| Arnetts | Arnett Family | Speaking Policy | Charles | Union Baptist Church | Links | Sermons | Letters | E-mail
 Jack's Main Memorial Page

April 21, 1994

Other Voices
Attention: Ellen Belcher
Dayton Daily News
P.O. Box 1287
Dayton OH 45401

Dear Ellen
The convoluted confusion concerning creation is apparent at Wright State University. It is another example of the unconfessed narrow mindedness of the secularist in a pluralistic society. They pontificate that creation is a religion while assuring all that evolution is pure science. A WSU instructor was dismissed because he announce in first day of class that he believed in creation. One wonders - would he have been dismissed if he had announced he believed in evolution?
This issue must be examined on its own merits without trying to decide which is true. The question to be answered is simply this: "Is the teaching of evolution less religious activity than the teaching of creation?"
Religion does not necessitate a belief in a deity. This was establish in 1961 by the Supreme Court in Torcaso V. Watkins. They said in note 11, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." They listed quite an impressive array of references. That concept demands we correct our thinking about the character of evolution.
Religiously speaking, evolutionism is as much a faith religion as creationism. One must take it by faith that we have a well designed universe without a designer; that we have personal life without a personal life giver; that life can come from non-life. Not since the days of Louis Pasteur has any scientist believed that life can come from non-life. However, the evolutionist takes it by faith that given enough time it could happen. Remember, there is no scientific evidence proving evolution or creation. The scientific data can be explained by either creationism or evolutionism.
It is also true that scientifically considered, evolution and creation are both only theories. Both are unproved and unprovable theories. This is universally accepted. A recent Dayton Daily news article spoke of the two as theories and mentioned the theory of evolution.
Scientifically speaking, creation is simply a model that one uses to explain physical phenomena and scientific data. And, scientifically speaking, evolution is simply a model that one uses to explain physical phenomena and scientific data. Here are the two most popular models that a scientist will confront today. In an academic setting, the student should be exposed to both. No one believes that a committed evolutionist will present creation without bias. Likewise, a creationist will be biased in his presentation. However, because of the historical prevalence of evolutionism, the creation scientist will probably have a fair or good understanding of the evolutionary theory. Because of the hitherto scanty appearance of creation in scientific circles, an evolutionary scientist may have no understanding of how the scientific data fits the creation model.
Scientific theories are simply models that scientists use as a tool to interpret scientific data. Honest scientists will readjust their model when the scientific data doesn't fit their model without distortions. This is what has been happening. The theory of evolution has undergone constant and radical changes since it was suggested by Darwin. One article in the DDN mention the Scopes "Monkey" trial. Interestingly, the "scientific proof" of evolution provided at that trial is now discounted by reputable scientists. The creation model has undergone very minimal readjustments during the same period of time.
It is true that most creationists develop their model based on a personal belief in the Judo-Christian Scriptures. But does a person's foundation or motive taint the secular or scientific benefit? Again, listen to the Supreme Court concerning a legislator's alleged religious motive. "Even if some legislators were motivated by a conviction that religious speech in particular was valuable and worthy of protection, that alone would not invalidate the Act, because what is relevant is the legislative purpose of the stature, not the possible religious motives of the legislators who enacted the law." Surely, if politicians enacting laws for our nation are given that allowance, class room teachers should be accorded the same consideration.
Dan Scott should be allowed to demonstrate how the scientific evidence fits both the creation model and the evolution model. (After all, that is the position that the ACLU won in the "monkey" trial.) The problem is that after all these years, and with the abundance of scientific evidence now available, the evolutionary theory cannot abide an open, informed, and intelligent forum.
I confess it is frightening to me and humbling for me to know that were it not for the distinguishing grace of a sovereign God, I could have believed in evolution.

Yours for equal treatment in a pluralistic society

Charles J. Arnett
111 Worman Dr.
Union OH 45322
513 836-3272 or 836-0862