EVOLUTIONISM: FACT OR FAITH? (A classical argument paper)

Is there a question more religious by nature than how life came to be? The theory of evolution – by reason of its premise – is as religious in nature as any theory of creation, yet enjoys a monopoly in public school classrooms. In spite of the evolutionist faith already being taught I’m not – repeat not – proposing that we also teach Biblical Creationism. The question of whether life was created or arose as a purely natural process of chance and time is challengeable on the bases of science and logic without appealing to any sacred texts. Fairness and academic honesty compel the inclusion in public school science curricula of a non-Biblical, scientific challenge to evolution’s underlying assumptions and interpretations.

“It is no more heretical to say the universe displays purpose, [. . .] than to say that it is pointless, [. . .] Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion.”

This allegation of evolutionism’s religiosity is not exclusive to the religionist; it was made by no less a personage than Dr. Michael Shallis, 1984 staff tutor in Physical Science at the University of Oxford. One characteristic of a religion is its acceptance of the supernatural. The supernatural is nothing more mysterious than that which “occurs outside the normal experience or knowledge of man.” The origin of life is such an occurrence. Any assumption concerning the origin of life is by definition an assumption of the supernatural. A philosophy that presumes to dogmatically answer the question of how life came to be is a religious and supernatural philosophy. Schools can teach about all the religion they want, but don’t compel the practice of one, and especially don’t imply there is only one to practice. By mandating the exclusive teaching of the theory of evolution, failing to include reasonable dissension, continually alluding to it as fact instead of theory, and using textbooks that are demonstrably riff with error, our schools are effectively shoving a judgment concerning a religious issue down our children’s throats. May whatever power or non-power you may or may not pray to save our young from those who are so awfully certain they are right.

Harvard Professor of Genetics, Richard Lewontin, a world leader in Evolutionary Biology, acknowledges the nature of evolutionism’s foundation.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, [. . .] because we have a prior commitment, [. . .] (W)e are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, [. . .]. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

The theory of evolution does not end with naturalism; that is, “the view that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes.” It begins with an assumption of naturalism. The assumption of naturalism is an appeal to that which has neither been experienced nor observed by man. When forming a model for research, can anybody be purely objective and perfectly unbiased? If alternate scenarios leave the same evidence it is a faith-based choice which one will most influence your interpretations. Imagine a careless target shooter left his loaded rifle on the freshly waxed hood of his pickup when he went to reset his targets. A typical Kittitas Valley breeze gave the pickup a good shake and there went the rifle. It bounced off his front-mounted winch, discharged, and put a bullet through his brain. Or at least that’s what his wife told the deputy. Evolutionism is no less a religion or more a science than any theory of creation science; it requires as much faith – in the unproved premise of naturalism – to assume no creator as it does to accept a creator. Non-Biblical creation theories modeled on the existing evidence are no less scientific than the theory of evolution. I think it might be prudent to at least investigate how smooth evolution’s marriage to the facts has been, and if it has taken out any large insurance policies recently. And while we’re at it, let’s run a nitrate test to see if the missus has fired any weapons lately.

The theory of evolution – dogmatically asserting naturalism – is taught as the only way life could have arose. This is tantamount to teaching that the only religion is Catholicism, Fundamentalism, Islam, or even Atheism. Should any theory enjoy such a monopoly and be immune to critical examination? If the theory of evolution is as firmly established as it is pretended to be it should be easily defended, and nothing more than an exercise in the development of critical thinking skills and investigative practices will have been added to the curricula. Evolutionists argue against creationism on the grounds that it is religion, and thus to be excluded on the basis of the First Amendment. This fails to account for evolutionism’s own religious nature, and its status as the only officially sanctioned theory. This puts unfair pressure on those who would believe otherwise. The exclusive teaching of evolutionism is itself a transgression of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The repetition ad nauseam of a litany of theories disguised as facts has the effect of a brainwashing technique discouraging belief in an alternate theory that may fit the facts as well, or better, than the current version of a constantly changing theory. Whether intentional or not, this is the intellectual equivalent of “prohibiting the free exercise” of a reasonable belief. A mockingbird mimicking a meadowlark may fool you until you take the time to investigate the source of the song.

Many evolutionists fear the ideas of creationists as a stalking horse. This notion that once in the door creationists will run amok and attack all the sciences is absurd, especially in light of the fact that it is on the basis of the sciences that creationists wish to challenge the evolutionists. Those who wish to challenge evolution’s assumptions and conclusions are not Greek soldiers hiding in the belly of a wooden horse, nor are they enemies of science. Most scientists working today are dealing with issues of the present. Scientific methodology serves very well in the present. If methodology can be used at all to interpret the past it can only do so in an oblique and subjective manner. If different events leave the same evidence you cannot use methodology to authoritatively establish which event occurred. To insist that evolution is the only model that the evidence fits – or can fit – is just plain bad science.

Take two theorists with one assuming naturalism, and the other assuming a creator, and leave them the same evidence. Take one coin – assumption – and on one side inscribe: “Naturalism, no creator, life just happened.” On the other side inscribe: “Life was caused, life shows design, entropy increases.” For the evolutionist to argue that the creationist should have no influence in the science classroom because evolutionism is science and creationism is religion is as patently absurd as the Seattle Seahawks saying the Denver Broncos don’t belong on the football field because the Seahawks are a football team and the Broncos are a swimming team. In the same manner, non-Biblical creationism based on the assumption of a creator is no less a science than evolutionism based on the assumption of naturalism.

There is justifiable reason to doubt if evolution is the way we got here. Essentially, entropy – the amount of unavailable energy – is increasing. Whenever any process of any kind occurs some energy is forever lost to a form no longer usable. The observed trend of the universe is to grow increasingly diffuse and seek equal temperature. Things are falling apart and becoming less lively. They are not falling together and becoming livelier. When the evolutionist points out that the Earth is an open system – receiving energy from an outside source – he is still assuming that energy alone and undirected by design can account for the processes he claims the evidence supports. This is similar to pouring a gallon of gasoline over a random pile of motorcycle parts and expecting to ride it downtown when you ignite the gas. Actually the pile of motorcycle parts has an advantage: they are already organized into discrete building blocks that can be bolted together into a working machine. The evolutionist has assumed a natural process that must first form even the most basic building blocks. Further than this, he postulates a universe where even the material that forms the most basic building blocks had to itself come into being by purely natural means. The evolutionist is driving the wrong way on a one-way street.

Even if evolutionists were able to duplicate any supposed beginning of life from some assumed primordial muck the result would not prove naturalism – as the experiment would not happen spontaneously – and would only demonstrate that nothing happened until someone organized some material and conducted an experiment. Leave the results on the bench long enough and they will not crawl away. They will rot, mold, dry up, or in some other way demonstrate that entropy increases. Randomness suggests that for every action favorable to life there is an action hindering life. The evolutionist is peeking at the answers before he takes the test.

The fossil record does not support evolution. The record does not show a gradual change within species. It does show that species appear fully formed, suddenly, and with no evidence of intermediaries. The most notable thing about the fossil record is its failure to support the theory of evolution. The evolutionist is filling in the blanks with elaborate guesswork. This is only a minuscule sampling of hundreds of legitimate topics. There are hundreds of books, thousands of articles, and tens of thousands of websites devoted to this issue.

Neither the subject of God nor the possibility of God is prohibited by the First Amendment. This amendment prohibits federal sanctioning of any one particular religion and the compelling of citizens to observe that religion. God is all around us in our government, our national history, and our institutions with direct references in The Declaration of Independence, our Nation Anthem, our Pledge of Allegiance, and on our currency. Over the east portico of the Supreme Court Building is an image of Moses holding the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are also engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice and on the doors of the court. These simple facts of our history and culture threaten nobody’s liberty or their right to disbelieve. While evolutionists and atheists have First Amendment grounds to ban Biblical creationism from public school it would be a bit of a stretch to include a non-Biblical scientific challenge to their assumptions in this same ban.

When the priests of evolutionism meet the preachers of creationism the contest quickly becomes what it has been from the beginning: a contest of religion verses religion. Ultimately both must rely on faith. The evolutionist must have faith in his unproved premise of naturalism just as the creationist must rely on faith. The evolutionist might remember when he looks at his side of the coin that the only thing separating him from the creationist is that assumption of naturalism from which his whole argument stems. And so too might the creationist remember the tremendous effort the evolutionist has invested in his science, and – given his assumptions – his conclusions are the justifiable results of a rational process.

May we be allowed aspirations greater than as participants in a parade from primordial muck to modern man? Or are we merely a freak accident caused by nothing, meaning nothing, and going nowhere but oblivion? Advocate neither as fact. Examine both as possibilities.