Just the Facts

Thursday a federal judge ruled that stickers on science textbooks, which stated that evolution was just a theory and not fact, violated the separation of church and state. Over 2,000 parents in the Cobb County School district in Georgia, complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact while not giving space to other opposing views such as creationism.

The school district in responding to the parental outcry placed a sticker on the textbooks which read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Dr. Kenneth Miller, the author of the textbook, has argued that such a sticker confuses its readers. "What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution." Well, I must here agree in part with Dr. Miller. If you say that just evolution is a theory there is bound to be confusion between what is just fact and what is actually theory.

Yet, I agree with those parents that evolution is not a fact of science. It is only a theory of science. Better yet, it is a worldview. The belief (!) in evolution requires a complete and entire worldview. Evolution is a worldview system which cannot be separated and dissected. Evolution is not just a mere theory about how the world began but a complex idea which strikes at the heart and soul of life. If one believes in evolution than one's answer to such questions as the purpose and meaning of life will be shaped and molded by their belief in evolution.

On the corollary, those whose worldview is shaped by the Bible, have a completely differect frame of mind. This battle is not about the beginning of the world. It is much bigger than that! The battle is about the very nature, purpose, and meaning of life. It is a battle between two competing worldviews.

About a year and a half ago I reviewed Phillip Johnson's helpful, Darwin on Trial. His basic thesis is that evolution is a worldview in competition with Christianity. Therefore, this evolutionary worldview colors all the facts. He is dead on. Here is the review I wrote entitled, Neo-Darwinism at the Bar of Reason:

Phillip Johnson has taken Darwinian evolution to court and the verdict rendered is guilty. He argues incisively that Darwinism cannot be verified by the empirical evidence. Therefore the very foundation of Darwinism is not rooted in science but a philosophy of naturalism. It is this worldview of naturalism, which colors all the evidence and provides the shaky foundation for Darwinian science.

Darwinists have a healthy corner on the market of science by being the very ones who define science in their favor. They argue that the most basic characteristic of science is reliance upon naturalistic explanations. Any appeal to the supernatural or transcendent by definition is excluded. Any form of theistic creationism is therefore excluded. Such a theory of theistic creation is viewed by scientists as non-science and by many as non-sense. The deck has been clearly stacked against theism.

Johnson's main task in Darwin on Trial is to show that the conflict is not between science and non-science, but between two competing worldviews. There is naturalism, which by definition excludes all forms of the divine, and there is the worldview of theism that argues for a God who created all things. It is this worldview clash, which is at the heart of the evolution debate.

Johnson surveys the scientific evidence offered for evolution and finds it wanting. He deals with natural selection, mutation theory, and the fossil record, the vertebrate sequence, molecular evidence and prebiological evolution. He then examines the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory and argues that evolution as fact is hinged upon philosophy and not science. It is a philosophical theory, which uses science only for minimal confirmation. The philosophical worldview of evolution colors all the empirical "confirming" evidence, which is used to verify the "truth" of Darwinism.

The importance of Darwin on Trial is to show that the debate over evolution is a worldview clash. The empirical evidence still needs to be examined and debated, but no longer can either side claim absolute objectivity in interpreting the evidence. Interpretation is filtered through one's worldview and all scientists are required to acknowledge their worldview whether it is naturalistic or theistic.

Darwin on Trial is accessible for both scientists and non-scientists. It is an enjoyable read as Johnson is astute in pointing out the many fallacies of Darwinian thought. On more than one occasion you are left in shock that a highly educated scientist such as Gould or Dawkins would make such logically fallacious statements. Johnson also provides a response to his critics as an appendix in the second edition. He responds to Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse and many others who have attempted to debunk his book.

If you are new to the debate or just want to freshen up this is a great place to start. The only major criticism I have is that there are no footnotes (only research notes in the back of the book). The documentation is there but a bit hard to follow at times. Other than this small criticism Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial steers a helpful course in the murky waters of evolutionary science.