‘Christians don’t believe in science?’ writer responds to evolution criticism

Editor’s note: This is in response to a letter to the editor criticizing information in Norm Fields’ column “Christians don’t believe in science?” from the Aug. 13-14 Weekend edition. To read Harrison Lawson’s letter, click here.

Mr. Lawson,

Thank you for your response to last week’s article. I always appreciate feedback from the readers.

In response to your comments I would like to point out a few things.

1) Concerning the basic premise of the article, would you consider special creation and/or intelligent design as viable branches of scientific investigation into the origins of life? What prompted the article was hearing a so-called reporter harangue a political candidate concerning his belief in creation and belligerently asserting that creationists “don’t believe in science.” Would you agree that creationists don’t believe in science?

2) Concerning the scientific method and the evidence — or lack thereof — for evolution, maybe I did misspeak. Not that I misspoke when I said there is not a single piece of evidence at all for “macroevolution” — and I did specify “macroevolution” in the article.

If I misspoke, based on the scientific method, as you say, then it would have been referring to evolution as a “theory.” I do understand that for something to actually be a scientific theory it does have to have some evidentiary basis, of which “macroevolution” has none. No, I was more correct when I referred to evolution as a “blind faith.”

3) The example you cited as an evidence for evolution, i.e. resistant bacterias, is actually an evidence for the very well established and observable science of adaptation within species. That is, microevolution.

Typically, when people are referring to evolution they are referring to “macroevolution,” i.e. molecules to man evolution, for which there is no evidence at all. There is not a single piece of evidence in all of creation for an evolutionary process where one species turns into a new or different species.

However, those attempting to cite “evidence” for evolution — i.e. macroevolution — will give examples of adaptation — i.e. microevolution. Darwin’s finches didn’t become lizards, or even a different kind of bird. They just adapted to changing conditions in the food source.

That is not an example or evidence for molecules to man — macro — evolution. When you got the flu you produced antibodies to kill that virus. You cannot get that same virus again, you became “resistant” to that virus.

Did you “evolve” into some different species or are you still part of the human race? When you get the flu again it will be because that virus has “evolved,” or adapted, resistance to the antibodies you produced. But it is still the influenza virus, it will not have “evolved” into a different species.

So, you can’t use evidence for one type of evolution — i.e. adaptation — which is true and factual, and claim that it validates a completely different type of evolution — i.e. transition between species. That is why I specified “macroevolution” in my article.

4) I will have to admit that the two examples I cited contradicting a “millions” and “billions” of years evolutionary process was somewhat of a trap. I knew very well that if someone took issue with those two evidences for a young earth — too young to allow for a supposed evolutionary process — it would be on the basis of uniformity.

That is, to say that extrapolating backward to account for the amount of shrinkage of the sun would put the earth inside the sun in a mere fraction of the years evolutionists claim for the evolutionary process does presuppose a uniform rate of that shrinkage. Likewise, to say that the expanding distance between the earth and moon won’t allow for millions of years of evolutionary process also presupposes a uniform rate of recession. And there are many others; the salinity of the oceans, lunar dust, etc., etc.

I say the use of such evidences was a bit of a trap because when you point out the presupposed uniformity required to make such arguments it gives me the opportunity to say that I’m just using the same argument for uniformity that you use for such fallacious dating methods as Carbon 14, among others.

If you can base the dating methods used to make rocks “billions of years old” on the principle of uniformity, why can’t I use the same principle of uniformity to say that the age of your rock would put the earth inside the sun when that rock was formed? How would you answer that question?

5) Regarding T.G. Barnes, I don’t really know who he is. I have read the same argument that he made in the article I cited in many other places. His article was just the one I had “at hand.”

Other than your issue with who I cited, is there anything wrong with the scientific facts that his premise is based on? If someone makes a valid argument, based on factual information, what difference does it make what their credentials are?

I’m not a scientist, my degree is in biblical studies. Does that “disqualify” me from discussing matters of biblical studies that touch on science because I don’t have a science degree?

Again, I want to thank you for your feedback and I would very much like to get together with you for further discussion. Please let me know when we can do that.

Norm Fields

Minister for the Church of Christ Northside

Daily News church columnist

comments powered by Disqus