life), but through decades of indoctrination have perhaps come to put some degree of faith in the teachings of evolution.
The teaching of evolution has been one of the most cunning, subversive and deceitful tools employed by the secular world in its “War on God”, and its attempt to undermine Christianity in particular.
A Shifting Public Mindset
2008 marks the release of a major motion picture “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, starring Ben Stein. In this documentary-style movie, we see that public science policy and dogma is forged by the elite few who control our media, and our institutions such as universities, museums, and of course, organizations like the NAS. We begin to realize that perhaps our science institutions are home to many quiet dissenters who dare not speak up for fear of losing their very livelihoods.
But here's the interesting statistic: Based on a 2005 poll, 64% of Americans believe they were created directly by God. Only 22% fully buy into the theory of evolution. When compared with a similar poll taken nearly a decade earlier, we see that public opinion has been slowly shifting toward creation and away from evolution. This, despite gargantuan efforts to brainwash the public over many decades that evolution is a “fact”, the outright censorship of the creation message, and attempts to paint “creationists” as a fringe group of simple-minded, uneducated fanatics.
The stance being taken by the NAS is a huge gamble for them, because evidence and logic are simply not on their side, as we'll illustrate in the pages to follow. It is by no means certain that the NAS will win the battle for public “mind share” over the long term. If they lose this battle they've so purposefully picked, then the price they pay for it could be devastating.
The Word of God versus The Word of Man
Let's be clear: the Theory of Evolution stands in direct defiance to the Word of God as recorded in the Holy Bible. There can be no middle ground. The two concepts are polar opposites. Although many confused souls try to do so, logically one cannot believe in both the God of the Bible and in evolution, any more than one could believe in both atheism and creation.
CREATION aligns itself with BELIEF AND FAITH IN GOD
EVOLUTION aligns itself with ATHEISM
There are well over 100 passages in the bible that speak of God's creation. The NAS publication, despite taking aim at the inherently biblical subject of creation, totally ignores what the Word of God has to say on this subject. Not one verse from the bible is even examined in their document. Our purpose is to set the record straight from both a biblical and scientific standpoint.
We believe our scientific arguments are sound enough to stand on their own strengths, as we realize (sadly, in today's world) that many skeptics will simply reject biblical testimony as being irrelevant. However we cannot simply brush aside what the Bible has to say on this matter that – by its very nature – has biblical teaching at its core. So we will include biblical references to reinforce, without diminishing, our scientific analysis.
Can we Argue with such a Highly Regarded Scientific Authority as the NAS?
We take no pleasure in trying to “take on” an institution with the standing of the NAS, and flat out declare that they are wrong. We'd much prefer that they'd adopt a position of neutrality toward the controversial subject of origins. The NAS could have left people to their own opinions on this sensitive subject, without any detriment whatsoever to the quality of science education. Nonetheless, the NAS decided to release this document. In doing so, they have drawn the battle lines, and as believers in Creator God we have no choice but to rise to this challenge.
Frankly, we feel that the release of this publication by the NAS:
Our hope is that the reader will not be intimidated by the stature of the NAS as an institution, into believing whatever they say must be well researched and true. As we'll reveal here, their arguments are contrived, flawed and weak. The NAS – we believe – are simply throwing their weight around in order to fulfill an underlying agenda. That is, to redefine science – and limit science – to the study of naturalistic causes (naturalism). The hidden agenda, we suspect, is to separate an entire generation of students from any belief that we were created in God's image, that human life has any inherent value or purpose, and to indoctrinate the belief that we are just the result of one big cosmic accident.
We feel that true science, truth and logic are on our side. Truthfully, it does not take a doctorate degree to understand the very basic flaws and holes in the concept of evolution; it just takes some careful thought and introspection over the issues involved, and a modicum of common sense.
As powerful and authoritative as the NAS may appear to be, the Word of God is the ultimate authority that trumps any human opinion. The NAS have sadly and foolishly exalted themselves above the Word of God in deciding to adopt the position that they are taking.
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge
of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:4-5, NKJV)
A Cunning Game of Words
Scientists are renowned for using very precise and exacting terminology. In fact, absolute clarity and non-ambiguity are the hallmarks of scientific literature. Yet when it comes to the topic of evolution, proponents of this theory seem to abandon these very principles because that is the only way they can make an effective argument. We discover scientists, who'd be meticulous in discussing any other subject, suddenly sounding much more like tabloid news reporters. They'll resort to misleading or overgeneralized terminology and “bait and switch” techniques to try and sell a story to a bewildered public. The NAS publication is a prime example of this practice which will become apparent as we dissect its claims and its cunning choice of wording. If folks are going to represent themselves as an authority in “science”, let's demand a scientific caliber of clarity in their arguments.
Publications that Fail to Define the Very Phenomena they're Talking About!
Charles Darwin did not once define the term species anywhere in the 600+ pages of his book “Origin of Species”. 148 years later, the word species is still used in so many different contexts that a single definition eludes scientists even today.
The NAS is almost as guilty when it comes to the term evolution.
Despite setting out many definitions within the margins of the publication (including “micro-evolution”, and even – yes– “species”, both of which we'll examine later), the NAS almost ignores any definition for evolution itself. It does in fact provide one definition for evolution, but it's buried within a lengthy page-and-a-half of text. It states:
“Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations.”
Oh, so is that all they really mean by evolution? By that definition, we can finish our rebuttal right here and go home! We can all agree that organisms exhibit changes in traits over multiple generations.
But wait a minute! That definition is not really the concept that the NAS is trying to get across, is it? The NAS, by defining biological evolution this way, is being very fickle. Their definition does not align with their hypotheses.
In reality, they want us to believe that upwardly complex change occurs; now that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Webster's dictionary gives a definition of evolution that much better aligns with the concept that the NAS is trying to sell us:
“a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher,
more complex, or better state.”
The NAS wants us to believe in generational changes that generate an increase in genetic information, leading to the development of capabilities, limbs and organs that were not present in the parent generations.
Here is how the ploy works: The NAS will cite a perfectly valid example of observed change within a population – one that almost certainly involved loss (or simply non-expression) of certain genetic information – and misleadingly call it evolution. The “bait and switch” comes in when they try to stretch these same processes of change beyond their observable limits, into a philosophy that implies that non-life became life, and “simple” life changed into complex life via similar processes.
A CHAPTER BY CHAPTER ANALYSIS OF THE NAS's CLAIMS
The NAS actually has 2 versions of its publication. There is a 70-page full version, and 8-page summary version available as a PDF file from their website.
Since many folks may only take the time to read the shorter publication, and since it the summary version makes some statements that the full version does not, we'll tackle the summary version before we take on the fuller version.
We will not dissect every paragraph, but we'll endeavor to pick out and respond to all of the key points.
The title: “Science, Evolution and Creationism”
The very title of the NAS document is a subtle attempt to belittle and marginalize the creation concept by labeling it as an “ism”: i.e. creationism. If they're going to use the word “Evolution” in their title, then they should be consistent and balanced enough to use the term “Creation” in like manner. Or perhaps, refer to their belief as “Evolutionism” to make things equal!
NAS says:
Why is Evolution Important?
We say:
Now wait a minute! Wasn't the whole purpose of this document to put the concepts of science, evolution and creation into perspective, and discuss the merits or flaws of each? Shouldn't a scientific analysis start out with a statement of the problem, set out the competing hypotheses, discuss the evidence for each, and only then draw a conclusion and possibly expound on the merits of that conclusion. By declaring “evolution is important” in its very opening paragraph, the validity of evolution is presented as a foregone conclusion, and this leaves no room for objectivity in the discussion that follows. This is a blatant example of the built-in bias we see in most mainstream literature and the media toward this subject.
Now, of course, some could accuse us of doing the very same thing. But remember, our purpose here is very specifically to respond to the NAS document. The NAS claims to represent “science”, and given its standing as a scientific organization, it ought to be far more objective in its presentation and analysis of opposing views. A more reasonable and balanced opening question might have been “Why is an Understanding of Origins Important?”.
Since we disagree with the whole concept of “evolution”, what can we really say when the NAS considers the propagation of what we consider to be a falsehood, to be “important”?
NAS says:
Evolutionary science provides the foundation for modern biology.
We say:
The truth is, empirical science – not evolutionary science – provides the foundation for modern biology. Biology is primarily concerned with what can be observed in the present. Since evolution has never been observed, and is alleged to have required billions of years to run its course, any application in modern biology would be limited and purely speculative. “Evolutionary science”, whatever that really means, is going to be faulty if it involves a belief in evolution. Anything built on a faulty foundation will ultimately fail. We suspect that the NAS is really implying DNA research and genetics by their use of the term “evolutionary science”, however again this would be a misleading use of the term “evolution”, as will be discussed later.
In the few instances where evolutionary beliefs have been applied to practical biology, the conclusions drawn from these beliefs have been shown to be very dangerous. An example would be biologists' belief that we possess vestigial organs that “no longer” serve any useful purpose. Many organs have been so-labeled in the past decades, only to have later been discovered to have a purpose, after all. The thyroid gland is one such example. Once considered an evolutionary “leftover”, it is now known to be vital for health. Even the human appendix may have a role in the bacterial action in the digestive system that is only now being postulated. A much more solid foundation for biology would be the belief that our Creator did not make any mistakes, and that everything was created for a purpose.
NAS says:
The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science.
We say:
This is a grandiose statement with no substance behind it. No processes of evolution have been discovered, only hypothesized. Evolution (i.e. upward change involving new genetic information), does not occur and has never been observed to occur. As for understanding, if there are scientists who possess this understanding then they've done a poor job at communicating it. No satisfactory evidence or explanation for evolution has yet been put forth, in our opinion: this is one reason why we are so adamantly opposed to this dogma.
NAS says:
Evolution successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment.
We say:
No! Natural selection successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and natural selection has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment. There are two key issues to point out here: (1) Natural selection partially explains diversity, but natural selection is emphatically not evolution. It is the very opposite of evolution, in fact. (2) Diversity does not mean the same thing as development. Diversity, by our statement above, simply refers to genetically expressed variation within a “kind” (of plant or animal).
Natural selection simply means the “survival of the fittest” and the dying off of individuals that are genetically disadvantaged and less able to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Natural selection actually culls out individuals with traits that are less suited to survival. By so doing, it eliminates features that existed in the gene pool of the original population, resulting in specialization. Natural selection does not create new traits. The specialized population can never even regain the traits that it once possessed, once the genes for expressing those traits have disappeared from the surviving population. Natural selection certainly never results in a gain of genetic information that wasn't present in the original population. Biologists now know this and will not dispute this fact.
150 years ago, Darwin believed that natural selection was the evolutionary driving force. Sadly, at the high school and lay person level, people are still being duped into believing that natural selection is an evolutionary process – it is not. Natural selection is basically a process of selective extinction and always eliminates genetic information.
Since Darwinism is considered synonymous with the term “natural selection”, many people assume that creationists do not believe in “natural selection”. Evolutionists capitalize on this false perception, and the Creationist is thereby made to look foolish. The process of natural selection clearly does occur in nature. So let's be clear: Creation scientists do believe in the process of natural selection. Where we differ from Darwin, is that we realize that this process cannot account for wholesale transition from simple to complex lifeforms.
|