Evolution Promoted As Fact
Confirmed evolutionists who have used repressive measures during their teaching careers may have thought they acted in the best interests of science. Perhaps they felt it was their duty to limit inquiries about creation in order to save society from harm. Readers may wonder how many evolutionists really believe that their theory is beyond question: apparently, quite a few.
Reference has already been made in the previous chapter to the strident anti-creation remarks of Dr. Rolf Sinclair at the January 1981 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting. Similar views were also expressed at the same AAAS meeting by another eminent [p. 97] evolutionist, Dr. Porter Kier. The following quote taken from Science News shows that Kier's confidence in the certainty of evolution equals that of Dr. Sinclair:
Discussing the evidence for evolution, Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter M. Kier, former director of the National Museum of Natural History, said there are 100 million facts which support evolution. "In the museums of the world", he says "there are over 100 million fossils that have been identified and age-dated. These fossils have been examined by many thousands of paleontologists and from their investigations we have learned a vast amount about the history of life on the earth." Despite this evidence, Kier admits, "there are many well-educated people still questioning evolution. Part of the problem may be that evolution has been described as the 'theory' of evolution, which gives an erroneous impression—that scientists themselves don't accept evolution as accepted." The word "theory," he says, has done a great deal of damage and should be dropped and the word evolution should stand alone. "Scientists may argue over the details of evolution," he says, "but they agree that evolution is a fact and should be so labeled." (Science News 1981, 19)
Nor were Drs. Sinclair and Kier alone in expressing their complete confidence in evolution. As the Arkansas trial drew near, the American Geological Institute, which is comprised of 18 geology-related societies with over 120,000 members, issued the following release:
Scientific evidence indicates beyond any doubt that life has existed on Earth for billions of years. This life has evolved through time producing vast numbers of species of plants and animals, most of which are extinct. Although scientists debate the mechanism that produced this change, the evidence for the change is undeniable. Therefore, in the teaching of science we oppose any position that ignores this scientific reality, or that gives equal time to interpretations based on religious beliefs only. (American Geological Institute 1981)
Readers may decide for themselves whether the dogmatism expressed in the above statement encourages the kind of intimidation of students referred to in the letter published in Physics Today. And they should also reflect on the impact this timely resolution may have had on some of the media representatives assigned to cover the Arkansas trial.
Countdown to the Arkansas Trial
This chapter has recounted a few of the incidents where evolutionists had denied the existence of evidence for creation. It seemed that the only way [p. 98] to settle the issue was to go to the trial. My presence there would guarantee that my work would be scrutinized by the best evolutionist scientists. If errors existed, these would be exposed.
Most importantly, the trial should reveal why there had been no response from the scientific community to the critical falsification test which I had proposed in EOS in 1979 and again in 1980. As discussion in Chapter 5 showed, the test was simple. According to the evolutionary scenario, the Precambrian granites had supposedly cooled from a hot magma during a multibillion-year evolution of the earth. If granites had really formed in this fashion, then it should be possible to duplicate the process today; that is, it should be possible to synthesize a hand- sized piece of granite from a hot melt prepared under laboratory conditions. Likewise it should be possible to produce a polonium halo in that piece of synthesized granite. If these experiments were successful, I would withdraw my claims that the Precambrian granites are created rocks and that polonium halos represent primordial radioactivity. The crucial question was whether my colleagues had been able to perform those experiments.
It was time for this issue to be resolved. Scientists had repeatedly claimed no credible evidence for creation existed. At the trial they would have an opportunity to prove that claim by refuting my published evidences for creation. If polonium halos in Precambrian granites were not evidence for creation, then I wanted all my scientific colleagues to know this as soon as possible. Likewise, if my results could not be refuted, I knew this would be of compelling interest to the millions of individuals who are ardently seeking to know the truth about the Genesis record of creation. For these reasons I accepted the invitation from the Attorney General's office to testify. It was one of the most challenging decisions of my life. It is also one I have not regretted.
Earth Science Associates