Daniel Heinrichs (M.A., B.Ed.)
305-430 Webb Place
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R3B 3J7

From: PSCF 41 (June 1989): 128

Re: "What Christians Should Think About Creation Science" (Perspectives, Dec. 1988).

I have been a member of the A.S.A. and also of the Creation Research Society for about five years now. My interest in evolution science began during High School in the 1930's and has continued ever since. I read widely in science, such authors as, J. Bronowski, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Peter Farb, Arthur Koestier, Ilya Prigogine, Brian M. Fagan, etc., etc. My observations of natural phenomena and processes have also had a deep effect on my opinions. I do feel sad about the dogmatic (stubborn) attitudes that the Creation Research Institute has taken and I don't want to be understood as supporting them. However, I do expect more from some A.S.A. members than we are getting.

Some A.S.A. writers seem oblivious to the fact that the news media, popular science writers, museums, park guides, many school text books, movie producers, etc., state plainly that evolution has been proved, and that evolution proves that there is not God, and that all life has evolved by random chance. When these statements are not made explicitly, they are conveyed in a subtle manner which is just as effective. This situation makes some A.S.A. writers look ridiculous in the Christian world because they leave the impression that they fully accept the secular world's teachings about evolution.

The first point, then, is that theistic evolutionists should clearly define their terms. I have never read a definition of theistic evolution in your Journal, which allows the reader to define it any way he chooses. You are leaving yourselves open to criticism from all sides. If you read the writings of creationism you will find that they are very specific about what they believe, I must say this to their credit. The word "evolution" is the most heavily loaded word of our century and you can't afford to play loose with it.

The second point, the matter of ethics, is that Kemp fails to meet standards of honesty. He seems to accept evolutionary science without reservations, and without limitations (maybe it's his careless form of expression?), leaving the impression so often left by museum guides that all of the theory of evolution is true and has been proved. Very few atheistic evolutionary scientists go this far. I have found that in recent years many atheistic scientists have become more honest and ethical in their statements, due partly to critical examination of their previous writings by creationists. The theory of evolution is engulfed with problems on all sides, as expressed in books by atheistic scientists like: S.J. Gould, J. Gribbon, F. Hitching, J. Rifkin, G.R. Taylor, J. Goodman, Sir Fred Hoyle, F. Crick, etc. The Scientijic American devoted the whole October, 1985 edition to eleven articles on the "Molecules of Life." It was a fantastic edition. After reading about the incomprehensibly complex nature of the living cell, I don't see how any scientist can still accept the theory of evolution as taught today. Science itself has shown the theory to be impossible. Many scientists are drifting away from "random chance" and moving towards "purpose" in evolution, although that inevitably leads to the "supernatural," which they tried to expunge at all costs during the previous century.

In closing I must say that I can easily imagine that God used a method of evolution in His work of creation, but if I put this into writing I would be very careful as to what I said and how I said it. I don't think the word "evolution" would need to enter into it at all.