Reinhard Plaut’s letter of Oct. 12, in discussing whether evolution is based on observable processes, once again serves to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that concepts religious in nature can have no connection to science.
Imagine if this sort of intellectual snobbery were applied to other disciplines. Would we pretend that Abraham’s ancient city of Ur did not really exist simply because it is referenced in a “religious” book and as such must be kept away from the “true” disciplines of history and archaeology? Must we assume that the Bible’s contributions to our knowledge of Israel, Egypt, Assyria and the Persian empire are all “religious” and therefore not connected to “real” history?
Yet somehow, when the topic is evolution/creation, we are expected to believe evolution is a fact beyond question and any notion of special creation is purely religion and separate from science. We are asked to believe that thousands of scientists with Ph.D.s in geology, biology, physics and other fields who tell us that a vast body of evidence repudiates evolution and supports the concept of creation are really just biased and blind religionists who know nothing of logic, the rules of evidence or the scientific method.
Evolutionists are pulling the wool over the eyes of the public by defining science as purely naturalistic and excluding special creation based on their own narrow definition. In doing so, they ensure that all “scientific facts” must inevitably support evolution. You can’t lose when you get to make all the rules.
