Newsletter Vol.1, #44—October 23, 2005

Matthew 6 ³¹Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' ³²For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. ESV

.

Commercial Dispatch ~ Columbus, ms ~ October 3, 2005

Scientists don't sue to gain access to pulpits

by leonard pitts, jr. ~ lpitts@herald.com

The Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist group. It was organized in 1865 for the purpose of controlling and oppressing newly freed slaves through intimidation, violence and murder.

Not many people will argue with that. Historians in particular will find the statement uncontroversial.

But 10 years ago in Vicksburg, Miss., I learned an alternate view. Vicksburg was an especially stubborn stronghold of Confederate sentiment during the Civil War -- refused to celebrate the Fourth of July again until 1944. Small wonder, then, that a museum there featured an exhibit claiming the Klan was actually formed to save the South from corrupt black governments and that, while ''many people suffered, some no doubt innocently,'' the night riders sought only to ``restore some semblance of decency.''

It's a lie, of course, but it's a lie some of us believe. So here's the question: When we teach schoolchildren about the Klan, must we give equal time to this view? Are we required to treat it as if it has the slightest credibility?

Or would that not be an affront to scholarship itself?

EVOLUTION ON TRIAL

It's science, not history, that went on trial this week in Harrisburg, pa., but the questions still apply. Parents are squaring off in federal court over a local school board's requirement that before children can be taught Charles Darwin's theory that humanity evolved from lower animals, teachers must read a statement acknowledging ''alternate'' theories of human origin.

This would include the so-called theory of intelligent design, which holds that living things are so fantastically complex, they can only have been invented by some supernatural creator.

Proponents of the policy deny they are trying to sneak religion into the classroom. It is, they say, a matter of free speech: Students should be exposed to all sides of an issue.

But for that argument to hold water, you must have more than one side. Where science and the theory of evolution are concerned, you do not. It is the overwhelming consensus of the mainstream scientific community that Darwin had it right. So pretending there is another ''side'' to the question makes about as much sense as pretending there is another side to the Klan. It reeks of false equivalence, no-fault scholarship, judgment-free education, the bogus notion that all points of view are created equal and are equally deserving of respect.

FAITH NOT A SCIENCE

And that just ain't so.

I believe in God. I believe God is the sovereign author of creation. But that is a matter of faith, not science. Faith, as it says in the book of Hebrews, is the evidence of things not seen. Science, by contrast, is founded upon observable phenomena. They are diametric

opposites, but both seek the same goal: to help man and woman comprehend their lives and their world. To help them find answers.

I would argue that faith and science are in some ways more complementary than contradictory. But it's telling that where they do conflict, as in the question of human origin, it's always people of faith who beg for validation. I mean, when has any scientist ever sued for equal time in the pulpit?There is an unbecoming neediness about these constant schemes to dress religion up as science. Why are some people of faith so desperate for approval from a discipline they reject?

INSECURITY

It suggests an insecurity that belies the bellicose battle cry of Bible literalists: ''God said it. I believe it. That settles it.'' Or in the words of a church sign as related to me last week by a minister in Maine: Reason is the enemy of faith.

That's a sad, troubling and even pathetic mind-set.

We inhabit a universe vaster than human comprehension, older than human wanderings, more wondrous than human conception. And in the face of that, we do the natural thing. We ask questions and seek answers.

That's not a denial of God. It is evidence of Him.

This letter to the editor is in response to the column by Leonard Pitts printed in the Dispatch on Monday, October 3, entitled God and science are not opponents. This was also emailed to Mr. Pitts.

You made a parallel between the kkk's version of history and Intelligent Design. There is no parallel between the two at all. The correct parallel would be between the kkk's version of history and the evolutionist version of history. I hope you will not allow others to do your thinking for you in saying, "scientists agree with me." Could scientists be wrong? And how would you know?

(Note: I do not know the author of this and did not see an exact quote of Mr. Pitts as given by the author. The closest to such a statement might be “It is the overwhelming consensus of the mainstream scientific community that Darwin had it right.” –Larry)

Evolution says that over time, from simple compounds called amino acids came every plant and animal, you and me. Give nature 4.5 billion years on a good planet like earth, and from scratch, you will inevitably get two individuals communicating by email. Bear in mind that man has duplicated many things in nature in a much shorter time than nature has.

Given this (and I believe that gives too much) would it not be irrational to preclude that man will never "create" life forms on some planet similar to ours in the distant future? And will those life forms develop to "create" newspapers and write columns declaring that no intelligent being is responsible for them? Another question for you would be, how would one determine when life is the product of intelligent beings (man, alien, or God)? Wouldn't you have to know the answer to that question before you declared "you do not" have another "side" to evolution? Do you know of anyone from "the mainstream scientific community" who knows how to tell whether the origin of life is because of natural development or intelligent activity? Another question for you (in that you believe in something that you call God): If God is real, why should it be surprising that He has been a participant in the history of the world and life itself? If God created all things and in our efforts to understand ourselves and the world we ignore our creator, we are ignoring the most important part of reality.

Twenty years ago, a non religious scientist wrote, "The idea of evolution as propounded by Darwin and elaborated into accepted 'fact' by the scientific establishment is coming under increasing fire." The reason for this is that "Not only has paleontology failed to come up with the fossil 'missing links' which Darwin anticipated, but hypothetical reconstructions of major evolutionary developments such as that linking birds to reptiles are beginning to look more like fantasies than serious conjectures" (Michael Denton, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis). In addition to this, when we learn of all the sequences of events in cell and learn of its mind-boggling complexity, the inescapable conclusion is, "This could not have been put together in a step by step process called evolution." If it did not get put together step by step, then it had to be put together all at once. Now, another question for you: What else other than nature (evolution), what other "side" could be responsible for this?

Proponents of Intelligent Design are not desperate or insecure. But evolutionists are! What is really "sad, troubling and even pathetic" is that with unsatisfactory answers to these questions favorable to your view, you contend that students should not be taught the facts that I have summarized above. Are you willfully misinformed? Are you really in favor of asking questions and seeking answers? If you are, then you will not be in opposition to students learning "both sides." The last question for all of us is, "will our educational institutions (paid with tax dollars with attendance required by the law of the land) be about the business of education, free thought, and truly seeking answers without restraint, or will it be about indoctrination and brainwashing toward a biased naturalistic worldview?