A Theory by any other name.................

It is with some amount of humor that I read a recent editorial appearing in the Florida Today entitled “Concerning the teaching of the theory of evolution”. The author, appropriately anonymous, has seemed to confuse fact with fiction quite deliriously. The term "theory' does not denote a fact, but instead, somewhat less than fact. When I took science, oh so many years ago, I was taught that theories were unscientifically unproven. If they were proven, they would no longer qualify as "theory." Maybe that has changed with "enlightenment" of today's education. I tend to doubt that.

But, enough, let us move to the second paragraph of the offered prose. The writer’s statement that "evolution as the only scientifically valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth" is somewhat laughable. I am sure this person considers themselves enlightened, probably even educated. I was taught that education was the acquiring of knowledge. This person need not acquire any, they have instead allowed others to think and have accepted it without the possibility of debate.

Has anybody ever done the math to figure out how long it would take for all of the different species/phylum/etc to come about? Actually, there is a mathematical look at that question of evolution probability. To summarize, the probability can be expressed as 10⁶⁰, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Oh, speaking of a 200 part organism, even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." [1]

Then again we are talking about time. Oh, thats right, the theory of evolution is not bound by time. If things don't fit, just change the time scale. For years, carbon-14 dating was held as a standard. However, anyone with a computer can do a search on carbon-14 dating and find as many people explaining the inaccuracies of the method as there are items for sale at EBay.

The author went on to point out a ruling by the Supreme Court that occurred in 1987 that forbid the teaching of creation. It is interesting to note, there is no ruling that specifically forbids the teaching of creationism. One needs to read the Supreme Court decision to grasp what was being contemplated by the Court. Justice Brenna, in writing the majority opinion stated; “In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.”

What the court decided in this case was not that creationism could not be taught, but that it could not be required to be taught to complement the theory of evolution. This prevents the Christian principle of creationism from being forced upon a school system simply because the theory of evolution is being taught. To make it simple, its like saying you have to offer Coke if you offer Pepsi, and the court ruled that you could in fact only offer one, the other could not be required. Justice Brennan in writing for the majority, did not include any language that could be construed as prohibiting the teaching of creationism.

That brings us to another fine point that lacks support. The Separation of Church and State, contrary to some opinions is not contained within the Constitution. This is no more within the Constitution than the three wise men were at the manger. Don’t confuse popular notions with fact. The concept of Separation of Church and State is factually traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802. Our founders were careful to establish that the government should not force upon the people a religion, and now some would have the government force there to be no religion. While some may not see the difference, it is very clear to the educated what that distinction implies.

I find it humorous that someone that would claim to be educated would accept the opinion of some in science without question. But, I assume that is how some felt when they looked upon the scientific statements that stated the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or any number of popular theories that have been dis-proven with time. As a Christian, I have no problem with the schools teaching the theory of evolution. It is only when the teaching neglects to notice the word “theory” that I have problems. If you choose to believe in evolution, then I have no objection. If I choose to believe in Creationism, why should you have a problem with that? Does my belief threaten yours? If my belief is correct, that will be revealed in time, if yours is correct, I guess we will never know. My belief has a better eternity payoff.

---

[1] “THE MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBLITY OF EVOLUTION”, - BTG No. 179a November 2003, by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.