SCIENTIFIC HUMANISM - PART II
Since evolution must be accepted into the humanist system, this tape will discuss the question of whether or not evolution can be considered as a principle of science. Yet there is more. A new thrust of "scientific humanism" is found in the January/February issue of the Humanist for 1977. It recently published a statement affirming evolution as a principle of science, and it was signed by some 163 scholars, all from leading universities and colleges. Among the number are some prominent liberal theologians. It was prepared for distribution to major public school districts in the United States. The ed4itors in their foreword stated that they, "regret the steady assault on the teaching of evolution in the public schools" and they object "to the demand for equal time for the theory of creation. . ." The statement points out that all forms of life (including human beings) developed by a lengthy process of evolution, thus accepting what Kerbut (in his Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, 1960) has called the general theory of evolution, as opposed to the special theory which deals with certain small variations observed in nature and in the laboratory. The evolution they are affirming is the Amoebae-to-man or Molecules-to-man theory. Let's examine the matter and inquire if it really does meet the demands of science and if it meets, as they put it, exceptionally well the demands of science as being firmly established . . . on rigorous evidence.
For a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, at least three criteria can be noted: (1) it must be supported by events or processes that can be observed to occur; (.2) the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future findings , and (3) the theory must be capable of falsification, that is, one must be able to devise some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory. It is on the basis of these criteria (or similar ones) that writers of the Humanist statement affirm that creation is not scientific!
Creation has not been witnessed by human observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is unfalsifiable. So it may come as a shock to those scientific humanists that evolution, as defined, also fails to meet all three of these same criteria!
Evolution is of necessity an historical process which has not been witnessed by humans, and the unrepeatable and untestable events postulated for evolution are not amenable to evaluation on the basis of consistency and prediction. (Editorial "Origins" Vol. IV, Leoscience Research Institute, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1977, p. t). No matter what is observed, there is almost always an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. One scientist who has been critical of these claims of humanists said: "This . . . makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime stories, instead of empirical investigators." This quote is from the 1977 article Review of Evolution and the Diversity of Life, from the journal, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 26,
Pages 224-228, and repeated in the editorial "Origins" as previously cited. So much, then for the science in scientific humanism. It is false! Evolution is not a principle of science!
As for humanism as a philosophy and point of view, it is outright atheism, masquerading under the guise of science and religion. It fails to understand what human need is. Man's need for moral and spiritual guidance, yes, even for salvation, are just as human as our need for food, clothing, and shelter. Worship of God is for man's sake as much as for God's. Humanism, in its appeal to intellectual snobbery, errs most filthy in dethroning the God of Heaven and enthroning himself as Lord of creation! An increased awareness of the acceptance of this false philosophy into our society and what God's Word, the Bible, says about it will lead to a stronger commitment to God and eventually to a revitalized faith! Christians can have nothing to do with scientific humanism!