_ November 30th, 1984

THE OTHER PRESS _

page 9

 

When | read the article ‘‘Battle of
the universe: God versus Darwin’’ by
Michael Ruse (T.O.P. Nov. 9, 1984),
my first inclination was to write a

AL HARMS
INSTRUCTOR DOUGLAS COLLEGE

 

 

point-by-point rebuttal. The more |
thought about it, however, the less |
felt inclined to add to the verbal flak
already thrown up around this con-
troversy.

It is becoming increasingly more
difficult for the two sides to hear each
other. To the extent that my Christian

_brothers in “the Creationist Science

movement are responsible for creating

a barrier between the two sides, | wish
to apologize to Mr. Ruse and other

evolutionists for the upset that they

_ have caused. Although | can appre-
ciate the zeal of the Creationists, |

- believe that it is mis-directed. My plea
would be to ‘‘Come, let us reason
together.’’

How. was it possible for such a
controversy to arise? Are we not
dealing with simple undisputable facts
of science? An incident in my own
family might illustrate why Creation-
ists started on their campaign. My
youngest daughter, who was eight
years old at the time, came home from
school one day, looked at me some-
what defiantly and announced in one
breath: ‘‘Men came from monkeys and
you can’t prove that God exists.’’ |

acknowledged that she was right about :

the second part of her statement but
suggested that she might have a
similar difficulty with the first part.
Realizing that she would not be able
to appreciate an argument on the
subject, | simply left her to come to her
_ own conclusions. You can appreciate,
however, how | might have felt at
seeing my child being robbed of the
values and faith which meant so much
to me. | might well have marched to
the school principal and librarian and
demanded that something be done to
_ change this great assault on my faith.
Instead, | chose to leave my daughter
with her thoughts and | chose to leave
the library with its books. Others have
penrently not been prepared to do
this.

In later years, my daughter went on
to write essays on the evolution/
creation debate, making every effort to
present both sides equally. But | knew
where her heart was: If she should
choose to stray from her present faith,
it won’t be because of the convincing
arguments in the theory of evolution.

For the most part, the debate about
evolution/creation is a non-issue. |
believe this-is true for the evolutionist
as well as for the creationist. It cannot
be said that the integrity of science
rests on the teaching of the theory of
evolution when the text currently used
in biology at Douglas College states, in
referring to the evolution of the human
species ‘‘But much is still unknown
and there is still considerable con-
troversy over how the data should be
interpreted.’’ (Keeton, ‘‘Biological
Science’ p.1066) That hardly sounds
like the kind of firm cornerstone

which, if it failed, would cause the
whole structure of biology to crumble. .
The bulk of the text deals with the

study of the world as it exists today,
and very little of what is studied about
plants and animals as they exist today
requires speculation as to how they
came to be that way. Therefore, to
raise a spectre of what would happen
to the teaching of biology if the theory
of creation were allowed to be included
is strictly a red herring. On the other
hand, | agree that there is nothing
wrong in trying to explain from a
scientific point of view, how the
complicated life forms now in exist-
ence came to be. No one feels the
pressure to do so more than the
atheistic evolutionist. His faith de-
mands it much in the same way that
the Christian’s faith demands that it
not be proved that the universe could
have come into being without the
creative hand of God.

And that is where the controversy
really exists. The comment of my
daughter quoted earlier clearly in-
dicates the theological implications of
the theory of evolution. In this matter,
science is not speaking in the language
of science only; it is also speaking the
language of theology. If the teaching
of evolution is held to be neutral it has
that appearance only by virtue of being
the view of the majority. What is
“‘normal’’ (neutral) in society is jud-

- ged to be so statistically on the basis of

the normal distribution curve. That is
the scientific method. Creationists are
clearly in the minority and by defini-
tion are at the extreme end of the
normal ‘curve and are, again by
definition, abnormal. Science has no
better criterion because science cannot
determine values.

If the teaching of biology does not
rise or fall on the basis of the theory of
evolution, neither does Christianity.
There are three basic reasons why
persons refuse to turn to God and none
of these three has even a remote
connection with the theory of evolu-
tion. The first obstacle is that of
pride. Man wants to be free to make
his own decisions; to be top-dog (or
should | say, top-monkey). Secondly,
there is the obstacle of fear; fear of
what might lie on the other side of the
decision to accept the belief in God.
Thirdly, there is a sense that the
person may have to change certain
things in his life; things he would
rather hang on to. | know because |
have been there.

Even now, in the on-going process
of becoming more fully committed to
God, | experience these same barriers.
The Christian message is that God
loves you and me and that he has
compassion for the human condition.
When | look at myself, and possibly
when you look at yourself, and
particularly when we look at the world
in general, the human condition can
certainly stand some love and compas-
sion from somewhere. We seem to be
powerless to realize this for ourselves.
Hope for the future is a commodity
which is in short supply in today’s
world.

There is, what I see as a very real
problem for the atheistic evolutionist
problem which | seldom see address-
ed. If | claim that the theory of
evolution accounts for everything that
exists, then | must derive everything
within that existence from that theory.

To borrow something from. another
theory is an admission that my theory
is inadequate. Simply stated, the
theory of evolution claims that we are
what we are because we are what we
are and for no other purpose. We have
evolved to be what we are and we
could not have chosen to evolve any
differently.

If one group of people evolved to
believe in God, then they cannot be
blamed for this any more than we can
blame a tree for its shape. If another
group of people does not believe in
God it is simply the result of having
evolved differently. By which criteria
can either side be blamed for the way
in which they have evolved? Surely
there i$no such criteria at work in the
theory of evolution.

Thus, the evolutionist who somehow
claims to have caught hold to truth
in this matter of how we came to be
what we are, should be the first one to
wish the believer well, recognizing
that they could not have evolved
differently. What is immediately evi-
dent is that it does not matter how we
evolve or even if we evolve. Every-
thing should be allowed.

For example, prayer in school
matters only if God exists; otherwise it
is of no consequence and it is the
evolutionist who should be the first to
concede this (Correction--there are nc
‘shoulds’ for the evolutionist either).

I’m sorry to have to say this, but for
Mr. Ruse to give value and purpose to

his position as an evolutionist shows .

how poorly he actually understands his
own position. No doubt he would plead
that he cannot help himself. Any
reference to values having intrinsic
worth is a heresy that he has borrowed
from the Christian’s camp.

(GOD VERSUS DARWIN: VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE

If Mr. Ruse continues to talk about
values in any absolute sense (it is
absolutely wrong to teach creationism
in school), he may be suspected of
fraternizing with the creationists. |
suspect that there are very few pure
evolutionists in our midst. As depicted
by Mr. Bordon P. Browne, the
implications of Darwinism are ‘‘Life
without meaning; death without mean-
ing and the universe without meaning.
A race tortured for no purpose, and
with no hope but annihilation. The
dead only blessed; and the living
standing like beasts at bay, and
shrieking half in defiance and half in
fear.’’ (Does this sound in any way like
the ‘ban the bomb’ movement?)

Once again, by giving meaning to
the controversy between creationists
and evolutionists Mr. Ruse is cheating:
on his own presuppositions. Or is he
possible acting out of fear that he
might be wrong? If he is right, it won’t
matter in the end anyway.

The Bible offers this piece of advise
if Christianity is false and Darwinism
is true: ‘‘Let us eat’ and drink for
tomorrow we die.’’ | Cor. 15:32. The
only appropriate response for the
evolutionist would appear to be si-
lence. The extent to which he has not
remained silent serves as_ indirect
evidence of the weight of counter-
evidence pressing down on him. No
one has written a book countering
belief in the existence of Santa Claus
because there is no pressure on us to
believe that such a being exists.

My hope begins in the proverb ‘‘The
fear (admission of the existence) of
God is the beginning of Knowledge.”’ | _
invite Mr. Ruse and other evolutionists
to at least be open to the possibilities
that this fact might bring to mankind.

 

R'S OPEN AGAIN!
YOU GUYS BORN
N OR WHAT ?/