Skip to main content

Critique: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3, Ken Ham and Roger Patterson

In reference to: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3

Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used.

Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom.
... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ...
Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life.  This is incorrect.  Evolution is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life.  Abiogenesis is the development from life from non-life.  It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state.  It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct.

Advocating Evolution as Religious

An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolution and not creationism represents state advocacy for the religion of Humanism.  Several problems exist here.  

There is no justification (because it is a false claim) that evolution is religious.  Even if you assume Humanism is religious, it does not follow that evolution is religious.  Evolution is a scientific theory.  It is secular - separate from religion by definition.  It is stated that evolution is a cornerstone of Humanism, and implied that it follows that evolution is therefore religious.  But a religious movement using a secular concept as a basis for faith would in no way impart that faith to the secular idea.

Repeated attempts are made to show that evolution is religious because it requires blind-faith belief in life coming from non-life.  Again, Evolution does not make this claim.  Evolution does claim that homo sapiens appear to share a common ancestor with most life on Earth.  But it is completely silent on the origin of life itself.

Humanism as Religion

A decent point can be made that certain forms of Humanism are religious.  This article makes some missteps though.  Several quotes appear from the "Humanist Manifesto I" from 1933.  These quotes have a very religious slant.  Then there is a reference to Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins signing the Humanist Manifesto III.  But what is not mentioned is that all the religious language that was quoted does not exist in version III of this document which is what they signed.  So to draw the conclusion that this represents religious behavior and motivation on their part is mistaken at best.  Eugenie Scott is affiliated with the NCSE who's mission is to defend the teaching of Evolution and Climate Science in public schools, by definition a secular agenda.

A supreme court ruling has included "Secular Humanism" in a list of religions in a ruling, as referenced in the article.  But that ruling did not levy any restrictions on the teaching of evolution in public school.  If this is a reasonable connection - that the supreme court has ruled Secular Humanism a religion, and evolution is inseparable from Secular Humanism - then the logical course for one with an agenda would be a legal one.  If evolution is legally religious then it is unlawful to teach it in the science class.  That is not done because the courts have already ruled on this sort of thing, and they have clearly ruled by contrast that evolution is not religious.

Advice for Christian Teachers

Near the end of the article there are several recommendations given to Christian teachers.  But one that is missing is to actually learn what science says about Evolution.  To learn that to equate the massive amount of good science that went into the study of the evolution of homo sapiens to an artist making up a drawing from a pile of bones is a ridiculous comparison.  
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
For many adherents of religion it is insufficient to separate science from theology. God is the creator of all things, the repository of all knowledge, and the giver of all truth. Information coming from sources other than god's revelations through scripture or personal communication is inherently baseless, and if it disagrees with any communication from god it is demonstrably incorrect. Their confusing scientific theories, processes or observations is trivial to them because all science is a diversion from and misrepresentation of the truth. While putting creationism and evolution on an equal footing in science classes may be an interim step, it cannot be the final goal. Ultimately the teaching of science, rather than prayer and scripture, as a method for determining the truth about our universe would have to end. In fairness it must be noted that many who value science as a methodology for pursuing truth are equally dismissive of prayer and scripture as legitimate alternatives. I personally consider scripture and prayer to be wonderful tools for the religious to seek moral guidance and a meaningful relationship with their god. I do not believe they should compete with science to describe our universe or with more observable methods to determine our history, especially in our public schools.
September 22, 2013 at 5:14 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

39

Three decades I have walked the Earth.  Almost four.  I have known what it is to be loved by good parents, to be alienated and abused by classmates, to be a failure at scholastic pursuits, to be a success at scholastic pursuits, to find a family apart from heredity, to know love with the joys and pains that brings, to be a father of three wonderful children, and to be a master craftsman at my profession.  I have seen the glory of man, and the failure of man. When I was a young child, I gave my life to Christ.  I still remember the event, or at least I think I do.  Evergreen Baptist Church.  Vacation Bible School.  Altar call.  I was moved to move, to walk the path, to commit my life to Christ.  I have never had a burning passion for Christ, but I have held him in my heart.  In college I drifted away, as is the tendency.  When I became serious with my now wife, we agreed to walk the road of life together as a Christian family....
8 comments
Read more

Andy McIntosh - What about the Fossils - Part 8 (Stasis)

This is part 8 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUU9Wb8yzQ Stasis One of McIntosh's main points is the concept of stasis .  This means that things don't change for a long time (things like feathers and turtles).  It seems the point here is: "so evolution is wrong". He seems to be saying that either everything evolves by changing constantly, or his version of young earth creationism is true.  There are many other options of course. It could be that evolutionary theory can explain this.  It could be that aliens made life on earth.  If this were indeed evidence against the current theory of evolution, that would not make it evidence for young earth creationism.  Maybe if every species coul...
3 comments
Read more