I recently read a column about evolution being an integral part of science education. Science is defined as that of which we can test, observe and demonstrate from facts. Let’s use a couple real-life examples. It is an observable fact that there are petrified trees in their upright position between multiple rock layers all over the world.

If these rock layers were millions of years different, those trees would easily have fallen over by the time the next layer was deposited. If they were deposited in the same time frame, such as by a flood 4500 years ago, it would make sense that trees would still be standing up. Another example: It is an observable fact that fossils cannot determine if organisms had any offspring. So we certainly can’t prove they had different offspring, so fossils cannot be used to show evolution. Because evolution or an old earth certainly does not fit in with the definition of science, we shouldn’t be calling it science, let alone having it taught in a science classroom.

My nephew is in an advanced biology class in high school. His textbook is over 1000 pages long and they don’t cover even half of the book throughout the year. If we really want our children to have a science-rich education, it is better to leave the origins subject out of it; there is plenty of good science still in the textbook. Evolution has done nothing to further the study of science, and any doctor in the area will tell you that the origins subject is the last thing they care about when they are treating patients.

I support science too, that’s why if we don’t observe, test and demonstrate that macro evolution exists, we should leave it out. The only thing we have observed are variations within kinds, which directly fits the Bible account. To say macro-evolution happens requires a massive leap of faith — faith I’d rather have in God’s creation and Jesus Christ’s promises mentioned in the infallible Word of God, which have never been proven wrong.

 

Kim Aukusti

Albert Lea