Most of the leaders in the bureaucracies that control the scientific and educational establishments are becoming increasingly paranoid concerning the creation model. Perhaps they are feeling a bit guilty about their long censorship of the scientific evidence supporting creation. Or maybe they are sensing an imminent breakup of the humanistic monopoly over our education system.
In any case, their leaders are sounding the alarm. Dr. Eugenie C. Scott is Executive Director of an organization (founded by the Carnegie Foundation) euphemistically called the National Center for Science Education—which (being translated) means the mission control center for keeping scientific creationism out of the schools. In a widely circulated fund-raising letter to her fellow evolutionary scientists (the N.C.S.E. is affiliated with the American Association for Advancement of Science in which I hold the rank of Fellow and am thus on the mailing list), she recites what to her is an alarming litany of recent inroads made by creationists in various school systems, and then pleads: "Please consider joining NCSE at the highest level you can—help NCSE keep that light (i.e., the light of evolutionism) as part of the curriculum of our nation's children."1
Don't be so upset, Dr. Scott. We creationists do not propose to take evolution out of the curriculum. We realize that roughly half the taxpaying parents of children and young people in our schools want evolution taught, and they have that right.
But remember that the other half are creationists, and they also pay taxes. "Poll after poll shows our country almost equally divided between those who accept and those who reject the theory that all the earth's flora and fauna descended from a common ancestor. . . ."2 In fact, the polls also show that even most parents who are evolutionists agree that both models should be taught.
But doctrinaire evolutionists are passionately afraid that this would bring "religion" back into the schools. Even if creationists offer not to use the Bible or even to mention God, but only to use scientific evidence, evolutionists fear that it would still support "religion." Dr. Scott deduces that: "Other creationist aliases include `abrupt appearance theory' . . . and `intelligent design theory'"3 . . . and that these might cause students to attribute such sudden appearances and intelligent design to (perhaps this should be whispered) "The God of the Bible."4
Well, how about merely including a brief discussion of the scientific evidences against evolution, with no reference at all to God, creation, the Bible, design, sudden appearance, or anything like that. The dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia in the 1987 Supreme Court decision to strike down Louisiana's two-model law, said that Christians "are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it."
But evolutionists are wary of this also. Dr. Scott, expressing the paranoid fear felt by most evolutionary leaders at such a suggestion, complains that such an approach would be "virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes of science."5
It does seem unnaturally strange for evolutionists to be so afraid that students may reject evolution if they hear any scientific evidence on the other side. They insist repeatedly that evolution is a proved fact of science, and they are quite free to present all the positive evidence for evolution that they can, so what are they afraid of?
Instead of giving the scientific evidence for real evolution (not small horizontal variations, of course, but vertical evolution from amoeba to man), they resort to authoritarianism ("all we scientists believe it, so it must be true"). As far as the scientific evidence for creation is concerned (which they assume is really the same as the scientific evidence against evolution), they deal with that mainly by name-calling.
"Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief." So says Sir John Houghton,6 a physicist who professes to believe in God. Richard Dawkins, the atheistic zoologist who is probably the most influential evolutionist in Great Britain, "now goes so far as to say that anyone who believes in a Creator God is `scientifically illiterate.'"7
Another recent article says that the reason so many students and people in general are turning to creationism is because "we (that is, we biology professors) are doing a poor job of educating our biology students about Darwin, evolution, and the nature of science."8
No doubt he is right. I have often told evolutionists that they are going to a tremendous amount of trouble trying to stop the creationism revival, when all they would have to do is to present one real proof of true evolution. If they would just take the time to give one single definite scientific proof of macro-evolution instead of fuzzy generalities, then we might all become evolutionists.
But this they will not do because they have no such proof. There is no scientific proof of evolution. They can recite certain supposed scientific evidences for evolution (humans and chimpanzees have many similarities) but creationists can also cite scientific evidences against it (there are many even greater differences between humans and chimpanzees).
As a matter of fact, in all human history, no one has ever seen any real evolution take place (horizontal variation within kinds is not macro-evolution), although thousands of species have become extinct during human history. Furthermore, out of the billions of known fossils in the earth's rock record of the past, no true intermediate evolutionary transitional form between kinds has ever been discovered, whereas there ought to be large numbers of such intermediate forms if evolution had really happened.
No wonder evolutionists become paranoid when asked to allow both sides of the creation-evolution issue to be heard. They cannot respond with real scientific evidence, because there is none—no evolution in the present, none in the past. This has become painfully obvious in the hundreds of scientific debates between evolutionists and creationists during the past 25 years.
Consequently, Eugenie Scott, from her strategic position as director of the main anti-creationist organization, is now warning her fellow evolutionists not to debate the issue at all. "Avoid Debates," she says. "If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to `defend evolution,' please decline . . . you probably will get beaten."9
It is easier to deal with creationism with bombast than with evidence and by ad hominem arguments rather than by scientific arguments.
And, of course, this approach works quite well in most cases, since many people by nature would rather keep God and His control over their lives as far off as possible anyway. Even many Christian leaders are intimidated and would rather go along with them (or even to ignore the whole subject) than to take a clear and knowledgeable stand for true Biblical creationism. Note the widespread euphoria over the Pope's statement last year seeming to endorse evolutionism. Not only Catholic intellectuals and liberal Protestants are going along with evolutionism, but so are many evangelicals. "Later this year, the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California (the intellectual hub of conservative Protestant denominations), will publish a book acknowledging a natural origin for the human family tree."10
In spite of all this, however, there are now thousands of well-trained scientists who have become creationists, as well as a growing number of solidly Biblical churches and schools. Many people are not afraid to consider the Biblical and scientific evidences for creation—even recent creation! And when they do, many do reject the entire evolutionary system with all its humanistic baggage.
That is why so many evolutionary leaders seem to become paranoid about this. My Webster's dictionary defines "paranoia" as a mental attitude "characterized by systematized delusions of persecution and of one's own greatness."
We Christian creationists are not the least bit afraid to have people consider the evidences (if there are any) for evolution, so why are they so afraid to let them hear the evidences for creation?
In the meantime, the Bible assures us that "God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (II Timothy 1:7).
1. Eugenie C. Scott. Letter to "Fellow Scientists: National Center for Science Education, Inc.," (April 1997), p. 4.
2. Rebecca Zacks. "What Are They Thinking?" Scientific American (October 1997), p. 34.
3. Eugenie C. Scott, "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), p. 21.
5. Op cit., p. 24.
6. Quoted in Science and God: A Warming Trend? by Gregg Easterbrook, Science (vol. 277, August 15, 1997), p. 891.
7. Op cit., p. 892.
8. Richard Storey. "A Plea to College Biology Professors," American Biology Teacher (vol. 59, February 1997), p. 69.
9. Eugenie C. Scott. "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), p. 25.
10. Gregg Easterbrook, op cit., p. 890.
* Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.