* February 2 * BC Christian News * Formerly
"Christian Info News" *
'Evolution faith' in peril, says creationist
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By David F. Dawes
ONTARIO-based creationist Ian Taylor will present a
seminar February 17 at Willow Park Church in
Kelowna. He will cover several topics, including
'The Pre-Flood World'; 'Those Fascinating
Dinosaurs'; and 'Is God an Evolutionist?' Taylor is
the author of In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the
New World Order, published in 1984. He also provides
the voice for 'Creation Moments' -- a daily radio
program currently broadcast on more than 1,000 radio
stations, internationally.
BCCN: You have said that your book was designed to
go into the public library system. How has it been
generally received by the public?
IT: I have only ever received one [letter] that was
negative -- vitriolic would be a better description.
It was from from a dedicated promoter of evolution.
It is quite natural that he would not like it; but
the ordinary, sensible man-in-the-street likes it
very much.
BCCN: What would you say to those who accept
evolution as a fact?
IT: Every biology school textbook contains a slim
chapter on 'The Evidences for Evolution.' In the
past three years all these old evidences have been
exposed for what they are by the scientific
community itself.
One of the classic cases had been shown to be
fraudulent over a century ago -- yet it still
remains in textbooks. This has been shown to be more
of a fraud than was formerly thought. Another
well-known piece of textbook evidence has been shown
to be based upon a fudged experiment carried out
fifty years ago.
The result is that there are no real evidences
remaining. The evolutionary faith is currently in a
perilous position, and there is a lot of infighting
among the believers. The word is getting out, and
teachers are being faced with some tough questions
by their students.
BCCN: To what extent are the general public aware of
the crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution'
and 'macro-evolution?'
IT: I do not think the general public is aware of
the distinction. Every discipline has its jargon,
and these terms are generally not understood . . .
by the public. Both expressions use the word
'evolution' -- [which], in a subtle way, leaves the
impression that evolution itself is not in question.
Darwin observed micro-evolution, and anyone today
can see the same thing; that has always been called
'variation.' Each of a litter of puppies look a
little different; cows in one country look a little
different from those in another -- but just how far
can these differences go? Darwin experimented with
pigeons; he found that by careful breeding, very
large differences could be produced -- but they were
still pigeons. However, he speculated that, given
time -- more time than any human experimenter could
possibly have -- these differences would eventually
produce entirely new species. This is called
macro-evolution, and it is argued that by this
process we have progressed from molecules to man.
None of this has ever been demonstrated. All that
has been seen is a continuing loss of genetic
information from all organisms; no one has yet
explained or demonstrated how intelligent genetic
information can be gained by an organism.
BCCN: Comment on the recent Kansas school board
decision, which -- as I understand it -- restored
evolution to its former status in the curriculum.
IT: The Kansas school board were quite aware of the
journal articles critical of the textbook evidences
given to students in support of a theory, the theory
of evolution. They were justifiably upset that
frauds and cooked experiments were being sold to
their children by a rather arrogant school system,
as scientific truth. Such deception actually
discredits the otherwise good name of science when
exposed.
The Kansas school board did not ask to ban the
teaching of evolution; on the contrary, they asked
that it be taught completely -- that is, with all
the contrary evidence and with complete honesty in
the textbooks. They further asked that evolution not
be an exam requirement. This was a perfectly
reasonable request; but the establishment would not
hear of it. A reasonable person might ask, if
evolution is such a solidly established theory, what
did the establishment have to be afraid of? After
all, freedom to ask questions, to inquire, is the
rallying cry of most universities; it is, of course,
totally untrue -- as anyone who has ever taught at a
university will candidly admit. The key member of
this school board was eventually eased out of her
voting position; as I understand it, all the dust
has now settled -- and things will continue in
Kansas as they were.
BCCN: You espouse the 'young earth' position. In a
nutshell, can you give a few of the reasons you
advocate this view? Also, how do you respond to
sincere creationists like Hugh Ross, who dismiss the
young earth view?
IT: Let's begin with how the old earth view got
started. In the 16th century, it was observed
correctly that most of the rocks on the surface of
the earth are found in layers; and it was argued --
again correctly -- that these were at one time
sediment in water. At first it was thought that
local rivers flooded, and left a sediment that
trapped within it the creatures living at that time;
the sediment subsequently hardened to become rock,
and the remains of those creatures became the
fossils. In the mid-1800s there were known to be 28
such layers -- and these could by that time be
traced from Ireland to Russia. Quite obviously, a
local river would not have sufficient water or mud
to leave those continuous and semi-continuous layers
of sedimentary rock. The only other source of water
large enough was the ocean itself. However, to have
the ocean inundate the land meant that the ocean
levels would have to rise -- and of course, this
would result in a world-wide flood.
This was clearly too close to the Bible account of
Noah's flood; so the only recourse was to [theorize
that] the continental land surfaces sank, and were
flooded, and that ocean sediments settled millimeter
by millimeter each year -- and then the continental
land surfaces gradually rose again, and the
sediments hardened into rock. This all had to take
place at least 28 times -- all in perfect unison.
This is what is actually taught to geology students
-- although not in such simple terms. But no
right-minded person could believe all this; to this
day, there is no mechanism known to raise and lower
the continents. [The theory's proponents will say]:
"Ah, you see, this all takes place so slowly as to
leave no evidence that it's actually happening."
This is the tidy, button-down answer in a nutshell.
Now, when you realize that this is where those ['old
earth'] billions of years come from in the first
place, its enough to cause a person to seek some
other explanation. The young earth model, and the
evidences that support it, far better fit the facts.
As for Hugh Ross: he took a PhD in astronomy, and
bases his entire worldview on the belief that the
Big Bang really took place. He claims that God used
this as His method to create the universe -- and of
course, it all took billions of years. Thus, Ross
steadfastly subscribes to the old earth view.
Remember: that view was established about 100 years
before anyone proposed the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory has been in trouble for some
time, as more and more evidences pile up against it.
Cosmologists are eagerly waiting for someone to come
up with a new theory; it is desperately needed, and
it better be one more credible than the Big Bang.
Papers are being published in the scientific press
that are openly critical of the Big Bang -- and this
is a sure sign that its days are numbered. Now, my
question is: apart from having to wipe the egg off
his face, what is Hugh Ross going to say to his
followers then?
BCCN: Is the 'intelligent design' movement gaining
support in the scientific community? Is it making
inroads with the general public?
IT: The facts are that, as more and more is made
known about the extreme complexity of life down at
the single cell level, it becomes more and more
obvious that this is the result of intelligent
design, not chance. Darwinian evolution's prime
mover is chance. Within the most elementary living
cell there are a host of extremely complex
molecules, each of which had to evolve by chance --
and then be found in the same location, come
together and work in perfect unison, to be
self-sustaining and self-reproducing. All this by
chance! Not a hope. As each step in the evolutionary
process advances, molecule by molecule, each step
becomes less probable than the previous step -- not
equally, and certainly not more probable.
I think the intelligent design movement is making
inroads into the scientific community, and the
conservative element and die-hard evolutionists are
clearly concerned; it is the left-wing segment of
academia, the feminists especially, who have
embraced intelligent design. However, they have not
embraced the obvious Designer -- because this is
what intelligent design means -- but have
resurrected the old Greek [deity], Gaia, the earth
goddess. Naturally, the conservatives are rightly
embarrassed. As you might guess, we have a situation
here that, when this nonsense eventually gets into
the liberal churches, Mother Earth will finally
usurp Father God! I would say about five years would
do it.
BCCN: You know Opposition Leader Stockwell Day
personally. Comment on the scorn levelled at him
during the election campaign in much of the secular
media, regarding his support for young earth
creationism.
IT: Stockwell Day is an honest man -- transparently
honest -- and he paid the price of media ridicule
for his answer. He was probably not aware of it, or
naively thought that he was safe within that
particular [audience] -- but he was clearly being
set up. Probably one of the media people asked the
question, and Stockwell gave his honest answer
without thinking.
BCCN: Is the deeply-entrenched faith in
macro-evolution beginning to crumble -- and, if so,
will we see this concept of life's origins finally
be discredited by the scientific community in the
near future?
IT: As Christians, I think we would be totally naive
to think that the belief in evolution is going to be
replaced by Biblical creation. As I said earlier,
the goddess Gaia might well replace the God of the
Bible for many. Now, the Christian mandate is tell
others of the God of the Bible so that they may have
the opportunity of choice -- and as I suggest, it
could well be: Mother Earth or Father God? There is
a large segment of the population who, come what
may, will never accept the Creator -- because, of
course, He is also the Judge.
Let me leave you with this quote from Professor
Richard Lewontin -- [who is a] leading spokesman for
the scientific establishment: "We take the side of
science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill
many of its extravagant promises of health and life,
in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories --
because we have a prior commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of
science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world; but on the
contrary, that we are forced -- by a priori
adherence to material causes -- to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts
that produce material explanations, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute -- for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door."
Registration for Taylor's seminar begins at 9:00 am,
February 17. For more information, phone Jim Hayashi
(Kelowna) at (250) 868-0551.
Discuss this article in our new Discussion Forum!
Oryginal: http://www.bcchristiannews.org/weekly/february01/4/evolution.html