By David A. Kallman
Kurt Warner, former NFL quarterback, was pilloried recently for his tongue-in-cheek comparison of the evolution of an NFL quarterback to the theory of evolution. He agreed with changes (adaptations) within a species, but not the theory of "one species transforming into another." The attacks on Mr. Warner were swift and demeaning.
Evolutionists always characterize themselves as "scientific" while creationists are just "religious." The issue is not science versus faith. Rather, it is faith versus faith.
Advertisement - story continues below
There are two general aspects to evolution that are never identified by the evangelists of evolution: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is small, observable changes in a species (natural selection), which both sides agree occurs. However, after minor changes the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Macro-evolution is large, unobservable changes in a species (molecules-to-man evolution), which creationists do not agree occurs. Fossil evidence does not support the claim that an ape turned into a man or that a dinosaur turned into a bird. Proof of micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Evolutionists ignore this clear lapse of logic.
Moreover, the word "science" needs to be clarified. There are two types of science confused by evolutionists. There is a difference between observational/testable science and historical science. Observational science tests theories that are observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. Such science helps us land a probe on a comet, build computers, etc. Both sides agree with this kind of science because it can be verified through the scientific method. Historical science deals with origins or past events not directly observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable. No one observed how the universe began. No one knows what conditions were actually present. Scientific data can be observed to support a belief about past events, but that belief cannot be verified through use of the scientific method. The event itself cannot be repeated or tested. Therefore, one's belief about historical events is no more scientific than anyone else's belief. This is the same for both sides. Both use similar data and methods to examine the evidence. Observational science can support both positions. Differing conclusions are based on the proponent's presuppositions and worldview.
Since no one was there at the beginning, both sides start with a presupposition: Creationists believe the starting point is God who created the universe; evolutionists believe the starting point is nothingness/no God, i.e., nothing + time + chance led to our universe. Is the evolutionist presupposition foundational for any religions?
Atheism clearly relies upon evolution as a basic belief. Taoism and Buddhism rely on an evolutionary foundation for their belief that adherents can evolve into higher states of being. Humanist Manifestos I, II and III (secular humanists' faith statements) assert belief in evolution as the basis for their faith. "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." "Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis." We are "the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing."
Advertisement - story continues below
Do not be fooled. The evolutionary position as to origins is just as religious as the creationist position. The evolutionist believes that Nature is self-existing, while the creationist believes that God is self-existing. Both use scientific data to support their respective historical science positions. It is ironic that secular humanists claim to rely upon "observation, experimentation, and rational analysis" for a belief that cannot be observed or tested to determine if it is, in fact, true. Neither belief as to origins is verifiable by the scientific method.
Which position is true? It is a matter of faith for both. I know many scientists and educated people who do not accept evolution as true. The mocking claims by evolutionists that creationists are unscientific is a bullying tool used to try and silence them. Many of our greatest scientists over past centuries were people of faith who believed in creation. Scientists like Michael Faraday, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Johann Kepler, Carolus Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Blaise Pascal would all be kicked out of our universities today for their creationist beliefs.
The next time you read or hear an evolutionist proudly proclaiming his belief in science and that a creationist viewpoint is simply religious, remember the faulty logic being employed and ask yourself a simple question, "Who was there when the universe began – God or Nothing?" Romans 1:20 is clear: "From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what He made. As a result, people have no excuse."
David A. Kallman is a practicing attorney with Kallman Legal Group, PLLC, in Lansing, Michigan (kallmanlegal.com). He is a founding member of, and senior legal counsel for, the Great Lakes Justice Center a non-profit corporation dealing with First Amendment liberties and other civil rights issues (greatlakesjc.org).