In his March 23 column, Randall Seyler, former news editor for The Sun, wrote “State legislators monkeying around with creationism.” A bill was introduced to allow “Creationism As A Theory of How The Earth Came To Exist” to be taught in schools. He called it “the sequel to the Monkey Trial,” labeled it the “crème-de-la-crap” of legislation, and was surprised the Legislature could “out ignorant” themselves and permit “stupidity.”
Is he unaware that the father of modern evolutionary thought believed in balance? “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both side of each question ... ” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species).
It’s not a matter of evolutionists having access to information not available to creationists. We all see the same evidence. The question is, which interpretation fits best? Darwin didn’t prove macro-evolution (the kind that would allow a monkey to develop into a man), he only showed evidence for micro-evolution (changes in the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands). The finches remained finches. Macro evolution remains a theory, not a fact. To be scientific, a thing must be repeatable and observable. Neither the Big Bang nor macro evolution is repeatable or observable, thus not true science.
In 1925 evolutionists thought it was unfair that only one view of origins could be taught. Some still want one view, but they want it to be evolution. What happened to fairness, Mr. Seyler? Clarence Darrow argued that it was “bigotry” to teach only one theory of origins. Evolutionists liked Darrow’s logic then. It is a poor rule that won’t work both ways. Creationists are asking for fair treatment, not favored treatment, as evolution presently enjoys.
He criticized opponents of evolution as the “anti-monkey crowd.” Does he call the other side the pro-monkey crowd? With his adjectives of “ignorant,” “crème-de-la-crap” and “stupidity,” is that what he thinks of the creation account? He should take that up with the Creator. Since Darwin believed in being “fair and balanced,” would he apply those adjectives to Darwin?
He observed that the Epperson v. Arkansas ruling said religious dogma belongs in church, not schools. The Humanist Manifesto plainly says humanism is a religion and that evolution is a cardinal tenet of humanism.
It is absurd to claim evolution is a non-religious subject. The renowned British physicist, Dr. H.S.Lipson, echoed the same sentiment: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (“A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” In: Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, May, 1980).
To exclude information because it corresponds with the Bible is censorship of the worst kind. It is neither American, civil nor liberty. It would mean children could not be exposed to the Mayflower Compact, Patrick Henry’s famous speech, the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. All of these mention a Creator.