THE EVOLUTION OF TRUTH IN SCHOOLS
“The widespread movement in recent years toward the establishment of new private Christian schools has been stimulated largely by the failure of the public schools to maintain academic and philosophic objectivity.”
Those words are the introduction to “Scientific Creationism” written by Dr. Henry Morris in 1974. Perhaps with President Trump’s appointment of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education, the academic shackles restraining our children from “academic and philosophic objectivity” might at last be thrown off.
DeVos thinks education money should allow the parents to decide the best educational medium for their children — government or private; Christian or secular. Tennesseans should welcome the change. Many of the problems began when evolution, more of a philosophical theory than an objective scientific one, replaced the creation account in Genesis. Fortunately, the truth is “evolving.”
For instance, the recent movie “Is Genesis History” compiles fascinating interviews with doctoral researchers in astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, archeology and many other fields that compellingly support the creation narrative. I sat in awe as professors examined fossils, rock compositions, the angles of rock fissures and surrounding geological evidence in nearby states to make the case that the Grand Canyon, instead of being formed over millions of years, as we’ve been taught, very well could have been formed in only a few weeks by a massive wall of flooding waters generating incredible pressures.
Unfortunately, such evolving research is withheld from our children in favor of the more philosophical and unscientific theory of evolution. Since the 1925 Scopes Trial in nearby Dayton, evolution has been taught in our schools as if it were fact instead of theory. Those who disagree are portrayed as unintelligent, close-minded Christian fools. Who wants to be one of those people?
Here’s another example of the shortcoming of evolution theory. Honeybees are some of the most complex creatures on earth. As a pilot, I’m particularly amazed at their innate ability to navigate precisely up to five miles from their hive, to communicate complex directions for sister bees to find pollen, and to fly in high wind conditions by extending and retracting their hind legs to stabilize their tiny bodies. More down to earth, however, the hexagonal cell shapes in their hives have perplexed researchers since the Roman mathematician Varro in 36 B.C. Why hexagons and not circles, triangles or squares?
It was only in 1999 that Dr. Thomas Hales solved Varro’s “Honeybee Conjecture” mathematically. His proof is 22 pages of incredibly complex calculus functions. Yet, a honeybee’s brain is .01 percent the size of a three-pound human brain, and its tiny feet can’t hold pencils! So evolutionists explain their understanding of hexagonal efficiency as a process that simply evolved over time.
But time is not a magic wand that can explain such phenomena. That’s why evolutionists include descriptors like “could have,” “probably” or “possibly” to qualify their findings. Such assumptions hardly square with the scientific method we teach our children beginning in fifth grade so they might reach rational conclusions to complex questions. Evolutionary explanations are more philosophical conjecture than scientific conclusions based on empirical data.
What is the alternative to teaching the evolution of bees? Here’s one: A creator designed the honeybee perfectly with the innate abilities to do what honeybees do. What a beautiful thing. The same is true of planetary motion, flowing water, genetics, light, sound and a thousand more complex scientific phenomena. Science unveils the mysteries of how God’s universe works. Instead of disproving the creation narrative in the Bible, science complements the beauty, wisdom and perfection of that creation.
Sir Isaac Newton, one of the world’s greatest scientists, said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things.” Why are we afraid to tell our children such things? Could it be that we don’t want to be perceived as “one of those people”?
Roger Smith, a local author, is a frequent contributor to the Times Free Press.