Is Evolution A Unifying Principle In Science?


The Kansas State School Board entered the world stage August 11, 1999, when they rejected science teaching guidelines proposed by a group of scientists and science educators, especially the sections dealing with evolution. Evolutionists worldwide denigrated the school board's actions, extolled the teaching of macroevolution, and bemoaned any effort to question it. Their emotional reaction exposed to the world the emptiness of their arguments. Revealing the truth reveals much about their tactics.

The proposed state guidelines which were rejected, had followed the lead of various national elitists groups in aggressively promoting evolution. Much in the proposed guidelines was good, but they left good education when it came to evolution, elevating it to a "unifying principle in science," a position it does not deserve. The other "unifying principles" deal with obvious phenomena which all can see, whereas evolution is presented as a worldview.

The five proposed unifying principles (abridged) were:

1. Systems, Order, and Organization: The natural and designed world is complex; it is too large and complicated to investigate and comprehend all at once.
2. Evidence, Models, and Explanations: Evidence consists of observations and data on which to base scientific explanations.
3. Constancy, Change, and Measurement: Although most things are in the process of changing—some are characterized by constancy.
4. Evolution and Equilibrium: Evolution is a series of changes, some gradual and some sporadic, that account for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural and designed systems.
5. Form and Function: Form and function are complementary aspects of objects, organisms, and systems in the natural and designed world.

Does evolution really account for the present state of things, even designed systems? Does this claim to explain everything deserve to be a "unifying principle of science," elsewhere in the document defined as "broad, unifying concepts, and processes . . . which transcend the traditional discipline of science. . . . (They) are fundamental and comprehensive."

These five "principles" are quite unneeded in doing and teaching science. They do, however, codify the basic tenet of philosophical naturalism, (better labeled as atheistic evolution) and its underlying assumption of uniformitarianism. They could be paraphrased as: (1) "The world is too large and complex to know everything; (2,3) We do observe small changes occurring; (4) These small (microevolutionary) changes add up to big (macroevolutionary) changes; and (5) and account for everything.

Every knowledgable person will recognize this as the unjustified "leap of faith" of macroevolution stemming from microevolutionary changes. We expose it here as a shameful effort to indoctrinate students in the religion of naturalism, all the while ignoring the many problems in macroevolution.

*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2000. Is Evolution A Unifying Principle In Science?. Acts & Facts. 29 (1).