Author: Dr. Jerry Bergman
Subject: Science Education
The following is a transcript of a lecture given by Dr. John R. Baker, professor in
a class titled Biological Evolution 303, Section A on March 4, 1980. It illustrates the fact
that creationism is often taught in the public school classrooms of America. What is
taught is that creationism is not true and evolution. Supposedly no group that might be
concerned about teaching religion in public schools challenged Dr. Baker, yet that is
exactly what he was doing in this lecture! What follows is the lecture transcribed word
for word which says much about what kind of anti-religious education our students are
To start this course off, I’m sure we’re going to get into a little trouble with the
creationists like I did last year. I thought I’d start this course off this quarter with a little
discussion of creationism from my personal point of view. I want to explain one reason
why I don’t discuss creationism in this class.
The lecture I’m going to give today, I’m going to give in three parts. I’m going to
give a little introduction. Now I’m going to talk about fundamentalism. I’m going to talk
about the origin of modern Christian fundamentalism and then I’ll talk about what you
might call conservative or fundamentalist theology vs. science in a historical perspective,
that is, what was the conflict between science and theology and the development of the
modern view of the world in Western civilization. Then I’ll talk about contemporary
American fundamentalism. Then I’ll talk finally about scientific creationism.
My discussion of scientific creationism will be based upon the handout, which is
photocopied along with their statement of belief and objectives for Creation Research
Society Journal. You know, it is by way of introduction I personally don’t think that
there is any reason to debate evolution vs. creationism because the fundamental tenets in
my opinion of creationism are all wrong. The way I look at it I compare this to the
famous mathematical problem of trisection the angle. Everybody knows that you can
bisect an angle very simply using a ruler and pencil and everybody who doesn’t know
better thinks “Yeah, everybody should be able to trisect an angle with a ruler and pencil.”
Amateur geometers are forever bombarding professional mathematicians the proofs of
the trisection of an angle. Professional mathematicians are understandable hot under the
collar when they get these because they know that there has got to be a mistake
somewhere because using analytic geometry it is possible to prove that this is not
possible to trisect an angle. But, in other words, the professional mathematician knows
that there has got to be an error there somewhere. And I feel the same way about the
creationism: if the fundamental tenets are wrong there is really no point in debating
creationism because you know that there has to be an error there somewhere.
Now let me look first at the origins of modern Christian fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism arose among conservative members of various United States protestant
denominations in the early twentieth century. The object of these movements was to
maintain the traditional interpretation of the Bible and what they believed to be the
fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. And all this was a reaction to what was then
an emerging liberal theology and the attempt of this liberal theology to recast Christianity
in the light of science and historical discoveries that were being done at the time. Science
as we know has had a rather large difficulty with the archaeological and Biblical research
that discovered other things about the Bible that were questionable.
The essence of fundamentalism has been from the 12-volume book called The
Fundamentalist, which was published in 1910 to 1912. In The Fundamentalist you can
boil that all down to five fundamental points of doctrine. Point number one: the virgin
birth. Point number two: the physical resurrection of Christ. Point number three: the
infallibility of scripture. Point number four: the substitutional atonement. Point number
five: the physical second coming of Christ. The only one of these three (five) points that
I’m concerned with in this lecture is point number three, the infallibility of scripture.
And now part two of my lecture on this section of fundamentalism, I want to talk
about conservative theology; that is to say, fundamentalist theology vs. science from a
historical perspective. By way of introduction I want to point out that there are two
questions that were resolved in the history of science. The question is: is the world or the
universe of natural law which can be discovered by man’s endeavors or is the world and
universe under the control of a capricious deity and no laws can be discovered. The
latter, that is a capricious deity controls the universe, it is the essence of the Dark Ages or
Middle Ages. I hear that the world or universe has natural laws that can be discovered by
man’s efforts led to the age of reason, the science into the modern world.
I just have a brief review of some of the events in this warfare between science
and theology. I just chose a few out of the many there are. For example, primitive
people all over the earth believed that earth to be flat, a flat table or a disk with the sky as
a sort of canopy overhead. The ancient Hebrews naturally thought this was the case and
this is the case shown by numerous references in the Bible. And so there was a long
conflict between science and theographers to try to show that the world was really round,
and theologians were convicted based on scriptural passages that the earth must be flat.
This very long conflict based on scriptural passages that the earth must be flat. This very
long conflict lasted all the way until 1519 when Magellan managed to sail around the
world. But in spite of that there were still numerous people who still thought the world
was flat for another two-hundred years.
And even more curious than that, in England in the 18th century that was a
society called the Universal Zetetic Society. We would call them flat-earthers. I’ll read
you an excerpt about the flat-earthers from an article by Shedewald in an article about the
creationism bill that appeared in the Des Moines Tribune last spring:
“The Universe Zetetic Society (the flat-earthers) had a steel core of lecturers who
criss-crossed England (unintelligible) negating the possibility that the earth was spherical.
Because opponents were fitfully unprepared for the ingenious arguments, the flat-earthers
sometimes won their case. The lecturers from the Institute for Creation Research use the
same debate tactics and enjoy the same success.”
But anyway, we generally think today, except for a few isolated simplistic persons
Another famous problem of theology vs. science is the Copernican theory vs. the
heliocentric theory. You have all heard of Copernicus, what with the planets rotating
around the sun. Whereas the medieval theologians favored the idea that everything
revolved around the earth. Copernicus did not publish in his lifetime because he was
persecuted and knew that he would be thrown into prison, if not tied to the stake, for
daring to suggest this. But he actually only got a copy of his famous work on his
deathbed. Copernicus made a rather interesting statement. But you must realize that all
these people that were opposing the doctrine of theology at the time were Christians.
They had no qualms about the proof of Christianity. They just thought there was some
other interpretation possible in the manner of the theologian of the day. Somebody said
to Copernicus, “If your theory is right, Venus should show phases.” Copernicus replied,
“Yes, that’s true. In God’s time, He will reveal to us the phases of Venus.” But this never
did happen in Copernicus’ lifetime.
Galileo was probably the most famous of all scientists to be persecuted b the
Church, mainly because he contended with the Copernican theory. As a matter of fact,
Copernicus (Galileo) used the telescope and discovered the phases of Venus which
Copernicus knew would have to exist. The theologians didn’t at all agree with the idea
that the earth moved because in the Bible it clearly says Joshua commands the sun to
stand still. Therefore the sun must be moving and not the earth. Related to the ideas of
science making progress against primitive theology, or fundamental theology, it is
peculiar that the progress is slower in the United States. For example, in 1822 the
theories of Copernicus and books of Copernicus and Galileo were taken off the Catholics
By 1850, the German-Lutherans had abandoned the heliocentric theory.
However, in 1873 the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans published a book against modern
astronomy. We king of lag behind in that area.
Another thing that is kind of interesting is the idea created in the Bible that
comets are balls of fire flung from the right hand of God to frighten sinful, grumbling
mankind. In favor of this idea is a scripture text; a marvelous scripture, like in
Revelation: “And the third angel sounded and there fell a great star form heaven burning
as it were a lamp. And behold ‘a third of the world cometh quickly (?)’” Against this—
against the theological viewpoint—is the idea that comets are bodies, astronomical
bodies, subject to natural law. Of which almost everybody agrees they are today. And
even worse than that, modern astronomers have pretty well demonstrated that hardly
being fire, they are made mostly out of ice. They think comets follow prescribed orbits,
and not just come wherever they feel like it. The curious thing about this overthrow of
the idea that comets are balls of fire is that no catastrophe is ensured either or religion or
to morality. For example, in the realm of religion the passages of the Bible are no less
beautiful or powerful knowing that comets are what they are today vs. balls of fire. It
didn’t make a bit of difference.
Another place where religion and science had a conflict was in the scripture; the
text in numerous places clearly sanctions the belief of sorcery and magic, both in the Old
and New Testaments. Sorcery and magic are referred to as reality. Of course, I’m sure
you are all aware that during the 15th and 17th centuries there was a very embarrassing
(time) to the human race, outbreak of witch hunting in this era.
Another interesting factor in the Bible it sort of suggests that there is a diabolical
agency in storms. Ben Franklin (you remember old Ben Franklin) threw up a kite to
demonstrate that lightening was nothing more than electricity. When he published this,
he was denounced, that is Franklin was denounced in pulpits in both Catholic and
Protestant churches all over the U.S. for daring to suggest that there was something
natural in storms. Just pure old electricity rather than various devils up there.
Roger Bacon, another very famous name in science, living around 1200 to 1250.
Bacon was well remembered in science because he invented the experimental, or what we
call scientific method, or I should say the experimental scientific method. Bacon was
condemned and persecuted throughout his lifetime, thrown into jail several times on the
behest of the theologians of the day for his attempts to find scientific explanations for
natural phenomena. As a matter of fact, Newton, who we all greatly honor as the founder
of modern physics, was denounced in pulpits all over England. He dared to suggest that
the universe was made of order that could be established by a few natural laws rather than
a universe, which was run by God.
The conflict of science and theology that I have talked about so far didn’t really
have any terrible persecution except for maybe Galileo. But there were several cases
where things were kind of worse—like geography. In the Bible it clearly states that
Judea is a land of milk and honey. A man named Servetus died in 1553. He wrote
geography and he stated the simple geographic fact that everybody who had been to the
holy land knew that it is a rather barren and inhospitable land. Then this got him in
trouble with the rather famous Protestant gentleman by the name of Calvin. Kindly old
Dr Calvin saw to it that Servetus was burned at the stake for this heresy, among other
The famous problem in geology is that of catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism.
Catastrophism is the idea that the earth’s surface is shaped by catastrophe, visited upon it
by a deity. Uniformitarianism is the idea that the earth’s surface is shaped by natural
processes. That was a terrific conflict in the warfare of science and theology. An
excellent source of information on this is a book called, The History of the Warfare
Between Science and Theology, A.D. White (1900). In spite of the title, it is a very
religious book, a profoundly religious book. It was written in 1900, or published in 1900.
In that day they thought that theology, conservative theology, had lost its battle, but
And now let me talk about contemporary American fundamentalism briefly.
(Question from student: “I was just wondering when you mentioned about in the
Bible where it says that the world is flat. Could you tell us somewhat where some of the
Not off the top of my head. But I could look come up. The Bible doesn’t say
flatly out in words we understand, that the world is flat, but there are places where it
refers to the four corners and things like that. And since the ancient Hebrews weren’t
world travelers they had no choice but to think the world was flat. All primitive people
think the world is flat.
The interesting thing about contemporary American fundamentalism is the
numbers of members of fundamentalist churches has been rising since about 968 and the
membership in the liberal churches—the Methodists, Presbyterians and the like—has
been falling. Quite a spectacular change there. What is the attraction of
fundamentalism? Well, I don’t know for sure, but I have several ideas.
In my opinion, one of the major attractions of fundamentalism is the attraction of
any of the salvation religions. That is, people who feel either politically or financially or
perhaps even intellectually inferior to somebody else take revenge upon these people to
whom they feel inferior by sending them to hell.
Another attraction of fundamentalism is the general idea that when groups of
people like in the United States today or throughout the world sort of feel that we’ve lost
control of our destiny. We have runaway inflation that we can’t control. I hear that war,
atomic war, might start. The rate of cancer is increasing and so on and so on. Science
isn’t helping us at all. When a group of people feel that it has lost control of its own
destiny they may turn to mysticism. People start reading VonDaniken’s Chariots of the
Gods and believing it. People think that Velikovsky was right all along and things like
Another possible attraction of fundamentalism that I’ve seen is in the way many,
many children particularly in the United States are raised in a such a way that they
become dependent. In other words, their parents don’t allow them to make mistakes on
their own. Most mature psychologists realize that how humans grow into intellectual and
emotional maturity is by being allowed to make a mistake, and learning from it. But, it is
common among American parents to rather too strictly control their child’s life so they
won’t make mistakes, so obviously they can’t get hurt emotionally, at least while they’re
at home. And so when these children get out of high school and go to college, they still
need somebody to act as a substitute parent. And an excellent substitute parent is the
various fundamentalist churches, or fundamentalist organizations. One particular reason
for that is that the fundamentalist is always right; everybody else is always wrong. So if
you are a fundamentalist you can’t possibly be hurt. You can never be wrong.
Another curious thing about fundamentalism that I personally don’t like is that the
fundamentalists apparently believe in the literal Bible. The Bible is full of sections where
the Deity which is made up to be very cruel and very vindictive, very capricious; and the
fundamentalist themselves, I fear, must also be cruel, vindictive, capricious.
Another aspect of contemporary American fundamentalism is in America today
there is very strong anti-intellectual and anti-scientific movement. This is related to the
conflict between the layperson and who the layperson considers to be someone else
telling him what to do. For example, there is a lot of conflict in the control of education.
Most people see that the education of their children is being run by a board of education
run from a University or State office. They haven’t got any particular control here. This
is a considerable source of concern for lay people of a certain type, who see that their
beliefs are under attack. For example, if I wrote down some words to show the difference
between how the layman looks at science and scientists look at science; how the
layperson’s world works compared to how the scientist’s world works. These are two
completely different worlds. The layman doesn’t understand the world of science, or the
intellectual world as a whole. In the layperson’s world, everything is equal – all humans
are as a political contention are all equal. In the world of the scientist, people are not
equal. Scientists advance in science purely by merit. In the world of the layperson,
things are decided by a unanimous vote. In the world of science, it is the elite. Science is
very elitist. Scientists are forever almost worshipping, for example, the Nobel Prize.
Well, you’d fall all over yourself thinking that so-and-so go the Nobel Prize. And
scientists, in general, are elitists. They prefer to believe that the elite know what’s going
The result of this is that laypersons want a hand in education, for example. They
also want a hand in science. An interesting example of this is what we had recently in
Iowa. (It) was laypersons wanting to censor a book on the school shelves. Another case
of this occurred way back in ’74 in the famous town of Kanawha, West Virginia. I’m
going to quote a minister, a fundamentalist minister, involved in a textbook controversy.
In Kanawha, West Virginia the fundamentalist objected to certain books being in the
school library which seemed to cast doubt on the fundamentalists. This also shows you
what I said about how I sort of distrust fundamentalists because they appear to be
vindictive and cruel. The paper quoted this minister: “‘I am asking Christian people to
pray that God will kill he giants that have mocked and make fund of dumb
fundamentalists,’ the Rev. Charles Quidley (?) told the Charleston Gazette in an
interview. The Rev. Mr. Quidley (?) said he wanted Russell Isaacs, Harry Standsbury,
and Albert Hanson struck dead. ‘It is not a matter of hate or love,’ he said. ‘It s a matter
of anybody standing in God’s way and trying to bring Christianity to a halt. They must
realize that this is God’s land and God’s country and Christianity has made America what
it is today.’ He added, ‘I know several Biblical instances where men tried to stop the
work of God and died’.”
What kind of an individual is that who wants to strike somebody dead?
Ordinarily, we’d call that somebody who is pathologically insane.
But anyway and now let me talk to another point here. My last point is my little
discussion of contemporary American fundamentalist thinking. The fundamentalists
believe that the Bible is true throughout. However, it is obvious and has been obvious for
years to anyone who has read the Bible that it is full of internal contradictions. For
example, here is a quotation. I am using a Revised Standard Version. Exodus 34:6-“The
Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast
love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sins, but who will by no
means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the
children’s children to the third and fourth generation.” It seems to me there is a slight
contradiction there between the merciful God and God who is going to visit the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children o the third and fourth
Another interesting case of contradiction in the Bible occurs in Genesis 6:19—
“And of every living of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark to keep
them alive with thee. They shall be male and female.” (Genesis) 6:20—“Thus did
Noah.” I call to your attention that in these two passages two of every sort are brought
into the ark. Genesis 7:2—“Of every clean beast, thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the
male and his female. And of beasts that are not clean, by two, the male and female.”
(Genesis) 7:3—“The fowls also of the air by sevens.” (Genesis) 7:5—“And Noah did it
unto all the Lord commanded him.” That is very difficult for Noah even granting an
Omnipotent (?) deity to carry out two contradictory commands. To take two of
everything vs. taking seven of the clean beast and fowls and two of everything else.
That’s a clear-cut contradiction any way you look at it.
The result of the fact that the Bible has numerous contractions is that the Bible
has to be read as ritual (just mumbling over the passages without thinking about it and not
analyzed) or else the Bible has to be interpreted. It must be the case that the Bible is
interpreted in many cases or it would be to confusing.
If everyone, in my opinion, if the whole country – the whole Western
civilization– thought like fundamentalist, the entire logical structure of Western
civilization would collapse. Consider law. If in a court of law, the witness is called
before the bench to give evidence, the prosecuting and defense attorneys attempt to find
contradictions in this person’s evidence. If a contradiction is found the jury dismisses the
evidence. Compare this with the Dark Ages, when the Bible is thought to be literally true
throughout. How did they establish guilt in the Dark Ages? Well, they tied the supposed
guilty party to the stool and threw him in the drink. If he sank, he was innocent, and he
floated he was guilty.
Now, let me talk about scientific creationism. Now if you look at your little
handout that I duplicated over the weekend, an issue from the Creation Research Society
Journal. IF you’ll notice that I have in my handwriting listed little numerals a, b, c and so
on. And I’m just going to go through these by letter and make some comments where I
Number a: “The Society is solely a research and publication society. It does not
hold meetings or engage in other promotional activities.” I don’t know about holding
meetings. I can see why they wouldn’t want to hold meetings, or somebody might attack
their ideas. But to say that they don’t engage in other promotional activities is clearly
stretching the fact because members of the CRS appear before state boards, textbook
committees, and Legislatures. The CRS publishes political manifestos and and I don’t
really think they don’t do promotional activities.
In statement two under b, it says that they have no affiliation with other scientific
or religious organizations. Yet, if you look I the next column way down under b, it lists
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Institute for Creation Research, and so on, and president of
Christian Heritage College. Strange that he should be the treasurer of one and president
of another, and still they say that there is no affiliation with a religious organization. And
I would assume that the Christian Heritage College might be associated with a religious
organization. I know those are trivial points.
Now number c: Statement of Belief. Anybody who wants to join Creation
Research Society has to sign, if you get their Journal out of the library you’ll find an
enrollment blank or application of membership and you have to sign that and be
committed to believing that the Biblical record of Creation in early history is true. Now
how can anybody who pretends to be a scientist subscribe to a full belief in something?
That’s the very antithesis of what science is all about. The essence of science is openmindedness.
For example, the Journal of Astronomy doesn’t have a statement in there
that just members of the astronomical society of the United States subscribe fully to the
Copernican theory of the universe, and the Journal of Evolution doesn’t have a statement
of belief in the Darwinian Theory of evolution. But he Creation Research Society only
wants to advance Christian creation. This is an example of what I think is intellectual
dishonesty. If they were truly honest scientists—open-minded—they would consider and
want to advance the creation stories of all peoples and religions. This is also an actual
example of intellectual arrogance. They assume that they have the only truth whereas the
evidence for all the creation stories is so similar that you can’t choose between them. A
truly scientific hypothesis about creationism would ask the question which creation story
is nearer the truth?
If you look up above there I didn’t underline it but they removed the famous
buzzword scientific creationism. This word scientific creationism is a blatant
contradiction. If the fundamentalists believe that creation occurred exactly as in Genesis,
which they say they do, it cannot be a science or a theory because a theory as we
ordinarily understand the word is a hypothetical statement. Fundamentalists who say the
creationism is a theory and justifies being taught in public schools are either denying the
truth of the Bible if they believe the Bible is true, creation can’t be a theory or else they
are lying by holding reservations about the definition of a theory.
Point d: “committed to a full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early
history, and thus to a concept of dynamic special creation.” I’m curious as to why they
have the word “dynamic” in there except it sort of brings to mind the problem that there
are two distinctive accounts of creation in Genesis. There is the instantaneous account
where creation occurred instantaneously, then there is the other account where creation
occurs in six twenty-four hour days. I assume that they say dynamic because they would
rather have the six twenty-four hour days.
Point e: “we propose to reevaluate science from this viewpoint.” That’s a slight
change from earlier. In the early 1970s, that paragraph read as follows, “We propose to
reevaluate science from this viewpoint. Beginning in 1964, we are publishing an annual
yearbook of articles by various members of ht society and thereafter a quarterly review of
scientific literature.” And then in the earlier “70s, they said this, “Our eventual goal is
the realignment of science based on theistic creation concepts and publishing textbooks
for high school and college age. I’ve noticed that they’ve dropped the idea that their
eventual goal is the re-alignment of science based on theistic creation concepts. That
really is glaringly unscientific.
Under point f, I just point out again that it says all members of the society
subscribe to the following statement of belief and again I ask, how can somebody claim
to be a scientist who already subscribes to a belief?
Under point g: “the Bible is he written word of God”. Now that’s questionable.
A simple example is that any author could write a book and say this is the word of God.
How do you know? There is no possible way to know whether it’s the word of Go or not,
so that’s doubtful.
And then another interesting thing here is at point h, “All its assertions are
historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs.” Well, let’s just look at
the statement, “historically and scientifically true.” “Scientifically true”—I’ve already
given you a few examples of the conflicts between science and theology intended to show
that the Bible is not scientifically true. However, just to emphasize that point, I have a
couple of further examples in the biological sciences. The Bible claims that bats are birds
and modern taxonomists clearly agree that bats are mammals. Deuteronomy 4:11—“You
may eat all clean birds.” (Deuteronomy) 14:12—“But these are the ones you shall not
eat.” Then there is a list in (Deuteronomy) 14:18, “the hoopoe and the bat.” Leviticus
11:13—“and these you shall have an abomination among the birds,” a long list.
(Leviticus) 11:19—“the hoopoe and the bat.” The Bible implies fairly clearly that the
camel does not have a divided hoof which is not true. Camels are artiodactyls, which
have two toes on each foot. Each toe has a hoof. However, in Leviticus 11:4—
“nevertheless among those that chew the cud, the camel because it chews the cud and
does not part the hoof is unclean to you.” The Bible is a little mixed up on the insects.
They apparently say that insects have only four legs; for example, Leviticus 11:21—“yet
these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing which goeth on all fours.” Four not six,
“which have legs above their feet to leap with all upon the earth.” (Leviticus) 11:22—
“even these ye may eat, the locust after his kind, the bald locust after his kind and the
beetle after his kind and the grasshopper after his kind.” Modern entomologists I’m sure
would agree that these organisms have six legs rather than four. But anyway, that’s
enough examples with that. It’s probably not true in my opinion that the Bible is
historically and scientifically true throughout, unless you interpret it. And if you’re going
to interpret it, you might as well interpret t to include the theory of evolution.
Another curious thing about the Creation Research Society is the statement that
I’ve indicated is: “all its ascertains are historically and scientifically true in all their
original autographs.” Now there is a really sneaky way out of it so the Bible I just quoted
you, which is the Revised Standard Version, is not quite clear. The Creation Research
Society implies they have somewhere hidden some original autographs, whatever those
are. If the Creation Research Society were true, scholars really existed; they would
publish them. Because they would be of incalculable value for Biblical scholars and the
history of Christianity are later than the event. Certainly subject to a lot of recopying,
retranslating, riddling with, so it the Creation Research Society had the original
autographs they are really being very remiss in not publishing them.
Point j. I point out to you that they use a few weasel words. While the
evolutionist would clearly stick his neck out and say species, the Creation Research
Society says “al basic types of living things”, leaving it u to later definition what a basic
type is. And a weaseled role there—“whatever biological changes have occurred since
creation week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.” The
Bible doesn’t say anywhere that the originally created kinds change. Morris, the
treasurer of the outfit now, in 1971 published a little essay in creation Research Society
Journal in which he states the following, I quote: “In the biological realm many new
varieties, or even species, or even genera depending on the terminology, may quickly be
developed in response to environmental conditions.” That is good weaseling. That’s
what the evolutionists are trying to say, isn’t it? Except we go a little bit beyond species
It’s curious also that it’s just in the last couple of months the CSR was originally
opposed to continental drift. In a debate they had with Patterson on this campus they
opposed continental drift. In this issue of the Creation Society Journal has an interesting
article about continental drift in which the gentleman proposes continental drift really
happened, but it just happened in a much faster rate than geologists generally think. In
point c, the great flood in point c: “The great flood described in Genesis, commonly
referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its effect and
extent.” There is no credible geological evidence that any geologist would say that the
flood occurred. There is the problem of the patterns of sediment. Why did the flood
produce the array of sediments that we find like in the walls of the Grand Canyon? Now
where did al the water come from? What’s the distribution of animals? How come saltwater
fishes weren’t killed when the rainwater filled the ocean and diluted the salt and so
on? Many arguments against the possibility of the great flood. Under point 4c, again I
merely point out again that they have a statement of belief here which we just don’t have
In conclusion, let me just say a quick word of conclusion. Particularly I want to
refer again to the science textbooks and teaching creationism in universities and colleges
and public schools. I do not object to creation being taught in the classroom but at the
same time the basic tenets of Christian fundamentalism are subject to analytical
criticisms. Fundamentalists can however, can only criticize other branches or knowledge.
They cannot critically examine their own traits. But what the fundamentalists propose to
do in public schools amounts to preaching, not teaching creationism. If they were
teaching creationism, they would obviously want to evaluate all the creation myths. But
since they want to preach, not teach, creationism; it clearly belongs in church not school.
Finally, I’d like to say that in my opinion, the great truth and beauty of the Bible
is in no way obscured by the results of science. The Bible is a much greater thing than all
these little worries about whether the locust has four legs, whether evolution occurred or
whether the earth is round. It is a great thing than that. God did not have to make the
world in the narrow-minded way conceived by the fundamentalists. I sincerely believe
He is smarter than that.
Now for the rest of the course and the next lecture I’m going to attack
evolutionism. That’s not to say that evolutionists haven’t made a number of mistakes,
too. Than after that, I’ll just proceed with the course as a standard course in evolution.