Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Creation and Evolution are Antithetical
13530 Fonseca Ave.
La Mirada, California 90638
(Editor's Comment: The quotations interspersed in this letter by Dr. Davidheiser are quotations from his book, Evolution and Christian Faith, and are quoted here by way of rebuttal by the reviewer.
I would like to make a few comments on Dr. Bube's review of my book Evolution and Christian Faith (Journal ASA 22, 28 (1970) ). He says I reject all such distinctions as (a) changes in living plants and animals, (b) a general theory that proposes a common origin for all living things, and (c) a system of philosophical speculation that views evolutionary processes as basic to all life. He says that because I reject such distinctions my treatment of the problem is a "grave disappointment." But my work may quickly be salvaged from such a fate, for I definitely, and I thought obviously, do recognize these distinctions.
("Every anti-evolutionist who says 'We believe its micro-evolution,' is aiding the evolutionary cause. Micro-evolution is a misnomer and use of the term should he avoided by everyone who does not accept evolution." ... (p. 16)
"According to the theory of evolution, that which the Bible cells sin is merely a remnant of a bestial nature." (p. 22)
"Evolutionists generally believe that unless man destroys himself or overpopulates the earth, he will improve until wars
cease and prosperity is the rule." (p. 23)
Some things of which he accuses me are true. I would refrain from
using the word
evolution when dealing with any real phenomenon. Using the word
evolution to describe
observable phenomena is comparable to the way gamblers use the word gambling to
describe such things as risking the chance of an accident by driving
on the highway
to go to church. Calling this gambling is based upon a phony definition of the
word gambling and it is done for a purpose:
to break down objection to real gambling.
In my historical treatment of evolution Dr. Bube does not like what I say about Charles Darwin, but he does not say that anything of a factual nature which I relate is untrue. The remarks about Darwin's illness and character are from statements made by evolutionists who admire what Darwin accomplished.
He says I admit that the method of using quotations to make a point results in ambiguity because I say of evolutionary writings, ". . . one can find just about every imaginable point of view advanced by someone." But this does not admit that there is anything wrong with the method; it merely illustrates the state of confusion among the evolutionists. He says the same method could he used "to show the evils and shortcomings of the Christian faith as exercised by the church throughout history." This could be true if quotations are taken from writers who express various shades of heresy and apostasy. But I quoted from orthodox evolutionists only, except where otherwise stated. He says that I use "out-of-context spot quotations." I made a special effort not to do this. For example, if I used a quotation like, "We do not know anything about the ancestry of the pied oyster catcher . the rest of the sentence was irrelevant and did not suggest a possible ancestor, as, ". . . but it may have evolved from some unknown primitive starfish-chaser."
I really am misquoted where I am alleged to have said that the case of the Piltdown hoax allows one to speculate about how many other such cases there may be that still are undiscovered. I said nothing of the sort. I said that because the experts overlooked and disregarded so many clues that revealed Piltdown man as a hoax, it shows that the scientists are not objective when it comes to evolution and that they can see what they wish to see and overlook a great deal of what they do not wish to see.
("The scientists overlooked a large number of rather obvious clues, any one of which should have given them reason to consider the possibility of fraud. Alt/sough this does not necessarily mean that other finds are fraudulent, the Piltdown story does expose a great weakness in the objectivity of evolutionary scientists. It reveals that they can see a great deal of what they wish to see and can overlook a great deal of 'chat they do not wish to see. In the Piltdown case the truth has been revealed; one cannot help wondering how much fantasy may be involved in the interpretations of other cases which cannot be checked." ... (p. 340)
Dr. Bube attributes to my sense of humor the view that for an animal
of the earthworm
type to evolve into a vertebrate it would need to roll over on its
back and remain
that way. I dare not take credit for this, and furthermore, it apparently was
not a humorous matter to the evolutionists who used to advocate it.
example of my sense of humor is my remark that if Zin/anthro pus, as restored
in the National Geographic for September, 1960, were riding in the
New York subway
he would not draw a second glance, provided he were wearing a cap to
fact that he had no forehead. Anyone who thinks this may be humorous
and is familiar
with the New York subways should look at the pictured reconstruction and judge
Dr. Bube says I came to a saving faith in Christ only after release from the bondage of evolution. This is not true. I was converted first. Then I looked at evolution from a different perspective. I already had a PhD in Zoology and could read the scientific journals. I was amazed to find that I could poke holes in the evolutionary writings of the scientists about as easily as I formerly did the same thing to the writings of well-meaning anti-evolutionists who did not have background knowledge in biological science.
("He preached a simple gospel message of salvation by grace, and that evening I found myself saying. 'I believe that,' to everything he said. This surprised me for l had said many times that I could not believe unless someone would first disprove evolution to me. But there I was, agreeing with everything he said and telling myself I believed it . . . . As evolution had been the great stumbling block in my life, I felt a desire to aid others who might have the same problem."... (p. 11)
He says I criticize the vocal members of the American Scientific
they do not take a strong anti-evolutionary stand and that I say the
because all the writings of the Association are not
anti-evolutionary. Dr. Cassel
himself in 1959 made the frequentlyquoted statement, "Thus in
we have seen develop within the A.S.A. a spectrum of belief in evolution that
would have shocked all of us at the inception of our organization."
It is true that not all articles published by the A.S.A. are evolutionary, but that is no reason to commend it. We do not talk about the pleasant peppermint flavor of a poison just to be able to say something nice about it.
Dr. Bube says that I fail from the beginning to recognize that creation and evolution are not necessarily antithetical. But I rest my whole case upon the premise that, properly defined, they are antithetical. He says I hate evolution with a singleness of mind. That would be a great waste of energy. But I do oppose it because I know what it can do and what it has done in promoting apostasy.
Many books have been written of the sort which please Dr. Bube. There is no need for another. My purpose was to write for the Bible-believing laity, many of whom have been misinformed and are confused. It is my desire to encourage them not to compromise with evolution and not to look for assistance and guidance to such people as those who within a period of fifteen years accepted so much evolution that they themselves would have been shocked if they had been told they would do this.