Just what kind of proof do the creationists desire?
The creationists’ favorite ploy is that evolution cannot be “proved” experimentally. What would they call experimental proof?
I imagine it means a recognizable species of living organism would be placed under distinctively altered living conditions and observed until some of the members of the breeding population had changed enough that they could breed and reproduce with one another but not with members of the old population from which they had been isolated. Isolation from the old population is an essential element in evolution, for obvious reasons — if you don’t want red-haired grandchildren, you don’t let your daughter go out with red-haired boys.
If this could be demonstrated in just one instance, would James C. McEntire admit that evolution had occurred, or would he cling stubbornly to his unproved and unprovable creationist hypothesis? Remember, “it says it in the Bible” proves nothing except that it says it in the Bible, and men of great holiness and learning, I’m told, have warned us against interpreting Genesis too literally.
Can the reverend’s sermonizing prove I’m hell-bound because his creationist’s life is more moral than my evolutionist’s life? Of course. We disagree, and to him that’s immoral.
Russell McFadden, West Columbia
This is the reponse I sent to the paper. I do not know if it will be printed yet but I do know it will be published here.
Instead of providing evidence of one kind of animal evolving into a completely different kind of animal Mr. McFadden complains against my insistence that the theory of evolution be subject to empirical science.
I wonder, if the theory of evolution does not measure up to the demands of empirical science (that is demonstrable evidence) if the gentleman from West Columbia would “cling stubbornly to his unproved and unprovable” evolutionary hypothesis.
“Science says”, proves nothing except that science says it and plenty of scientists of learned background have told us that creation is a very plausible explanation for the diversity, complexity, and precise order we see in nature.
Mr. McFadden misses the point of my “sermonizing” entirely! My point is that we have all broken God’s Law; it is not that I am more moral than he or anyone else for that matter. Because the law of God condemns us we need a Saviour. And yes, if you reject the Saviour then a holy God will execute the sentence with unflinching devotion to justice.
The fact that we disagree is not immoral to me. Could it be that the pot is calling the kettle black?