|
“There are no
alternative scientific theories to account for the
observations explained by evolutionary theory.” –
From “Understanding Evolution,” a taxpayer-funded
website promoting the teaching of evolution
“For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’” –
1 Corinthians 1:19
At their best, I have always believed science and
religion seek the same thing: truth. Not according to the website
“Understanding Evolution,” a joint project of the University of
California and the National Center for Science Education, a private
organization dedicated to “Defending the teaching of evolution in
the public schools.” The site can be found at
http://evolution.berkeley.edu.
The site declares, “Religion and science (evolution) are
very different things. In science (as in science class), only
natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion
deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.” The
parenthetical comments are theirs.
Most of the funding for “Understanding Evolution” came
from a $450,000 federal grant. The site promotes its own religious
views, claiming “most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no
conflict with the theory of evolution.” It offers no proof of that,
but links to a page on the NCSE website that quotes individuals and
groups that have managed to weave evolution into their theologies.
I understand the urge to try; there are few modern
heresies greater than that of questioning evolution. Not that it
hasn’t been tried: In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education took
action to eliminate the teaching of evolution; the Ohio State Board
of Education passed a measure requiring that the scientific evidence
against evolution be taught, and; a curriculum now under
consideration in Georgia would balance evolution with the so-called
“intelligent design” theory.
These efforts have met both ridicule and lawsuits,
generally on the basis of separation of church and state. No
surprise there, but where is the American Civil Liberties Union when
government funds are used to promote religious views that support
evolution, as does “Understanding Evolution?”
The site’s theology at least attempts to dodge creation,
claiming the number one misconception about evolution is that it “is
a theory about the origin of life.” This makes as much sense as
arguing that religion has nothing to do with God, and, in fact, the
site has a section explaining the origin of life anyway.
According to “Understanding Evolution,” simple organic
molecules came into existence first, followed by replicating
molecules, and then molecules enclosed within a cell membrane.
This notion asks us to believe that organic molecules
developed spontaneously, then came to life by themselves. When they
came to life, we must believe there was something for them to eat or
some other way for them to absorb energy. This happy accident of
nature automatically had the ability to use that energy to keep
itself alive. Not only that, the molecules sprang to life
automatically having the ability to reproduce. They then evolved
into multi-celled organisms and eventually the forms we see today,
shaped only by natural selection.
Natural selection makes sense when explaining why fast
rabbits survived and slow rabbits didn’t, but what about higher
functions such as sight? Sight requires an eyeball with all its
complex parts, an optic nerve to carry the signals, and brain
receptors to interpret what the eye sees. What possible purpose
would one have without the other? Could an eyeball evolve piece by
piece? Would optic nerves develop with no brain receptors? Or are
we supposed to believe the whole apparatus popped into existence at
once by random chance?
I consider myself a man of faith but it isn’t strong
enough to believe that. I do believe that if anyone sues
“Understanding Evolution” over the government’s role in funding its
religious views, it won’t be the ACLU.
|
