It is time to call a thing what it is: the opinion column printed in the Albert Lea Tribune on May 20 contained statements that bullied Christians who believe the Bible’s teaching concerning creation. And what a contrast to set the DFL’s successful effort to pass an anti-bullying bill in Minnesota beside comments made by a member of the Freeborn County DFL Party in which creationists get bullied!

To say creationism is “anti-science” or at least a part of “science denialism” is to deny the faith-fueled scientific contributions of Sir Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Robert Boyle, to name a few.

To speak of “the facts of evolution” misconstrues the kind of science origin explanations seek to practice. These fall under the category of historical (or forensic, think of a courtroom) science rather than operational (or experimental, think of a laboratory) science. Operational science deals with repeatable experiments that can be observed.  Historical science deals with one-time events for which evidence now exists, but a case must be built to explain what really happened in the past. The “facts” are available to all explanations. Historical science seeks an explanation that best accounts for the evidence/facts.

Increasingly over the past 60 years, evolution has enjoyed a privileged position in classrooms and the media, while other explanations for the available data get ignored or mocked. Survival of the species (microevolution) — yes, I think the mechanisms of evolution account well for this observed reality.  But the arrival of the species (macroevolution) — no, I think evolution does not explain this well at all. Besides the fundamental realities of energy and matter, the ability to investigate cellular systems has introduced a fundamental reality for which origin explanations must also account: The reality of information, without which life cannot exist.

If you are a Christian, please know that evolution’s explanation for the origin and development of life in all its kinds is built upon a culture of death, though I am not convinced evolution can even account for death itself. And this comprehensive explanation is decidedly anti-Christian.  One believer in (macro)evolution has boldly declared that “evolution puts Jesus into the ranks of the unemployed.” Oh, how true, if it were only true!

Whereas this comprehensive explanation called evolution is built upon death, Biblical teaching centers on the person called “the Life.” The Bible will not settle for having itself summarized in human-centered terms. No, it demands to be known for its Christ-centeredness, through whom all things were intentionally and purposefully made, and yes, this means you, even you!  Short-sightedness describes evolution’s explanation of material reality: from life to death, the ultimate showing of age! Hope describes creationism’s celebration and expectation of the creator’s reality: From death to life, so that we do not dismiss or deny but rather defy this unnatural enemy called death.

 

Ryan Rasmussen

Clarks Grove