|
It is fair to ask why more scientists do not accept creationism.
Students no longer are taught that there is any evidence which
contradicts evolution. Evolution is taught in the universities as
though it were a proven fact. Anyone who questions the validity
of evolution is automatically suspect in the eyes of the
evolutionists. Teilhard de Chardin, an evolutionary philosopher,
stated,
"Excepting a few ultra-conservative groups it would not
occur to any present day thinker or scientist-it would be
psychologically inadmissible and impossible to pursue a line of
thought which ignores the concept of a world in evolution."1
Teilhard de Chardin has committed the logically fallacious but
psychologically effective argument known as the appeal to the
people .2 This fallacious argument tries to win the
point by an appeal to emotion. Copi, giving an example of this
logical fallacy,says,
"Besides the 'snob appeal' already referred to, we may
include under this heading the familiar 'band-wagon argument.'
The campaign politician 'argues' that he should receive our votes
because 'everybody' is voting that way. We are told that such and
such a breakfast food, or cigarette, or motor car is 'best'
because it is America’s largest seller. A certain belief
'must' be true because, everyone knows it.' But popular
acceptance of a policy does not prove it to be wise; widespread
use of certain products does not prove them to be satisfactory;
general assent to a claim does not prove it to be true. To argue
in this way is to commit the ad populum fallacy."3
Thus, in looking at what de Chardin said, we find that he called
creationists "ultra-conservatives." And obviously, no
one wants to be that. He also said that you can't be a thinker or
a scientist if you don't believe in evolution. These arguments
are psychologically powerful and therefore sway a number of
people. But they have little to do with whether or not evolution
occurred.
D.M.S. Watson, a zoologist, once wrote,
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it
can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative,
'special creation’ is clearly impossible."4
Why is special creation impossible? If there is a God and He
wanted to create the world, I doubt that Watson's opinion would
carry much weight with Him. God could do it regardless of what
Watson believes.
E. Peter Volpe wrote,
"It scarcely seems necessary to debate the fact that
evolution, as an event, has occurred. It is in the explanation of
evolution that differences of opinion have arisen. One may
challenge an interpretation, but to contest the interpretation is
not to deny the existence of the event itself. A wide-spread
fallacy is to discredit the truth of evolution by seizing upon
points of disagreement concerning the mechanism of
evolution."5
Without presenting any evidence whatsoever that what he says is
correct, Volpe has informed his students that: (1) evolution is a
fact, and (2) contradictions to evolution can't be used to
disprove evolution since these are only disagreements about the
mechanism.
Outline a few of evolution's
problems to most evolutionists, then watch the reaction. They
will probably write you off as a lunatic. Notice the utter
disregard for any alternate position as well as the dogmatic
affirmation of the evolutionist position in the following
statements:
"No considerable Christian body, indeed, now insists upon
the exact and literal acceptance of the Bible narrative…
"6 H. G. Wells, committing the logical fallacy of
the band-wagon argument. "The idea of the earth's going
round the sun was considered to be just as impious in its time of
novelty as was the idea of evolution by the Fundamentalists of
the backward States today."7 H. G. Wells, Julian
Huxley, G. P. Wells, doing some name-calling. Who wants to be
backwards?
"Today of course, the belief
that living things were especially created for an earth prepared
to receive them finds no scientific support.”
A student confronted with such opinions is hard pressed to
contradict his professor. Since most scientists receive training
which ignores any alternatives, is it any wonder that few
scientists accept creationism?
NOTES
1.Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man, New York:
Harper and Row, 1948, p.85, cited by A. E, Wilder Smith, Man's
Origin, Man's Destiny, Wheaton: Shaw Publishers, 1968, p. 100.
2. Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, New York:
MacMillan Co., 1972, p. 79,80.
3. Ibid., p. 80
.
4. D. M. S. Watson, London Times, August 3, 1929, cited by Bolton
Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1969, p. 155.
5. E. Peter Volpe, Understanding Evolution, 2nd ed.,
Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Co. Publishers, 1970, p. xi.
6. H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. 1, Garden
City: Doubleday & Co.,1961, p. 51.
7. H. G. Wells, Julian Huxley, G. P. Wells, The Science of
Life, New York: The Literary Guild, 1934, p. 314.
8. J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, Garden City: Hanover
House, 1957, p. 90.
|
