The following is a “guest post” by a brother in Christ:
To Darren M. Allen:
I would like to respond to your ignorant and vitriolic piece entitled “Seeking intelligent life on the issue of intelligent design” in the November 13, 2005 issue of the Rutland Herald/Times Argus. For being such a “non-judgmental” and “tolerant” liberal, you certainly evinced plenty of judgmentalism and intolerance in the piece, using phrases like “rank stupidity,” “fundamentalism run amok,” “religious extremists,” “dopey,” and “religious baloney.” You even went so far as to compare those who believe in creationism to Muslim suicide bombers by saying that “these backers of intelligent design prove unequivocally that the Middle East does not have a lock on non-thinking thugs who espouse their ignorance in the name of an omniscient being.” Wow. Since when did advocates of creationism espouse “killing the infidels”? And you are the Chief of the Vermont Press Bureau? I can see why the press is so biased.
Let me tell you a little bit about my educational background. I graduated with honors from Duke University (a school you probably couldn’t even get into, let alone graduate from) with a Bachelor of Science (yes, SCIENCE) degree. My classes included chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, mathematics, neuropsychology, and biology (including a class in Evolution in which the well-known Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould spoke). I then received my Master’s degree from the University of Vermont and fulfilled all coursework toward a Ph.D. but did not complete my doctoral dissertation because I had found a job and started a family. Included in my coursework were courses in statistics, including advanced multivariate statistics. I’m someone who would not fit the epithets you threw around in your column. Yet I am a creationist. I’m not even in with the “intelligent design” crowd that would not use the word “God.” I am an out-and-out creationist who believes that the God of the Bible created the universe as is recorded in the book of Genesis.
After having said that, you might be surprised to know that I believe that creationism or “intelligent design” should NOT be taught in public schools. Surprised? Well, creationism, although all the scientific evidence supports it, has to do with FAITH, and faith is not to be taught in public schools. But I ALSO believe that evolutionism should NOT be taught in public schools. Why is that? Because, contrary to your and your colleagues’ ignorant assertions, evolutionism has as much to do with FAITH as creationism does. In fact, there is so much FAITH in evolutionism that when science contradicts it, evolutionists go on believing it in spite of incontrovertible evidence against it.
You wrote, “Look no further than Kansas, where that state’s Board of Education approved science standards that seek to undermine Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.” This sentence exemplifies your utter ignorance of the state of current evolutionary theory. EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES do not all agree with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution! And there are some EVOLUTIONISTS who are actively seeking to undermine Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution! What do you have to say about that? According to your reasoning, these evolutionists who disagree with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution must be stupid, dopey, fundamentalist extremists! Yet even Stephen J. Gould, the most prolific modern advocate of evolution, did not believe in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution! Because of the lack of fossil evidence for the so-called “transitional forms,” Gould advocated the evolutionary theory of “punctuated equilibrium” in which there were short periods of rapid change interspersed among long periods of no change (as opposed to Darwin’s theory of slow, gradual change). Talk about faith! Gould changed his whole theory because the fossil record did not support Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. You call creationism “pseudo-science,” yet evolutionism is the mother of pseudo-science!
You disagree? Okay, let’s go at it. Let’s look at the scientific evidence to see if it supports evolutionism. Biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, you name it. The reason you are ignorant of the fact that scientific evidence actually contradicts evolutionism is probably the reason why most people are ignorant of it — it is because the high school and college textbooks conveniently leave out the most compelling evidence against evolutionism. Why would they do such a thing? It is to perpetuate their FAITH in the myth of evolutionism.
Let’s take astronomy for example. There is so much evidence against the universe and the solar system being billions of years old, it is laughable to see the evolutionists continue to try to defend it.
Take the recession of the moon. Evolutionists say that the moon is 4.6 billion years old. The moon spirals away from the earth at a rate of 4 centimeters per year. This means that a thousand years ago, the moon was 125 feet closer to the earth. A billion years ago (theoretically, since the universe is not that old), the moon was 28,400 miles closer to the earth. At 1.4 billion years ago, you have the earth and the moon in contact with each other! So the 4.6-billion-year theory is blown away.
Take long-period comets. If the solar system is billions of years old, then long-period comets should not exist. How do the evolutionists deal with this conundrum? They make up what they call “the Oort cloud.” However, there are a few little problems: First, there’s no scientific evidence that “the Oort cloud” even exists, and second, there would not be enough mass in the hypothetical “Oort cloud” to supply the needed comets in the evolutionary theory! Another theory blown away.
Take the age of the sun. Evolutionists say that the sun is 4.6 billion years old. If the sun is 4.6 billion years old, it should have brightened by about 40% due to the alteration of the sun’s core by thermonuclear fusion. The average temperature of the earth has been 59 degrees Fahrenheit. A 25% increase in brightness increases the average temperature by about 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Anyone with half a brain can see what this means. Another theory blown away.
Take supernova remnants. If our galaxy is billions of years old, then the number of second-stage supernova remnants should be around 2200, and the number of third-stage supernova remnants should be around 5000. The actual number of observed second-stage supernova remnants is 200, and the actual number of third-stage supernova remnants is ZERO. Another theory blown away.
Take star formation. Evolutionists believe that stars formed from vast clouds of gas and dust through gravitational contraction. However, because of heat pressure, gas and dust clouds will EXPAND, not contract. Evolutionists believe that the universe is 20 billion years old. They estimate that there are 100 billion galaxies and 200 billion stars per galaxy. This means that there are one trillion stars per year forming. This equates to 2.7 billion stars forming every day, or 31,700 stars forming every second, for 20 billion years. Yet scientists cannot directly observe EVEN ONE star forming. Another theory blown away.
Take the redshift of starlight. This redshift represents and expansion redshift, not a Doppler redshift. According to the “Big Bang” theory (in which it is postulated that there is not a center to the universe and the universe is homogeneous), scientists should observe redshifts at all distances among the light spectrum. But — surprise, surprise — they don’t. What they DO observe are redshifts coming at distinct one-million-light-year intervals, forming concentric circles around our galaxy! Of course, you won’t see this in textbooks. Another theory blown away.
This is just a tiny part of the scientific evidence. Why would evolutionists (astronomers in the above examples) defend something that so clearly is scientifically indefensible? Two reasons: First, if they were honest about the evidence, they would have to conclude that the universe, and our galaxy in particular, is much younger than earlier theorized, and that would not allow for billions of years of evolution of living beings on the earth. Second, the mission of astronomers studying the origin of the universe is to prove that God does not exist, so anything that looks like evidence that the Bible is true must be hidden. Yet they demonstrate that they, too, have a faith when they talk of the “Big Bang.” Take evolutionist Paul Davies, in his book The Edge of Infinity: “[The big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle …” Oh? Something coming out of nothing? The sudden suspension of all physical laws? And this is SCIENCE? Give me a break. If the universe started as a “swirling mass,” from where did this “swirling mass” come?
As anyone who is not intellectually blind can see, the defenders of evolution do not have a leg to stand on (whether it be in the area of astronomy that I mentioned above, or in any other scientific area). But that does not make them (or ignorant people like you) any less adamant that evolution is true. In fact, they become even more vehement in their defense, calling people who do not agree with them all kinds of names (like you have done). This name-calling only shows that they do not actually have scientific evidence, so they must resort to ad hominem attacks.
But what if creationism were true? This is the main reason why evolutionists will stick to their theory no matter how bankrupt it is. If creationism were true, then the Bible would be true. And if the Bible were true, then the person and work of Jesus Christ would be true. And evolutionists want none of that. They want none of what the Bible calls THE GOSPEL. The gospel is God’s promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. Jesus Christ, the God-Man Mediator, came to this earth as a representative and substitute for a certain number of people that God the Father had chosen before He created the world. Jesus Christ lived a perfectly sinless life. When He was crucified, all the sins of His people were imputed to (legally charged to the account of) Him, and He suffered the just punishment that His people deserved. He took their place. And when God regenerates a person in time, the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to that person, and that person comes into fellowship with God, who only fellowships with those who are as perfectly righteous as He is. In their own character and conduct, God’s people still sin. But in the eyes of God’s law and justice, their sins have been paid for, and they are clothed with the perfect righteousness of their substitute, Jesus Christ. All for whom Jesus Christ lived and died will go to heaven. All for whom Jesus Christ did not live and die will go to hell. It is the work of Jesus Christ that makes the only difference between salvation and damnation. Jesus Christ’s work demands and ensures the salvation of everyone whom He represented. The evolutionists like you hate to hear this. And so do most people who call themselves Christians. But, by a miracle of God’s grace, He regenerates some of those who used to hate Him and His gospel, and causes them to believe His gospel.
What will you do with this truth? Will you get angry and call me names? Will you think it is ridiculous and just toss it aside? Whatever you do, I am here to tell you that it is a matter of life and death. And if you wish to correspond with me more about this, I welcome your correspondence.
Agrammatos 