Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

96 Science Vision 7(3) 96-104: A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity

A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity

K. Lalchhandama
Department of Zoology, Pachhunga University College,
Mizoram University, Aizâwl 796 001

Indications that you’re over-obsessed with religion:

# You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but
you have no problem with the biblical claim that humans were created from dirt.
# You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of the
earth (4.55 billion years), but you found nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age
tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is about a couple of generations old.
# While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise,
some idiot rolling around on the floor “speaking in tongues” may be all the evidence you need to
“prove” your choice of religions to be the correct one.
[from This is True. www.thisistrue.com]

In the beginning is excruciatingly pernicious that laughter, in this

You have spent much of your conscience and context, will definitely not be the best medicine.
‘born again’ with a solemn belief that
• the universe is a mere 6,000 years old, and A tale of two creationism – a coat of many
God created everything in it with fiat within 6 colours
literal 24-hour days; Christendom is philosophically divided into two
• there was once a worldwide Noachian del- major camps with regard to the Genesis account
uge that annihilated all living creatures except of creation. The lesser camp, not embraced by
for those blessed pairs from each species con- any individual denomination is the stated YEC, and
gested in an under-sized ark; the exact opponent, endorsed by all major denomi-
• the diversity of life form we now see is the nations ranging from Episcopal Church, United
descendants of the Flood survivors; and Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran World Federa-
• evolution is hardly a “theory,” tantamount to tion, United Methodist Church, to the largest Ro-
biblical creation in scientific validity. man Catholic Church, just to name a few, can be
You shall be one utterly grotesque, stupen- all encompassed within Old Earth Creationism
dous disappointment to education, given all the (OEC). Beyond sharing the same Bible, the rest
available scientific information that negates these of their scientific comprehension is bitter acrimony
egregious assertions. But you need not be sur- and conflict; moreover, there are as diverse opin-
prised that there are decent-looking people who ion within OEC as there are disparate varieties of
piously succumbed to such pathetic sentiments, YEC. The consensus OEC doctrine is that the earth
aptly called Young Earth Creationists (YECs), and and the universe are as old as how science says,
their belief system the Young Earth Creationism evolution is a well-established theory and the very
(YEC). If properly equipped with scientific process is what God employed for His creation,
knowledge, you may have the first laugh over and that the 6 days of creation should be inter-
them; but the harm they are inflicting on science preted in terms of vast geological time span.

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity 97

Therefore, no one, I mean not a soul, should emergence of antievolution movement at the turn
overtly claim that evolution is in conflict with Chris- of the 20th century: the growth of secondary edu-
tianity. To heighten their mutual antagonism against cation, the appearance of Protestant Fundamen-
YEC movements, these prominent Christian or- talism, and the association of evolution with so-
ganizations have frequently proclaimed their ear- cial and political ideas of social Dawinism that
nest espousal of the teaching of evolution [for became mortified after World War II. American
detail see NCSE, 2002]. The latest decree of textbooks started to incorporate evolution in
the Episcopal Church at their General Conven- 1900s, and with the growing number of students
tion on June 13-21, 2006 in Columbus, Ohio, is exposed to it, the agitation of parents were in-
outstanding in its explicit and appreciative state- cited enough on both political and religious rea-
ment, which: sons.
Resolved, That the theory of evolution pro- To add fuel to the fire, there was a more
vides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation critical turmoil within American Protestantism
for the emergence of life on earth, that many theo- due to an eccentric theological movement called
logical interpretations of origins can readily em- Modernism which interpreted biblical veracity
brace an evolutionary outlook, and that an ac- in the light of modern historical, cultural and sci-
ceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with entific knowledge, largely ignoring traditional
an authentic and living Christian faith. Explana- concepts, and the technique was called Higher
tion: The theory of evolution is broadly accepted Criticism. The coordinated consequence com-
by the overwhelming majority in the scientific pelled birds of the same feather to flock together
community as the most adequate explanation for into separate realms, Modernists and Funda-
the emergence of life on earth, and the ongoing mentalists, or Fundamentals, as they were
adaptation of life to changes in environments. For known. It was thus the fundamentalists who
example, knowledge of how evolution functions became the ground troops for the antievolution
is essential in understanding the resistance of bac- crusades.
teria to antibiotics, the resistance of insects to in- The record success was in 1920s when the
secticides, and the appearance of viruses such as fundamentalists with the stalwart progressive poli-
HIV and influenza. tician and champion of the workingman William
The Catholic Church, who can boast off of Jennings Bryan at their front line persuaded sev-
having the largest number of adherents, with its eral state legislatures to proscribe evolution. The
imminent Pontifical Academy of Sciences, clearly most heralded, the Butler Act was passed on
subscribes to the immense versatility of evolu- March 23, 1925 in Tennessee, which prohibited
tion, that the papal statement remains that, “... any teacher to teach “that man has descended
there was no opposition between evolution and from lower order of animals.”
the doctrine of the faith about man and his voca- Laws are enacted to be transgressed, par-
tion” [for detail see Lalchhandama, 2005]. ticularly when they don’t make much sense. In-
evitably, the American Civil Liberties Union
On the origin of creationism by means of – (ACLU) immediately perceived stringent viola-
whatever tion of the constitution. Deploying John T. Scopes,
Three concordant waves converged to the a school teacher in Dayton to teach evolution,

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

98 A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity

the havoc then spread like wild fire. In 1925, Modern Science (1951) laid the tenets for the
Scopes was summoned before the Tennessee movements, as accentuated ‘In the Beginning,’
Supreme Court which turned into the legendary and crystallized in 1961 with The Genesis Flood,
“monkey trial” or “trial of the century” being the co-authored by the theologian John C.
first ever trial to be covered not only by the print Whitcomb.
media but also through live radio broadcasts;
further fostered by the play/movie Inherit the Creationism evolved, expanded and expe-
Wind. Scopes was guilty as charged, however, dited
in a surprise turn, the Court overturned the con- Therefore, and thus, you can perceive that
viction on technicality [a complete misinterpre- the rather ambiguous sobriquet ‘creationism’ is
tation in Bible leh Science, pp. 194-195]. generally, even exclusively, attributed to the re-
Scopes won, Bryan dropped dead (literally, with spectable YEC; and I devote the same synonymy,
sympathy). But the real dilemma was that evo- with adequate hostility, them being much below
lution remained incarcerated, until, as remarked the nadir of hostile intension. Let us hereby im-
by E. Scott, “The appearance of a small metal bibe to ourselves with a brief intelligence the cur-
sphere in the heavens helped to kick-start the rent most prominent organizations of YEC.
process.” The Creation Research Society, CRS
The United States was flabbergasted to the (creationresearch.org). Established in 1963 by
highest degree possible when the then Soviet conservative Christian scientists much to the per-
Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satel- suasion of Morris. At the onset the board mem-
lite in 1957. The US realized then that their sci- bers were diverse including non-Flood Geology
entific establishment starting from public school proponents. But the ever ‘omnipotent’ natural
science instructions was in dire need of an over- selection was in action; the less favourable odd
haul. The ‘Sputnik Scare’ led to renaissance in ones were eliminated and finally evolved – no,
American education, and eventually the restora- not ‘evoluted’ – into a pure YEC establishment.
tion of evolution in 1963. CRS was incorporated in the state of Michigan
The hitherto tranquil beast of fundamental- with the primary task of publishing a bimonthly
ism was immediately invigorated. Learning a bit newsletter Creation Matters since 1996, and a
from the Scopes’ trial that candid advocacy of technical journal Creation Research Society
creationism would of course be unconstitutional, Quarterly since 1964. Interestingly the ‘techni-
and the new ploy was to fabricate creationism as cal’ journal is riddled with children’s’ bedtime sto-
an alternative “scientific” view, with the distin- ries which is in great shortage in any scientific jour-
guished dress code “Creation Science.” No one nal of repute.
was more important in molding this approach than The Institute for Creation Research, ICR
a hydraulic engineer Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918- (icr.org). Founded by Morris himself initially as
2006), who deserves to be called, if there is any part of the Christian Heritage College in 1970 is
prestige in it, the father of modern creationism, now fully autonomous since 1981 at Santee,
and the earthly god (lower case) of Dr. P.C California, with publications of books, mono-
Biaksiama. His debut book That You Might graphs, and a monthly magazine Acts and Facts,
Believe (1946) and its successor The Bible and a pamphlet Impact, and an evangelical Back to

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity 99

Genesis. Perhaps the prized possession is the vocated for creationism alone – very gluttonous
Museum of Creation and Earth History contain- indeed!
ing the celebrated Noah’s Ark diorama. With a The battle for legitimacy thereafter raged on
staunch belief in biblical inerrancy, its doctrines with intensified fierceness. Though creationists
directly contradicts not only evolution, but most gained momentum and heralded in many school
of modern science, and being the largest camp of boards, it became vindictively apparent that the
YEC firm it remains the flag-ship of antievolution race is not to the swift, and evolutionists always
ministries. have the last laugh. To make our narrative sub-
Answers in Genesis, AiG tly palatable, let us highlight the hallmark court
(answersingenesis.org). It resulted from the decisions to comprehend how higher authori-
merger of two Australian organizations in 1978, ties embrace creationism, and how these meek
Creation Science Educational Media Services, Christians overlooked the obliging directives
founded by John Mackay and Ken Ham, and like, “Blessed are the merciful ... are the pure in
Carl Wieland’s Creation Science Association heart ... are the peacemakers,” and devoted
originally into Creation Science Foundation themselves to court-goers instead of church-
(CRF). Ham ultimately became the backbone. goers. And it will be an excellent lesson for fa-
He went for a closer walk with ICR in 1987 natic Bible thumpers that to accomplish the great
where he contributed extensively to the success commission, “Go into all the world and preach
of the Back to Genesis program. In 1994, Ham the gospel to every creature,” court rooms are
moved to an adjunct faculty at ICR and headed not a pleasant place.
for Kentucky to enlarge his CRF. The bush was In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), the US
on fire, rapid convergent speciation ensued, all Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute
of Ham’s ministries amalgamated into AiG, and that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The
ultimately become the second largest tent of YEC. Court held the statute unconstitutional on the
grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
Condemned and confounded but not con- Constitution does not permit a state to require
quered that teaching and learning must be tailored to
Now properly embroidered with their self- the principles or prohibitions of any particular
acclaimed “scientific creation,” the zealot YECs religious sect or doctrine.
were eagerly dressed to kill. With a prudent sur- In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Educa-
reptitious ploy not to explicitly espouse the total tion (1982), a federal court held that a “bal-
prohibition of evolution, the new modus oper- anced treatment” statute violated the Establish-
andi was to introduce creation science as a legiti- ment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In a deci-
mate theory of origin, without any blatant refer- sion that gave a detailed definition of the term
ence to the Bible. So hide the Bible they did. A “science,” the court declared that “creation sci-
new wave of movement demanding “equal time” ence” is not in fact a science.
for the balance teaching of both evolution and In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the U.S.
creation science was highly successful in many Supreme Court held unconstitutional
states. After adequate success the humble activ- Louisiana’s “Creationism Act” that prohibited
ists even started to depreciate evolution and ad- the teaching of evolution in public schools, ex-

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

100 A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity

cept when it was accompanied by instruction that – with my sharpest intonation – no re-
in “creation science.” The Court found that spectable Christian church embrace YEC in
by advancing the religious belief that a super- going against scientific education.
natural being created humankind, which is em- The crux of the story here is, speaking in
braced by the term creation science, the act the tongues of the Scripture, the rain descended,
impermissibly endorses religion. the floods came and the wind blew, and beat on
In Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board the mansion of evolution; it stood still, for it was
of Education (1997), the US District Court founded on the rock. The same buffeted the shed
for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected of creationism built on the sand, and it instanta-
a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a dis- neously plummeted for it was without a founda-
claimer whenever they taught about evolution, tion; and great was its fall. Unfortunately the ex-
and declared that, “In mandating this dis- asperated occupants therein survived, for their
claimer, the School Board is endorsing reli- intelligence is already bloated and floated (par-
gion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution don the pun) in floods!
in such a manner as to convey the message
that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs Confessions and condensations
counter to ... other religious views.” The broader conscientious ‘creation scien-
In Rodney LeVake v Independent School tists’ then conceded that evolution is no match
District 656, et al. (2000), District Court dis- for religious doctrines, particularly when the doc-
missed the plea of a high school biology trine is embellished with extraordinary claims of
teacher LeVake for his right to teach “evi- fatal flaws; as a consequence, they retreated
dence both for and against the theory” of evo- from most of their arguments. Much to the pos-
lution. The judge declared that LeVake did sible disappointment of Biaksiama, had he
not have a free speech right to override the known [and I beg no apology for his ignorance
curriculum, nor was the district guilty of reli- and for being ditched by his own flock], all the
gious discrimination. major creationists’ arguments have been toppled,
Without a bite of the fruit of the tree of even extending as far as embracing Natural Se-
knowledge, we can readily accrue the picture lection – where the heck have they been hiding!
here how much rationalism appreciate YEC. The followings are selected from “Arguments
It will be better understood by mentioning that we think creationists should NOT use” and
the plaintiffs (standing against YEC) were not “Moving forward” [for details see AiG, 2004,
evolutionists or ACLU alone, but spear- and Sarfati, 2002; the texts are original but
headed by eminent religious leaders such as abridged], specifically targeting the persistent
from Episcopal Church, the United Method- wiles in Bible leh Science.
ist, Roman Catholics, Methodist Episcopa- “Darwin recanted on his deathbed.” Many
lians, Presbyterian, and Baptists. In fact the people use this story; however, it is almost cer-
lead plaintiff in, perhaps, the most legendary tainly not true, and there is no corroboration from
trial, McLean vs. Arkansas, was a Method- those who were closest to him – even from
ist pastor William McLean himself. “We may Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolution-
well suppose” with absolute certainty thereby ary ideas.

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity 101

“NASA computers, in calculating the posi- the main group and became reproductively iso-
tions of planets, found a missing day and 40 min- lated from the main large population, and that
utes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Josh 10) and most change happened in the small group which
Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).” This can lead to allopatric speciation
is a hoax in wide circulation. Essentially the same “There are no beneficial mutations.” This is
story appeared in the somewhat unreliable 1936 not true, since some changes do confer an ad-
book The Harmony of Science and Scripture vantage in some situations.
by Harry Rimmer. Also, the whole story is math- “No new species have been produced.” This
ematically impossible. is not true – new species have been observed
“Woolly mammoths were flash frozen dur- to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important
ing the Flood catastrophe.” This is contradicted part of the creation model. But this speciation is
by the geological setting in which mammoths within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic
are found. Partially digested stomach contents information. Natural selection is also a useful
are not proof of a flash freeze, because the explanatory tool in creationist modeling of
elephant’s stomach functions as a holding area post-Flood radiation with speciation [empha-
– a mastodon with preserved stomach contents sis mine].
was found in USA, where the ground was not “Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evo-
frozen. lution in The Origin of Species.” Citing his state-
“Dubois renounced Java man as a ‘missing ment at face value is subtly out of context. Dar-
link’ and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.” It’s win was talking about its seeming absurdity but
true that Dubois claimed that Java man had the then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine
proportions of a gibbon but not that it was a gib- that the eye could be built step-by-step [by natu-
bon. ral selection].
“The 2 nd Law of Thermodynamics began “The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in
at the Fall.” This law says that the entropy 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.”
(“disorder”) of the universe increases over time, We must not try to read into Scripture that
and some have thought that this was the result which appears to support a particular view-
of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always point. The original Greek word translated
harmful. An obvious example is digestion, “science” is gnosis, and in this context refers
breaking down large complex food molecules to the elite esoteric “knowledge” that was the
into their simple building blocks. Another is key to the mystery religions, which later de-
friction, which turns ordered mechanical en- veloped into the heresy of Gnosticism. The
ergy into disordered heat – otherwise Adam word “science” originally meant “knowledge,”
and Eve would have slipped as they walked from the Latin scientia, from scio, meaning “to
with God in Eden! know.” This original meaning is just not the
“If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t way it is used today, so modern translations
exist today.” Evolutionists don’t believe that we correctly render the word as “knowledge” in
descended from apes, but that apes and hu- this passage.
mans share a common ancestor. They believe “Canopy theory.” This is not a direct teach-
that a small group of creatures split off from ing of Scripture, so there is no place for dogma-

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

102 A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity

tism. Also, no suitable model has been developed cus on “small” vs. “large” changes, distract from
that holds sufficient water. the key issue of information. That is, particles-
“There was no rain before the Flood.” This to-people evolution requires changes that in-
is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there crease genetic information, but all we observe
should be no dogmatism. Gen 2:5-6 at face value is sorting and loss of information. We have yet
teaches only that there was no rain at the time to see even a “micro” increase in information,
Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at although such changes should be frequent if
any later time before the Flood. A related fallacy evolution were true. Conversely, we do ob-
is that the rainbow covenant of Gen 9:12-17 serve quite “macro” changes that involve no
proves that there were no rainbows before the new information, e.g., when a control gene is
Flood. God frequently invested existing things with switched on or off.
new meanings, e.g., the bread and wine at the
Lord’s Supper. Descent (of creationism) with modification
“Evolution is just a theory.” What people
Some creationists have lately learned to eat
usually mean when they say this is “Evolution
the “Fruit” to realize that there is not a shred of
is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted
evidence for creation science as science and au-
dogmatically.” Therefore people should say
thorities demand; however, without a slightest
that! The problem with using the word “theory”
intention of submitting to the crows of evolu-
in this case is that scientists use it to mean a
tionists. “The final solution” they could execute
well-substantiated explanation of data. This
includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s was to counteract the shortcomings within the
Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of domain of evolution, and implicitly implying that
Gravity. the exact paucity requires the works of an intel-
“There is amazing modern scientific insight ligent designer; thus the birth of “Intelligent De-
in the Bible.” We should interpret the Bible as sign” movement. ID developed into maturity with
the author originally intended, and as the in- the publication of Darwin on Trial by Univer-
tended readership would have understood it. sity of California–Berkeley law professor Phillip
Therefore we should be cautious in reading Johnson. Although creationists’ books remained
modern science into passages if the original ignored by scientists, one from a tenured pro-
readers would not have seen it. fessor from a respectable institute could hardly
“There are no transitional forms.” Since be overlooked; thus it received criticisms in sci-
there are candidates, even though they are entific publications including Scientific Ameri-
highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible can.
comebacks by saying instead: “While Darwin The notion was reinforced with scientific jus-
predicted that the fossil record would show tifications from a biochemist Michael J. Behe
numerous transitional fossils, even a century and (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996) and a philosopher/
a half later, all we have are a handful of disput- mathematician William Dembski (Intelligent
able examples.” [still incredibly wrong] Design, 1999). It infiltrated science community
“Creationists believe in microevolution but and popular media much more than creation sci-
not macroevolution.” These terms, which fo- ence ever attained, largely because of its more

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity 103

respectable pedigree. entific literature has no detailed testable answers

The reason for such popularity is this: evolu- on how the immune system could have arisen by
tion, or science in its entirety, can not invoke random mutation and natural selection.” He was
untestable supernatural, and ID asserts that intel- immediately presented with a thick file of publi-
ligence is required to produce irreducible com- cations on immune system evolution, dating from
plex cellular structures (that could not work if 1971 to 2006, plus several books and textbook
bereft of a single part), because such structures chapters. Asked for his response, Behe admitted
could not be produced by the incremental addi- he had not read many of the publications pre-
tions of natural selection. To cut the story short, sented (actually a small fraction of all the litera-
ID proponents, as their predecessor YECs, failed ture on evolutionary immunology of the past 35
to produce empirical evidence that science de- years), but summarily rejected them as unsatis-
mands for their astounding claims, and geared up factory. What’s soup for the goose was thus not
their intelligence instead to infest school curricula. necessarily a soup for the gander, and Judge Jones
The following episode sums up the matter best. knew it. For this, Behe was despised, rejected,
The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area and we did not esteem him.
School Board, the first challenge to the consti- The flimsy veil was opened and become aus-
tutionality of teaching ID in the public school sci- terely visible that ID is nothing but a creationism
ence classroom, was issued on 20.12. 2005, in in masquerade, a not better fox of the same spe-
which the US Federal Judge John E. Jones III cies disguised in a different sheep’s skin; a trifle
struck down ID and declared that, “... the more sophisticated but inappropriately dressed
[Dover’s] Board’s ID Policy violates the Es- up still.
tablishment Clause. In making this determina-
tion, we have addressed the seminal question of Evolution defined and defended
whether ID is science. We have concluded that Within half a century, creationism has evolved
it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple into many sibling species, in an attempt to make
itself from its creationist, and thus religious, an- itself gain legitimacy in science education, in fu-
tecedents.” The decision was scathing, both tile. The reason is that this credulous concept
about the scientific credibility of “ID” (which completely lacks scientific feasibility. It begins with
Jones concluded “is not science and cannot be an obsessive and resolute presupposed faith to
adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as the effect that all the words of the Bible are liter-
it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed jour- ally true and cannot be wrong; for if anything
nals, engage in research and testing, and gain wrong in it, God loses credibility. Devoid of test-
acceptance in the scientific community”) and able hypothesis, even a mere hunch, still trying to
about the behavior of the defendants (whom evade arbitrary arguments, all that the creation-
Jones castigated for “breathtaking inanity” in ists do unhesitatingly is to distort scientific find-
adopting the objectionable policy). ings, to misquote scientists, and to play upon the
The “breathtaking inanity” of the defendants emotions and prejudices of their highly gullible
was particularly illustrated by Behe himself, who followers. (To make the situation grave, we can
reiterated his persistent claim in Darwin’s Black not guarantee that the heralded court victories are
Box during his cross-examination that “the sci- the last nails in their coffin)

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September

104 A Critique of Creationism: Evolution of Chauvinistic Credulity

But science definitely does not “walk this dering around. It is the evolutionary idea at its
way.” It consists of the gathering of observations core that tells you to take antacids or antibiotics
which can be subjected to empirical tests and instead of indulging in ritualistic exorcism, to cure
possible falsification. From these confirmed ob- stomachache. Yet we still have faith healers, cre-
servations, consequences and conclusions can be ationists, and homeopaths abound; human gull-
reasoned out by logical methods generally agreed ibility really knows no bound, and that I fear, will
upon. Whether it is designated a law, a theory or never cease to be.
a hypothesis, the results are tentative and can be
argued over and modified or discarded altogether References
if additional, or more subtle, observations are 1. Biaksiama PC (2007). Bible leh Science Vol I.
made. There is no belief held in advance of such Mualchin Publication & Paper Works, Aizawl, In-
observations and conclusions except that obser- dia.
2. Bottaro A, Inlay MA & Matzke NJ (2006). Immu-
vations can be made, that consequences and con- nology in the spotlight at the Dover ‘Intelligent
clusions can be reasoned out, and that the evi- Design’ trial. Nature Immunology, 7, 433-435.
dence can, at least to a degree, be made com- 3. Futuyma DJ (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer
prehensible in this fashion. It simply means you Associates, Inc., Massachusetts, USA.
still can outright advocate that the earth is the 4. Gould SJ (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Reli-
gion in the Fullness of Life. Vintage, Random
centre of the universe, but with proper logistic House, London, UK.
and testable evidence. Thus evolution is a legiti- 5. Hildeman EJ (2004). Creationism: The Bible Says
mate branch of science, in fact, the unification of No! Author House, Indiana, USA.
all fields of biology. And there is not a shred of 6. Lalchhandama K (2005). The holy evolution: a sci-
scientific in creationism, therefore. As the inimi- entific reminiscence about Pope John Paul II. Sci
Vis, 5, 69-72. [in Mizo]
table Dhobzhansky taught us, evolution as a pro- 7. Moreland JP & Reynolds JM (1999). Three Views
cess that has always gone on in the history of the on Creation and Evolution. Zondervan Publish-
earth can be doubted only by those who are ig- ing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
norant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, 8. Sarfati J (2002). Moving forward: Arguments we
owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. think creationists shouldn’t use. Creation, 24, 20-
There are no alternatives to evolution as history 9. Scott EC (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An In-
that can withstand critical examination. troduction. University of California Press, Califor-
If any person deserves a credit for our im- nia, USA.
mense understanding on the intricate life forms 10. Scott EC & Matzke NJ (2007). Biological design in
and biology, with the meaning of life as we know science classrooms. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 104, 8669-
it, Charles Darwin would invariably stands out 11. Shermer M (2002). Why People Believe Weird
unrivalled as the towering giant, and who still gives Things. Henry Holt and Company, LLC, New York,
modern society fits. Precisely for such he shall USA.
remain a robust iconoclast. But for him as the 12. Theodosius D (1973). Nothing in biology makes
pinnacle epitome of scientific thinking, we would sense except in the light of evolution. The Ameri-
can Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
still have witches, soothsayers, “bâwlpu,” and the 13. Answers in Genesis, AiG (2004). Arguments we
rest of the forgotten charlatan healers, dragons think creationists should NOT use.
chasing us, and fairies, elves, and “lasi” mean- answersingenesis.org (March 22, 2007)

Science Vision Vol. 7, No. 3 © 2007 MIPOGRASS July - September