We frequently receive requests from readers
asking us to reply to anti-creation articles appearing in their local
papers. The problem is that such articles appear so frequently all over
the country--in scientific journals and popular magazines as well as
newspapers--that we could not possibly reply to all of them. When we do
try to write such a response, it usually is not published anyway. Even
when one is published it usually is edited and its message diluted.
Consequently, we have in recent years
tended just to ignore these attacks and to get on with our mission.
However, a recent lead editorial in our own local paper (San Diego
Union-Tribune, 8/5/05) was so blatantly misleading that I was almost
tempted to write to the editor anyhow.
The article, in fact, was itself written as
a negative reaction to President Bush's recently publicized statement
that he felt intelligent design should be taught in public schools along
with secular evolutionism, thus allowing students to think and decide
for themselves. The writer called his editorial "Creationism Redux," by
which title he seemed to be suggesting that the intelligent design
movement was nothing but "creationism with a slick makeover" (his
words). Intelligent design, he said, is "worthy of respectful
acknowledgement in any discussion of philosophy and religion," but any
"admiration for its scientific value is laughable." Even so, he says it
is "much more compelling than crude theories of creationism, which
depict Bible class as tantamount to biology 101 and geology 101
The best one can say of such gratuitous
comments is that this anonymous editorial writer, and many other such
opinionated wordsmiths, "willingly are ignorant," as the Bible's
insightful phrase (II Peter 3:5) puts it. They have simply not done
their homework before pontificating.
Since that writer presumably lives in San
Diego, he easily could have checked with some of the scientists at the
Institute for Creation Research. He claimed that few creationists or I.D.
advocates have degrees in biology, but that is wrong. ICR's biology
chairman has a Ph.D. from Harvard, for example, plus much research
experience. There are also dozens of fully credentialed biologists in
the Creation Research Society and other creationist organizations.
Creationists may be in the minority, but scientific truth is never
determined by majority vote. And that minority is growing as more and
more biologists and other scientists are becoming aware of the actual
The editorialist approvingly cites a
surgeon who has argued that evolution must be true because "physical
adaptations to environmental pressures have been documented in hundreds
of modern species." This kind of supposed "proof' is given as the main
evidence of evolution by almost all evolutionary apologists. The
adaptation of insects to pesticides and the different beaks on the
Galapagos Island finches (the evidence that so impressed Charles Darwin)
are among the most common "evolutionary" adaptations cited by
evolutionists. If they would read almost any book by creation
scientists, they would know that such horizontal variations (or
microevolution) and adaptations are accepted by all creationists, who
recognize them as evidence of the Creator's forethought. Each creature
has been designed with a genetic system that can recombine its
components as needed to keep it from becoming extinct when the
environment changes. But evolutionists don't want to imply any validity
to creationism by debating its advocates or reading their books. This
looks like willful ignorance. We stress again and again that it is only
the concept of macroevolution (the transmutation of reptiles into birds
and mammals, or of apes into men, or other "upward" changes) that we
find void of scientific proof.
In fact, it is just such a reaction on the
part of evolutionists that seems to fit Peter's prophecy (in II Peter
3:3-4) so perfectly: ". . . there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the
promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things
continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." This is
precisely the concept of naturalism, or uniformitarianism, which
dominates most scientific thinking today, stressing that all natural
processes have operated since the very beginning of the world in
the same way they do today.
God's Word, the Bible, says otherwise, of
course. God "rested" after the six days of creation "from all
His work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:3). Whatever
processes were used by Him to create and make all things in that
beginning week, are, therefore, not in operation today, so cannot be
observed scientifically. But most evolutionists categorically deny that
there ever was any real creation; therefore they insist that everything
must be explained by some kind of evolution.
That is exactly what Peter prophesied would
be the situation in the last days. "For this they willingly are
ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the
earth standing out of the water and in the water." That is, Peter
was predicting that a time would come--the last days of the age in
fact--in which people would be scoffing at Christ's promised return. The
reason for such an attitude would be--not just ignorance--but willful
ignorance of the primeval creation of the heavens and the earth by the
omnipotent Word of God.
Their refusal to understand or even
consider the evidence for creation can thus only be described as
willful. It reminds me of an atheist professor whom I was trying to
win to Christ many years ago while I was teaching at a secular
university. I gave him two excellent books to read setting forth the
strong evidences for the deity of Christ and the divine origin of the
Bible and he at first agreed to read them. A few days later, however, he
angrily returned the books, saying he had started reading one of them
but then changed his mind and refused to read any more. What he said, as
I recall, was something like this; "I don't care what the evidence is: I
just don't want to believe" and that was that!
The writer of the local editorial, in
common with almost all of the multitudes of evolutionist writers on this
issue, insists that evolution has been proved by science, whereas
creation (and also more currently, intelligent design) is simply
religion and thus should not even be mentioned in science classes.
But evolution has not been proved by
science. Surely they ought to know this. Science is based on
observability and repeatability but there is no recorded example of true
macroevolution in all the thousands of years of human history. That in
itself is proof that it is unscientific. Furthermore, there is no way to
test it. No matter what kind of evidence for creation is presented,
evolutionists can devise an evolutionary "just-so-story" to explain it
If they resort to the fossil record and the
imagined billions of years of pre-history as their proof (as they, in
fact, have to do, since macroevolution is not observed in action today)
they must use the principle of uniformitarianism as their warrant for
doing so, just as Peter prophesied they would do! "The present is the
key to the past" has been their watchword. Even there, however, they can
find no real evidence of evolution. In all the billions of fossils known
to exist, not one example of a real evolutionary transformational series
has ever been found. There ought to be multitudes of such series there
if they ever really existed.
There is, therefore, no real
scientific evidence of either present or past evolution. Furthermore,
the universally acknowledged scientific law of increasing entropy seems
clearly to indicate that any significant vertical evolution
toward greater organized complexity is impossible without certain
artificial constraints (which evolutionism cannot demonstrate are
available). Willful ignorance again!
Once I had a formal debate with two
biologists on the faculty at a state university. I used the entropy law
as one of my main arguments, but neither of the evolutionists even
mentioned this argument in their rebuttals. In the question period that
followed, the professor who was teaching the course in engineering
thermodynamics at that university asked them how they would answer the
argument, which seemed valid to him. After consulting with each other,
they said they did not know how to answer it, since they had both done
poorly in physics. But they still insisted evolution was science.
Peter's prophecy also included the
evolutionary rationalization for assuming evolution through long ages in
the past. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, . . . the world
that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter
3:5-6). The Greek word for "overflowed" literally means "cataclysmic."
But evolutionists deliberately ignore the Biblical record of the global
deluge of Noah's day, as well as the geological evidence of that
terrible worldwide cataclysm.
The fact is that virtually every geological
formation shows by its fossils and by its very structure that it
must have been deposited very rapidly--indeed catastrophically. Although
individual formations in a vertical column may be separated from each
other by one or more time gaps, there are no worldwide time gaps.
That fact can only be explained by a worldwide cataclysm, primarily
hydraulic in nature.
Hundreds of anti-creationist articles have
been published in recent years, and the Intelligent Design movement is
currently being subjected to the same ill treatment. Many of them have
been more sarcastic and insulting even than this one mentioned here. The
common theme of all of them is that evolution is scientific, while
creation and intelligent design are not. The utterly fallacious nature
of such a pronouncement is hard to explain by anything other than
* Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President
Emeritus of ICR.