Re: Evolution 100 Years After the Scopes “Monkey Trial”

Retired journalist Boyce Rensberger’s Science Matters column in the August 12, 2025 Emmitsburg Dispatch caught my attention primarily because of his stature as an accomplished New York Times journalist. The art of journalism requires the production of a believable narrative based on the facts and the author's interpretation of those facts. But are we looking at all the facts?

As a 51 year veteran educator, I was much interested in Boyce’s article describing his NYT 50th anniversary article on the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” The article’s general framework was that in 1975, “…even after 50 years and all the advances in science, the [creation/evolution] debate had still not died away. In fact, there were signs that it was heating up.” … “If there is any good news for evidence-based thinkers, it is that the percentage of those who think a deity played any role has declined slightly since …1984. “[From] some 82 percent … to 71 percent …[a]s of 2024.”

Perhaps evolution’s greatest adversary is its own refusal to apply evidence-based thinking to the very observable phenomena that nothing has ever come from nothing. From modern houses to electric vehicles and from massive main-frame computers to our tiny smartphones, every existing invention of man has an intelligent inventor, an intelligent designer that came before it. That’s a scientifically testable proof. Human invention is evidence-based thinking; its called forensic analysis and it's incontrovertible.

Human advances in science provide forensic evidence that demonstrates that complexity requires thoughtful design of purpose and function developed by the laws of science.  During the Scopes’ 50th anniversary year, I began teaching science at a private school with an unusual mandate to teach origins for 9 weeks and to present evolution and creation as theories in the scientific sense, submitting all evidence to the scientific method. Unlike journalism, evidence-based science is not free to ignore facts no matter how inconvenient their truth is.

My teaching assignment was rather daunting because I only had a background in evolutionary theory. While our classroom textbook was entirely evolutionary; we soon discovered that there was no application of the scientific method analyzing its evidence. 

Observing and repeating tests of one’s hypothesis leads to reasonable, testable theories that can help uncover the laws of the universe. The simplest application of the rules of forensic science casts doubt on the evolutionary narrative when alternative cause/effect theories are presented alongside the evolutionary theory.

While Charles Darwin was observing the variations of Finches on the Galápagos Islands, Gregory Mendel, a cloistered monk in France, was conducting scientific experiments on the variations of peas leading to the discovery of dominant and recessive genes contributed by X and Y chromosomes; thus issuing in the birth of modern day genetics. Interestingly, there’s no controversy swirling around Mendelian genetics because it rests firmly on evidence-based, testable theories.

Having only been exposed to the evolutionary theory under the assumption that it was true, I was rather shocked that our class textbook’s “reasoning” process was reciting their general consensus that, “Evolution is a fact!” and accepted by all intellectually honest people. Furthermore, the only people who didn’t believe in evolution were “ignorant bigots and/or religious fanatics.”

We doubted that name-calling was evidence-based thinking, but rather the age old debate mechanism that when you can’t reply in fact, attack your opponent’s credibility!

My students and I were quite surprised at that non-scientific approach in our science book, but it served as an intellectual pathway into our own robust use of the scientific method subjecting the facts and their interpretations to simple evidence-based evaluation. Having no Creation background, I had to scramble to find books on that theory in order to have an informed dialogue with my students. I came upon a few texts that are now classics on the topic, and I was delighted by my students’ enthusiasm for subjecting the facts to genuine scientific analysis.

The most important observation the class made was that both views are unable to be solely supported by use of the scientific method; both required forensic analysis to draw their conclusions. While the evolutionary textbook did not brave any such analysis of the evidence, relying on declarative assumptions rather than facts; the creationist books spent most of their pages forensically analyzing the evidence, comparing theories and assessing which theory was a more reasonable conclusion.

The key to proper forensic analysis is that catastrophic events in nature are a genuine part of past processes. This was contrary to the evolutionary narrative that the present processes are the key to the forensic analysis of the fossil record (uniformitarianism).

Part of forensic analysis is reviewing historical documents that discuss and analyze the facts. “What have other thinkers said?” We were amazed to discover that uniformitarianism was a dogma prophesied by the Apostle Peter as a future form of forensic analysis. Peter warned that, in the last days, uniformitarianism would be used by scoffers to deny the coming eternal judgment of God by denying the evidences for creation and for the worldwide flood. (See 2Peter 3:4-13)

The most remarkable element of Peter’s warning was that the use of the uniformitarian interpretation (all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation) would be based on “deliberately overlooking” the factual and historical records otherwise readily available. In other words, since they won’t like the effects of creation-based forensic analysis, scoffers will introduce an analysis that deliberately ignores the facts and limits the discussion exclusively to observable present processes. Prophetic!

While the biblical account is legitimate historical (forensic) evidence, the Bible itself declares that the first revelation is not Scripture, but the creation itself. Psalm 19 says that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork.” Romans 1:19-21 clarifies that what may be known of God is shown by God and “is clearly seen from creation of the world, being understood by the things that were made, –even his eternal power and Godhead; so that [man is] without excuse.” Furthermore, to overlook that fact is a deliberate refusal to glorify God. The refusal to give God glory and thanks is what persuades so-called “evidence-based thinkers” to willingly ignore the evidence, which results in “futile thoughts” and “senseless hearts.”

Romans 10:17-18 declares that, “Faith comes by hearing… the Word of God.” It asks “Have they not heard?” And answers “Yes truly, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” This quote of Psalm 19:1-4 demonstrates the simple intention of the Creator speaking clearly through the created world, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the heavens shows his handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”

At the end of a debate with a well-known creationist, the famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked what he would say to God if after all his postulating to the contrary, he died and found himself face-to-face with God? He replied that he would ask God why He kept the truth so well hidden that it could not be seen. But actually, opposite is the real problem. The evidence for the Creator is sitting on the lowest knowledge-shelf possible, even from the beginning of time. So perhaps the real question ought to be, Why do so-called “thinking” people deliberately overlook the evidence?

I taught that Evolution/Creation course over ten years and was always delighted to see the students thriving on the idea that pure science is limited to observable, replicable phenomena, and that true science is required to present hypotheses with the understanding that others will analyze, scrutinize and interpret data by replication of testing those hypotheses. Using the student’s own observations and reasonings to analyze the various hypotheses, they were delighted with the opportunity to draw the simple “evidence-based” conclusion that nothing ever came from nothing.

The age-old accusation that, “including God in origins is not scientific,” actually drew the theory of evolution into great relief because it became obvious that evolution is also is a faith-based theory. For my students, they were able to discern that all views of origins are faith-based, no matter what you believe. Either the invisible God was the eternal first cause Who created all things (See Hebrews 11:1-2.), or Everything came from nothing by random accidental mechanisms directed only by time and chance (2Peter 3:4-13).

The reality is that forensic analysis of observable phenomena leans heavily in the direction of the creation coming from a creator. Knowledge is growing at dizzying pace, but 100% of all new knowledge is constructed from existing “evidence-based” thinking. 

The history of man’s technological developments has exploded with contemporary products designed by thoughtful, intelligent designers. There isn’t one existing modern creation that came from nothing. That is a replicable experiment, a fact that in itself is a most potent form of forensic evidence. The vast complexities of life simply could not have come from nothing.

When a class of mine was invited to participate in placing experiments on the Space Shuttle, back in the early 2000's, our NASA lead told the class that the designs found in our natural world are so advanced that the NASA Engineering Department had discontinued trying to invent new designs from scratch. Rather, they discovered that reverse-engineering existing designs of nature was saving years in developing new space technology. That’s a pretty evidence-based forensic analysis! The weight of empirical scientific evidence for “evidence-based thinking,” is that nothing has ever come from nothing. Every existing effect has come from an originating cause. That’s the scientific method using forensic evidence to analyze cause and effect in the visible world. 

One of my students’ most enjoyable exercises was to apply the laws of probability to the random time and chance mechanism postulated by evolution v. a creator as a first cause. One most instructive illustration was the Infinite Monkey Theorem. “If you have a monkey typing on a typewriter, hitting keys independently and at random for an infinite amount of time it will almost surely type any given text, including the complete works of William Shakespeare.” (Wikipedia) However, if you limit the time to mere billions of years, the laws of probability forbid any such outcome. 

Now, apply that to the multiplied millions of genetic codes and their corresponding complexities: there isn’t enough time to account for the random evolutionary changes needed –assuming that there was something to evolve from in the first place. Furthermore, it illustrates that a prior cause is required. You must have a monkey, a keyboard and paper to record the strokes! 

While life’s incredible complexities have led to robust hypothesis of design requiring a designer, the famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins remarked in an article in Time magazine proposing intelligent design, that if you introduce an all powerful and all knowing God into the picture of origins then you certainly don’t need billions of years of evolution. He said that “God could have easily created it in 6 days!” Of course, that would be miraculous, –which it is! 

And, it is far more difficult to believe that the universe appeared out of nothing and organized itself by chance so that life could accidentally occur, and with no guidance, randomly improve itself into the incredibly complex bio-universe that we know today. That’s the miraculous way beyond reason. 

When confronted by this simple analysis, Bill Nye, “the science guy,” replied that it is truly amazing and hard to believe, “–but here we are!” In the end it’s about interpretation of the evidence and interpretations are guided by one’s beliefs which often deliberately overlook the obvious because they don’t support one’s narrative. 

Science can only prove what it can replicate. The rest is theoretical, wisdom based on reason, faith, and preferred forensic analysis. 

The question is, who’s wisdom do you prefer?

“…God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.” (1Corinthians 1:21 NLT)