09.03.2014  |   | Subscribe  | Contact us

All News & Blogs

E-mail Alerts

Science has no agenda, depends on evidence

Date published: 6/16/2014

The Holy Bible may be many things, but a science textbook it is not.

Ron Martineau ["Reader says evolution evidence is flawed," June 2] offers a "So there!" refutation of evolution by championing creationism apologist Dr. Duane Gish.

Gish was beloved on the debate circuit for rapid-fire nitpicking the "holes" in evolutionary science.

Mr. Martineau cites Gish's argument that the "vast gap between [jellyfish and other] invertebrates and fish" proves that "further discussion of the fossil record becomes superfluous." Hence and ipso facto God! So there!

Actually, Gish chose to focus on the relatively narrow gap between crossopterygians and amphibians. When those fossils were found, he refused to own up to his error, labeling the discovery "pitiful."

Elsewhere, Gish argued that man has, depending on how you count the proteins, as many links to a chicken or a bullfrog as to a chimpanzee. Gish, however, neglected to provide data.

Science is wedded to evidence as creationism as wedded to doctrine.

I'm not saying there's no God, though everything rational in me tends to doubt it. I don't know.

What I do know is that I enjoy electricity, modern medicine and the fruits of the computer age (to name but three), and I would wager that you do, too. I credit science for these.

The Bible, a book of prophecy and revelation, talked of chariots but never hinted at the combustible engine. Science told us the world's not flat. As the Bible was mum on the point, for centuries science believed what it saw: a stretching horizon--hence, a flat Earth.

Science got it wrong (thanks, Aristotle, Eratosthenes and Magellan) and amended its conclusions.

Adjusting your view based on evidence doesn't weaken your reliability. Just the opposite.

By definition, objective facts, on which all science relies, hold neither bias nor an agenda. Creationism depends on both.

Creationists deny, ever more fantastically, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

The Creation Museum--now that dinosaurs co-existing with humans isn't drawing big crowds--is offering "proof" that dragons were real, but Noah denied them passage. Dragons? Really?

When revelation supplants investigation, civilization courts stagnation.

Stuart K. Chapin