Evolution and Creation are both Religious in nature
by: Mark Stewart, Greenfield, OH

Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos

Letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch (not published) 
Submitted March 10, 2002

To the Editor,

In response to the article "Evolution spat" that appeared in Sunday's newspaper of the Columbus Dispatch (3/9/2002), I would like to make a few comments and observations. Don't call creation religion and evolution science, when considering the origins of things, evolution is just as religious as creation.

When not considering the origins of things, creation is just as scientific as evolution, if not more so. Models can be formulated; experiments can be set up and tested to determine which explanation best fits the empirical evidence. And these results can be falsified. That is the true nature of the scientific method.

One must realize that evolution and creation are two diametrically opposed worldviews, paradigms or philosophies. One says the universe began naturally, the other supernaturally. One begins with the premise of God (theism), the other with the premise that there is no God (atheism). Both incorporate the facts of science into their respective perspective. Both are equally scientific and equally religious. Don't let anyone kid you otherwise.

I wish to leave you with three interesting quotes from  evolutionists. The first by Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was one of the nation's leading evolutionists, "The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter."

The second by Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, "...evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is outside of empirical science, but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it...(Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." The third was made by George Gaylord Simpson who said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything...or at the very least, they are not science."

Mark Stewart
Greenfield, OH