This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
(7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown. The online version of the book is designed to be read online.
A PDF version or hardbound print version may be ordered.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound print edition of this online book.
How Do You Respond to Common Claims of Evolutionists?
1. “The evidence against evolution is bad science.”
Response: Have you studied the evidence? [See Parts I and II of this book.] Both sides of this issue tend to think the other is defending “bad science,” but “good” evidence may exist on both sides. Why not teach all the major scientific evidence? Evolutionists avoid a thorough, publishable, head-to-head comparison of the evidence for and against evolution. [See pages 408–410.] In fact, evolutionist leaders advise others never to participate in even an oral scientific debate on the evidence for and against evolution. In what other major science controversy has one side refused to allow all the evidence on the table?
2. “If you are going to teach an alternate view to evolution, why not teach chemistry AND alchemy, heliocentrism AND geocentrism, gynecology AND the stork ‘theory,’ or astronomy AND astrology?”
Response: If anyone has scientific evidence for these fringe beliefs, I would be happy to lay out the counterevidence. (Remember, evidence must be observable and verifiable.) Millions of people know evidence that opposes evolution. Even polls conducted by evolutionist organizations have shown that about 80% of the American public want such evidence taught in the schools their taxes finance.
3. “National science standards call for the exclusive teaching of evolution.”
Response: There are no “national science standards.” Three private, nongovernmental, national organizations have a long record of promoting evolution. Each group has proposed a different science curriculum, all with a common theme—evolution.
The organizations with different, so-called “national standards” are The National Science Teachers Association, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and The National Research Council. Some may think the National Research Council is part of the federal government. No. The National Research Council is a private organization set up to advise elements of the federal government when invited on matters of science and technology. None of these self-appointed groups has any charter for establishing national standards in any academic discipline. There are no “national science standards.”
4. “Almost all scientists accept evolution.”
Response: No, they don’t. The only study that I am aware of that addressed this question was a survey of chemists. A slight majority rejected evolution. [See the last paragraph of Endnote 2 on page 402.] Most professors in the basic sciences favor evolution, in part, because that is what they were taught and those who openly reject evolution are not hired or are fired. In the applied sciences (medicine, engineering, etc.) and among scientists in industry, those accepting and rejecting evolution may be nearly balanced. Gallup polls have shown that more Americans reject evolution than accept it. [See page 402.]
Of course, scientific conclusions should be based on evidence, not a vote. The founders of modern science (Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo, Hooke, and Newton—who, by the way, were creationists and opposed the evolutionary views of their day) based decisions on evidence. In contrast, the science of previous ages was based on philosophical deductions or authoritative opinions. Those who try to establish scientific truth by “counting noses” regress into dark-age thinking. By that criterion, you would believe in a flat earth, because once most scientists believed in a flat earth.
5. “People who oppose evolution do so for religious reasons.”
Response: In some cases. In other cases, some people who want to suppress the evidence against evolution do so for their religious reasons. Let’s just agree to stick to the scientific evidence on both sides of the origins issue.
In the first half of my life, I was an evolutionist. My basic religious views have not changed, but after learning some convincing evidence, I had to reject evolution. Of course, the origins issue has religious implications for everyone—even those who claim to hold no religious views. But the issue can be addressed from a purely scientific standpoint. The special edition of this book (1996) demonstrated that. In it, religious matters were excluded, as I believe they should be in public schools.
6. “Speaking of a creator or a global flood is religious, because those ideas are drawn directly from the Bible.”
Response: Speaking of Noah’s flood would be religious, but explaining geological features caused by a global flood would not be. [See pages 102–309.] Speaking of Adam or Eve would be religious, but describing the evidence related to the “mitochondrial Eve” or the “genetic Adam,” from whom many scientists have concluded all humans recently descended, is not. [See pages 317–319.] Referring to the God of the Bible or the Allah of the Qur’an as the Creator would be religious, but speaking of a creator is not. As Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote: “to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration.” Scalia also wrote, “We will not presume that a law’s purpose is to advance religion merely because it happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.” 1
For example, scientists (even some evolutionists) who understand the amazing complexity inside a living cell know it could never have evolved; it had to be created. [See on “The Elephant in the Living Room” on page 16.] But science cannot say who the creator was. It might have been several creators or even “little green men” from Mars. Nevertheless, when one understands the evidence, it is clear that this amazing complexity could not have evolved. It is hard to imagine an unbiased person who understands the evidence reaching any other conclusion. Unfortunately, few educators and scientists have heard this evidence. (Unintended ignorance is excusable. Unwillingness to learn is not. Preventing students from learning is reprehensible.)
Because much scientific evidence is being censored from our schools, a small but growing number of individuals, such as myself, spend our time teaching others this evidence. People, including scientists, are excited about what they are learning. Demand for speakers and information exceeds what we can give. If the schools did their job, this rapidly-growing endeavor would shrink. But today, parental dissatisfaction with public schools in general, and science education in particular, has never been higher—in large part because of the one-sided way origins has been taught.
7. “The courts have stated that teaching evidence for creation would violate the separation of church and state.”
Response: Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court has said just the opposite. A few evolutionist organizations, the ACLU, and many media outlets have propagated that myth. The Supreme Court actually said that the scientific evidence for any theory of origins, including creation, has always been legal in the classroom. “Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life.” 2
Of course, our issue is whether the evidence against evolution will be taught along with that for evolution. Besides, the U.S. Constitution only states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Our founding fathers, who acknowledged the Creator in many places, including the Declaration of Independence, did not want a national religion such as the Church of England. (The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. Nor is the word “separation” or the word “church.”)
8. “Evolution may have some problems, but they will be solved as science advances.”
Response: Maybe. However, the opposite has been increasingly true for many decades. That is, as more has been learned, evolution appears even weaker. It is a theory in crisis, a theory without a mechanism. Let’s not withhold information. Suppressing evidence is not the way to advance science. Let’s just teach the scientific evidence that is known and undisputed. Insisting that only evolution be taught amounts to indoctrination—telling students what to think, not teaching them how to think. That deprives them of the opportunity to evaluate and think critically.