Replies

So you think Darwinism and Christianity are compatible.

A Reality Check from Oz By Gary Butner, Th.D.

The following is a response to an August 30, 1999 article by syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker berating the Kansas State School Board for its ruling delegating the decision whether to teach evolution to local school boards.

Since I am from Kansas, I read with interest Kathleen Parker’s August 30th editorial regarding the recent evolution ruling by the Kansas State Board of Education. I must admit I have always enjoyed her pro-family views in the past, however, this time she missed the mark. I can appreciate her confusion on this issue since most Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists, and even many ministers across the country, do not grasp the issues involved. In her first paragraph she states: "These days Oz would offer us a reality check." I hope that reality check will wake Americans to something far more sinister than what appears on the surface. Let me state for the record that I am a conservative Christian with a doctorate in theology, and that my best friend, Rev. Dr. Greg Neal, who's name you will also find endorsing this letter, is a liberal Christian minister from Texas with a doctorate in Systematic Theology. While we disagree on many issues of both theology and public policy, he and I both oppose the teaching of religion in the classroom, which it appears she and others do not.

Firstly, let me clear up a point the national media is still missing. The Kansas Board of Education did not ban the teaching of evolution; rather, wisely delegated that decision to the local school board to keep religion out of the classroom.

Secondly, Rev. Neal subscribes to theistic evolution, whereas I believe in Creationism. Theistic evolution subscribes to the idea God used the process of evolution in creating the cosmos, including animals and man. It appears from Ms. Parker’s article that she agrees with Rev. Neal.

In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."

How do they know the process was unsupervised?

How do they know the process was mindless?

How do they know the process was purposeless?

Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "purposeless" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way ... and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith ... just as much as OUR conclusion is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal creator being involved in the evolutionary process.

To be fair, as was reported by Brendan Sweetman, Ph.D. in a letter to The Kansas City Star August 21, NABT removed the language after it was pointed out by the philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, and the theologian Huston Smith, that their guideline was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms. The definition of natural selection includes unsupervised, mindless and purposeless. Clearly, in defining evolution they have left the world of science and entered the world of philosophy and theology, and established atheism (a religion) in our classrooms.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms. Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

Gary Butner, Th.D. Merriam, KS

Greg Neal, Ph.D. Wichita Falls, TX