No, I don’t think evolution (or science in general) explains everything. But my critique of science is less meaningful than yours, as you have some formal education in science and I do not. My views are no more than lay opinions, and certainly would not be persuasive enough to convince a trained scientist. But I’ll cite a couple of my disagreements with science that I think you’ll agree with.

First, as I think you noted, there seems to be an insistence on “randomness”, especially in text books. But the idea that everything biological is a result of random processes seems to me to fly in the face of our scientific understanding of the universe. We can shoot a missile to take out a satellite, launch a spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet, and design drugs to mute pain. That speaks not of randomness, but of great organization. Beyond that impression I have, there’s another point I think is important: because you can’t see a pattern doesn’t mean it isn’t there. What appears like random threads on a rug reveals itself to be beautiful needlepoint when turned right side up.

The second point of contention is with those who insist on being “evangelical atheists”. Science is to the world what the old card catalog was to the library (in this digital age, I may need a new analogy!) Science catalogs facts, but does not satisfy our need to know why those facts are there. “Why” is a philosophical question, and they simply deny that anything philosophical or spiritual needs to be addressed. But nevertheless, they do deal in philosophy. The educated “evangelical atheists” like Carl Sagan choose what appears to me to be a philosophy that was dis-proven by the Big Bang: Sagan said “it always just was”. Wasn’t that called “steady state” theory?

The beauty of Genesis and the rest of the Bible is that it speaks of the relationship between God and man, something you can’t measure on scales or a ruler. Philosophy and religion are as important … perhaps more so! … than science is, not because they meet the artificial standard of proof some hold, but because they meet our human needs.

Certainly Frank, you don’t believe the current evolutionary theories explain everything…do you? I always found it quite ironic that Spontaneous Generation is shown as disproved in current Biology textbooks by Louis Pasteur, but then a few chapters later, the Organic Soup Theory is on proud display for our 14 and 15 year olds to digest (nice pun). All of this without debate; without thought; and without questioning from the high schoolers because of the strong-hold (maybe pride?) and fear of religion (maybe paranoia?) of the scientific community.

You’ve compared your thoughts to the school of medicine a few times. I certainly hope the community of “experts” does keep and open mind and welcome new ideas – even when their pride and paranoid states are rightfully affected.

I respect the way in which you present your thoughts; but I humbly disagree with most of them. I am a former Biology teacher that believes in most evolutionary theories. However, I know it has many holes, and I believe debating the mysteries of origins, without religion, is healthy in a classroom.

I have done the hard work and earned my place in the classroom. But the truth is, you cannot question Darwin dogma, period.

We would not allow a herbalist to take up valuable class time in a medical school course on heart surgery; while his theories about natural foods and plants might have value, the venue for them is not the class on surgery.

Creationism and ID have to prove themselves BEFORE they are in the classroom. Otherwise they are just opinions held by students and other non-scientists.

Christians approach this issue from a philosophical standpoint, and frame the issue as part of the culture wars. Fair enough, but the arguments then are for a philosophy class.

Do the hard work, and earn your place in the classroom.

In order to establish anything other than the dominant theory … which is evolution, like it or not … you have to propose your theory in peer reviewed journals and gain acceptance of the experts. Until then, you don’t have a voice in the matter, any more than a person who claims an herb cures cancer has a place in the clinic until he proves his assertion.

When I was a Creationist, in the 1970s, it was said that there were no transitional forms for a particular animal that was said to have come from a fish-like creature to be a land animal. I have lived long enough to see science find the transitional forms, and today the Creationists don’t feature the lack of transitional forms. The past 50 years have revealed transitional forms in very expected ways.

Faithful Christians, such as Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project, have written eloquently about why your concern is misplaced. Find a copy of “The Language of God”, and read it. To do otherwise is to ignore the real debate, which is not whether or not evolution is true, but whether or not Christians are dedicated to the truth.