EVOLUTION AND
BIASES
BY
MILES N.L. MATSUMURA
April 28, 1981
(Updated 2005)
GENESIS
MR. CALENBERG
APM
Editor,
May I offer the attached (old) college paper I wrote nearly 20 years
ago, as a resource / reading material for your website? The
current media coverage on "intelligent design" shows that practically
nothing has changed in the past 20 years -- evolutionists' tactics
against scientific creationism is still based on the same groundless
accusations and biases.
Aloha,
Miles M. |
EVOLUTION AND BIASES
“That California court case about whether public schools can teach
evolution theory to the
exclusion of creationism ended on an undramatic and welcome note. The
judge reminded the state
that it ought not teach science as dogma but that it need not teach the
religious fundamentalists’
theory of the origin on man. This outcome should remind us of the
difference between science and
religion.”1 So wrote the editor in a recent issue of the Chicago
Tribune.
“Religion -- the essence of creationist theory.” Or at least that’s
what it is thought and
portrayed as by the media and educators who espouse the evolutionary
view. In spite of the
evidences supporting the creationist position and the successful track
record their debaters hold,
creationists continue to be labeled as religious fanatics intent on
forcing the Bible on the public.
Creationists have not been able to overthrow the stereotype bestowed on
them decades ago in the era
famous for the Scopes “monkey trial.”
Yet a news article in Discover (a Time/Life science magazine) tells of
the tremendous
momentum creationists have gained:
Pressed by fundamentalists, legislators in 14 states have introduced
bills
requiring that creationist views be presented in science classes. One
Florida
school district requires that creationist ideas be taught in biology
classrooms,
and in California, Minnesota, South Dakota, Kansas, Illinois, and Iowa,
individual biology textbooks used in public schools include a statement
that
evolution is a theory and not a fact. Bowing to such pressures, several
publishers have sharply reduced the amount of space in biology textbooks
devoted to Darwinian theory, or have added sections on creationism.
In mid-March the creationists won their greatest victory to date, when
Arkansas passed a bill requiring that, beginning in 1982, if either
evolution or
scientific creationism is taught in public schools, balanced treatment
must be
given to the other viewpoint. In an apparent effort to convince the
courts that
the legislation does not violate the constitutional separation of
church and
state, the bill prohibits the teaching of religion or reference to
religious
writings in the classroom.2
2 James Gorman, “Creationists vs. Evolution,” Discover, May 1981, p.33.
1 “Science and Dogma,” Chicago Tribune. 10 Mar. 1981, Sec. 1, p.8,
cols. 1-2.
--------------
What are we to say of these? Yes, creationists are gaining grounds. But
opposition is still
strong and stereotypes perpetuated for so long will not dissipate
easily. We must identify some of
the basic understandings upon which evolutionary theory rests and from
which such biases arise.
Rather than deal with evidences or the scientific aspects of the
creation-evolution debate, we
will limit our discussion to some of the historical background of the
theories. At this point, as with
other aspects of this issue, “The informed Christian assuredly has two
great advantages over the
non-Christian. In the first place, he almost certainly will have a
rather good idea of the data upon
which the evolutionist rests his case, whereas the non-Christian
evolutionist has probably read
almost nothing of a serious nature from the Christian point of view. In
this respect, he is likely to be
seriously unaware of the weaknesses of his own position. In the second
place, the Christian has the
tremendous advantage of being willing to accept the light of Revelation
which, by its very nature,
supplies data that cannot be obtained by any other way.”3
For openers, we need to define some terms. The stereotype referred to
earlier is continued
today when Christians fail to distinguish between what is described as
“scientific creationism” from
what the public calls “religion.” If we do not make the distinction,
neither will the public. That is
why creationist Kelly Segraves of the aforementioned court case was
described in the same news
account as “one of a growing number of fundamentalist Christians who
consider themselves
‘scientific creationists’ -- a description that many scientists believe
was invented solely as a device to
slip creationism into public school curricula in the guise of science.”4
Page 2
4 Gorman, p.32.
3 Arthur C. Custance, Evolution or Creation? Vol. IV: The Doorway
Papers (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p. 16.
------------------
CREATIONISM
Henry Morris offers these definitions:
Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, as
follows:
(1) Scientific creationism (no reliance on Biblical revelation,
utilizing only scientific data
to support and expound the creation model).
(2) Biblical creationism (no reliance on scientific data, using only
the Bible to expound
and defend the creation model).
(3) Scientific Biblical creationism (full reliance on Biblical
revelation but also using
scientific data to support and develop the creation model.5
The creation model in its simplest form proposes: (1) completed
supernaturalistic origin, (2)
net present decrease in complexity, and (3) geologic earth history
characterized by catastrophism.5
This view’s epistemology (i.e., how we know what we know) is based on a
Biblical worldview that
accepts the possibility of intelligent design and non-material (or
supernatural) influences in the
universe. Scientific creationism is an hypothesis that attempts to
interpret scientific and geologic
data within the framework of the creation model. Scientific
creationism, depicted in the oval area
above, may be evaluated as a theory but not as a fact since it, like
evolution, cannot be
“experimentally observed, fully verified, or logically falsified.”6
Page 3
6 “Resolution for Balanced Presentation of Evolution and Scientific
Creationism,” ICR Impact
Series, No. 71 (May 1979): iii.
5 Henry Morris, “The Tenets of Creationism,” Impact, No. 85 (July
1980); i., ii.
---------------------
[note: some graphics / diagrams did not come through]
BIBLICAL WORLD VIEW
INTELLIGENT DESIGN (SUPERNATURALISM)
BIBLICAL CREATIONISM
CREATION MODEL SCIENTIFIC DATA
SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM
SCIENTIFIC BIBLICAL CREATIONISM
In contrast, both Biblical creationism and scientific Biblical
creationism assume the truth of
the Bible and the Biblical worldview, and hence may be viewed as dogma.
Morris comments:
“These (three forms of creationism) are not contradictory systems, of
course, but supplementary,
each appropriate for certain applications. For example, creationists
should not advocate that Biblical
creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial
restrictions against religion in such
schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe
the Bible should not be
asked to teach the Bible. It is both legal and desirable, however, that
scientific creationism be taught
in public schools as a valid alternative to evolutionism.”5
EVOLUTIONISM
Tracing the development of evolutionism is more difficult, but
necessary if we are to
understand the fundamental pillars of the system. For a simpler
presentation, we will construct
another diagram, and then define its components.
The evolution model in its simplest form proposes: (1) continuing
naturalistic origin, (2) net present
increase in complexity, and (3) geologic earth history dominated by
uniformitarianism.5 Its
epistemology is based on rationalism, and in most cases, scientism.
Evolutionism as a theory
attempts to interpret scientific and geologic data within the framework
of the uniformitarian model.
Page 4
-----------------------
MATERIALISM RATIONALISM
NATURALISM
UNIFORMITARIANISM SCIENTISM
SCIENTIFIC DATA EVOLUTION MODEL
EVOLUTIONISM
DOGMATIC
EVOLUTIONISM
Evolutionism may be evaluated as a theory but not as a fact, because
it, like scientific creationism,
cannot be “experimentally observed, fully verified, or logically
falsified.”6
The writer suggests that the reader study the evolution diagram with
constant reference to the
definitions listed below. The definitions were taken from Webster’s
Seventh New Collegiate
Dictionary:
Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only reality and that
all being and processes and
phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.
Uniformitarianism: a geological doctrine that existing processes acting
in the same manner as at
present are sufficient to account for all geological changes.
Rationalism: a theory that reason is in itself a source of knowledge
superior to and independent of
sense perception.
Naturalism: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account
for all phenomena.
Scientism: the proposition that only scientific and especially
materialistic methods can be used
effectively in the pursuit of knowledge.
Dogma: something held as an established opinion; especially: a definite
authoritative tenet.
Most readers are surprised to learn of the “isms” which form the basis
for evolutionism.
These “isms” are philosophical views about “how we know what we know.”
Like some of their
creationist counterparts, many evolutionists are dogmatic about
evolution, not because of the data,
but because of their philosophical world views.
Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales identify uniformitarianism and
non-scientific biases as
the primary presumptions of evolutionists over the generations,
extensively documented in their
book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution.7 Their findings were obtained by
thorough review of the
publications, journals, letters and other writings of every key
evolutionist before and since Darwin.
Regarding Darwin, they write: “Darwin’s faith in evolution was simply
an extension of his faith in
uniformity and, logically enough, the same faith led him to believe in
spontaneous generation of a
living creature from inorganic matter. Not evidence, but the doctrine
of uniformity led him to this
conclusion. Darwin wrote, ‘Though no evidence worth anything has as
yet, in my opinion, been
advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic,
yet I cannot avoid believing
the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the
law of continuity.”8
Page 5
8 Ibid., pp. 44-45.
7 Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution
(Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 19660, pp. 11-12.
-----------------
Evolutionists also make the philosophical assertion,“to accept
uniformity is to reject creation
as unscientific.”9 They assert that “Creationism is not science; it is
religion!” Rightly, creationists
complain that “Evolution claims to be the only scientific view by
defining ‘scientific’ as those who
agree with evolutionary ideas.”10
Others trace the world view behind evolutionism to rationalism and
materialistic monism.
George Henslow writes: “There was an expression used by Rationalists:
‘I cannot believe in that
which I cannot comprehend.’ The editor of the Christian Evidence
Journal remarks: ‘A vast amount
of skepticism (regarding creation) is based upon this same idea, yet it
is one of the most delusive that
can be entertained, and one upon which we do not act in ordinary life
nor in science and philosophy.
We all believe daily in what we cannot comprehend, and to look for an
exception in the domain of
religious is a fatal error.’”11
Still other writers, such as Louis T. More, trace evolutionary biases
to the ancient Greek and
medieval roots of science.12
WHY EVOLUTIONISM AND SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM MUST BE VIEWED AS THEORIES
AND NOT FACTS
Henry Morris discussed the limitations of the scientific method as
applied to the theories of
origins. The scientific method calls on theorists to propose a
hypothesis, then test the hypothesis
through observation and experimentation, then draw a conclusion based
on findings. Morris writes,
“The theory of evolution, according to an evolutionary scientist,
cannot be observed by
experimentation: ‘The applicability of the experimental method to the
study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time
intervals involved, which far
exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’ Dobzhansky, “On Methods
of Evolutionary
Biology and Anthropology,' 45 American Scientist 381, 388 (1957). It
cannot be verified by full
proof: ‘Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in
special creation -- both are concepts
which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has
been capable of proof.’ Matthews,
“Forward” to C. Darwin, Origin of the Species at x (1971). And the
theory of evolution cannot be
Page 6
12Louis T. More, The Dogma of Evolution (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1925).
11George Henslow, Present-Day Rationism Critically Examined (London:
Hodden and Stoughton,
1904), p. 6-7.
10Judith Tarr Harding, “Establishing Scientific Guidelines for
Origins-Instructions in Public
Eduction,” Impact, No. 93 (Mar. 1981): iv.
9 Ibid., p. 34.
----------------------
falsified (by positing facts which, if proved true, would disprove the
theory): ‘Our theory of
evolution has become... one which cannot be refuted by any possible
observations. It is thus “outside
of empirical science.”’ Birch & Ehrlich, ‘Evolutionary History and
Population Biology,’ 214 Nature
349, 352 (1967). Of course, the theory of scientific creationism
similarly cannot be experimentally
observed, fully verified, or logically falsified.”6
For purposes of this study, the writer encourages the reader to
understand the biases and to
test the “isms.” Ask yourself, do I really believe in materialism, that
physical matter is the only
reality? Do I really believe in uniformitarianism, that slow geologic
processes are sufficient to
account for all geologic changes (in contrast to catastrophism, the
tenet that earth’s geologic history
was/is riddled with earthquakes, floods, and meteorological
catastrophies which affect the earth)?
Do I really believe in rationalism, that reason in itself is superior
to and independent of all that I may
learn through my senses? Do I really believe in naturalism, that
scientific laws alone are adequate to
account for all phenomena? Do I really believe in scientism, that only
scientific methods can be used
in the pursuit of knowledge. What are the alternatives?
The writer presented earlier versions of the enclosed diagrams and
definitions to a graduate
dental student, to help him identify and understand the biases behind
what he was taught. It became
clear to the student that contrasting dogmatic evolution with Biblical
creationism was not
“scientific,” though that is the most common error of evolutionists.
Never before had he confronted
the philosophies behind evolutionism. Neither had he considered the
possibility that another theory
could be used to interpret the same data to arrive at different
conclusions. As a graduate student in
the sciences, he found himself uninformed of any alternatives to the
dogmatic views he was taught.
Only after he confronted the “isms” was he ready to step back, look in
the oval areas, and open his
mind to consider the alternatives.
If you have done the same, then perhaps you are ready to consider the
evidence.
Page 7
-----------------
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Clark, Robert T. and James D. Bales. Why Scientists Accept Evolution.
Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1966.
Custance, Arthur C. Evolution or Creation? Vol. IV: The Door Way
Papers. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Gorman, James. “Creationists vs. Evolution.” Discover, May 1981, pp.
32-33.
Gould, Stephen Jay. “Evolution as Fact and Theory.” Discover, May 1981,
pp. 34-37.
Harding, Judith Tarr. “Establishing Scientific Guidelines for
Origins-Instructions In Public
Education.” Impact, No. 93 (Mar. 1981).
Henslow, George. Present-Day Rationalism Critically Examined. London:
Hodden and
Stoughton, 1904.
Moody, Paul Amos. Introduction to Evolution. New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers,
1970.
More, Louis T. The Dogma of Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1925.
Morris, Henry. “The Tenets of Creationism.” Impact, No. 85 (July 1980).
Morris, Henry M. The Troubled Waters of Evolution. San Diego:
Creation-Life Publishers,
1974.
“Resolution for Balanced Presentation of Evolution and Scientific
Creationism.” ICR Impact
Series, No. 71 (May 1979).
“Science and Dogma.” Chicago Tribune. 10 Mar. 1981, Sec. 1, p. 8, cols.
1-2.
Simpson, Goerge Gaylord. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University
Press, 1967.
Page 8
