It is the particles-to-people story that is being questioned, not whether natural selection produces changes in finch beaks and antibiotic resistant bacteria . There is no scientific "proof" of this larger story--the ability of scientists to study unobserved and unrepeatable events in the past is very limited.

 

Evolution actually violates a number of widely accepted scientific laws, particularly in the area of information and probability theory.

 

If "Intelligent Design" is added to the curriculum in Kansas, the Bible will NOT be taught in science classes. Students will simply be asked to evaluate whether the existence and qualities of the natural world are best explained by the hypothesis of time, chance, and natural selection or by design imposed by intelligence. If a student concludes that intelligence was probably involved--that may have religious implications for him or her. But if the opposite conclusion is drawn, well that has religious implications too. I mean, if there's no reason to bring God into our thoughts about where humans and everything else came from, maybe that's because God doesn't exist! Having uncritically accepted the evolution story as a young man, that's the conclusion I embraced.

 

Evolution will still be taught. Students will know what they are expected to believe in college--where the philosophy that the only real things in the universe are matter and energy is the state-sponsored, tax-supported religion in science classrooms.

 

There are thousands of real scientists, of various faiths and some with no faith at all,  who don't think the data from the natural world support the notion that unaided nature can turn dinosaurs into birds or fish into philosophers. You can read about some of them and their research at www.icr.org.

Here's my question. If the facts of science clearly support their case, why are evolution's true believers running scared?

Pastor Charlie Scott
c. 2005