A recent letter on the editorial page of the Corpus Christi Caller Times said there is no scientific evidence for Creation. Too, my personal friend, Mr. E. E. Brennaman, wrote on the editorial page that Creationists should not think evolution is defeated just because it is a theory. “All sciences are based on theories,” he argues (Sept. 17). His statement can be true but misleading if the word science is understood to represent the source of truth.
A few quotes from the college textbook, Elements of Zoology, help us understand that evolution is a theory of science. This is important for the Creationist to point out. First, a theory is different from a law. Second, “most theories have rather brief life spans” (p. 6). It can be a good theory, or it could be a poor one.
One thing about science and theory is that it is only good until a better theory comes along. “So we read that if things are absolute, they are not science. …Science is content to find evidence for theories, and it is not concerned with truths, proofs, or facts” (p. 7).
How good is evolution as a theory?
Charles Darwin wrote to the geologist Charles Lyell on the eve of publishing his book, Origin of the Species, “Often a cold shudder runs through me, and I have asked myself whether I have devoted my life to a fantasy.”
The famous anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith, wrote, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
George Wald, a Harvard professor of biology, said, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task of bringing together complex organisms in this manner to concede that spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, here we are. As a result, I believe in spontaneous generation.”
Talk about blind faith! An evolutionist says it is impossible, but he believes it!
In 1963 in The Limitation of Science, J. W. N. Sullivan wrote:
It became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance.
What do the evolutionists mean when they say life coming from non-life is impossible? Edwin Conklin, a scientist and biologist of Princeton University, said, “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”
In 1981, in Evolution from Space, Sir Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe, scientists attacking chemical evolution, concluded that if the whole universe were a kind of “pre-biotic soup” life arising spontaneously would still be only one chance in 1 followed by 40,000 zeros!
They likened it to the chance a tornado going through a junkyard would have to make a Boeing 747.
Evolutionists function on blind faith. Their best logical and scientific argument seems to go like this: “There are two choices: creation and evolution. Of course we cannot even consider creation. Consequently, evolution is true.”
Jerry Moffitt