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 journalist. The art of journalism requires the production of a believable narrative based on the facts and the author's interpretation of those facts.

As a 51 year educator, it was with much interest that I read Boyce’s article describing his NYT 50th anniversary article on the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” The Rensberger 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 forensic analysis to the observable phenomena that nothing has ever come from nothing. From houses to vehicles and from massive main-frame computers to our smartphones, every existing invention of man has an intelligent inventor, an intentional cause that came before it. That’s a testable proof; human invention is incontrovertible evidence-based thinking. Human advances in science pile up providing the evidence that demonstrates that complexity requires thoughtful design of purpose and function in accordance with the laws of science that we can observe.

When a class of mine was invited to participate in placing experiments on the Space Shuttle, back 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 by reverse-engineering existing designs of nature, they were saving years of time in developing new space technology.

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 factual 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 the evidence used to support evolution.

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 cast doubt on the evolutionary narrative when alternative cause/effect theories are presented.

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, 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 been exposed only to the evolutionary theory under the assumption that it was true, I was rather shocked that the textbook’s reasoning process was primarily stating the general consensus that, “Evolution is a fact!” and accepted by all intellectually honest people. Furthermore, the only ones who didn’t believe in evolution were “ignorant bigots and/or religious fanatics.” My students and I were quite surprised at that non-scientific approach in a science book, but it served as an intellectual segway into our own robust discussion of the scientific method and subjecting the evidences of fact and their interpretive theories 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 classics on the topic and was surprised by the students’ enthusiasm for subjecting the facts to actual scientific analysis.

The most important observation the class and I made was that both views were unable to be solely supported exclusively by the use of the scientific method; both required forensic analysis. While no evolutionary textbook braved any kind of appropriate scrutiny in analyzing the evidence, relying on declarative assumptions as fact; the creationist books spent most of their volumes analyzing the forensic evidence, comparing theories and quantifying their conclusions and assessing which theory was a more reasonable conclusion.

The key to that forensic evidence is that catastrophic events in nature are a genuine part of past processes, and not giving way to the alternative narrative that the present processes can fully explain all past events recorded in the fossil record. We were taken aback to discover that uniformitarianism as a forensic analysis (the present processes are the key to the past) was warned of by the Apostle Peter as the intellectual reason for scoffers to deny the coming eternal judgment of God. (See 2Peter 3:4-13) The most remarkable element of his warning was that the use of an exclusively uniformitarian interpretation of the forensic record of earth’s history was “deliberately overlooking” the actual historical, (and biblical) record.

While the biblical account is a legitimate historical forensic evidence in itself, The Bible 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.” It’s the refusal to glorify God, and the failure to give Him thanks that persuades so-called “evidence-based thinkers” to deliberately overlook all of the evidence, resulting in “futile thoughts,” and “senseless hearts.” Romans 10:17-18 later opines that, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. … Have they not heard? Yes verily, 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 simplicity of the message written in the created world, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament 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.” In a conversation with a creationist, the famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked what he would say to God if he suddenly found himself face-to-face with Him when he dies. His reply was that he would ask God why He kept the truth so well hidden so it could not be seen. But that’s not the real problem. The evidence is sitting on the lowest shelf possible –from the beginning of time. So perhaps the question really is, “Why did people so deliberately overlook it?”

I taught that Evolution/Creation course over ten years and was always delighted to see that the students thrived on the idea that pure science was 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 processes. That being said, using the student’s own powers of observation and reasoning, analyzing the various hypotheses, they were delighted with the intellectual liberty to draw their own “evidence-based” conclusions.

The accusation that, “Including God in origins is not scientific.” actually drew the theory of evolution into the greatest relief because it 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 believed. 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 (2 Peter 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 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 out of nowhere. That is a replicable experiment, a fact in itself, being the most potent of forensic evidences.  The vast complexities of life and the universe simply could not arise on their own from nothing.

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 that analyzes the cause and effect of 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 illustration was most instructive: 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 billions of years, the laws of probability forbid that outcome. Apply that to the multiplied millions of genetic codes and their corresponding complexities and there simply isn’t enough time to account for the random evolutionary changes needed to occur –assuming that there was something to evolve from in the first place. (Furthermore, it illustrates that prior cause is essentially a fact. You must start with a monkey, a keyboard and a scribing document to record the strokes.)

While life’s incredible complexities have led to the hypothesis of design by 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 could have easily created it in 6 days. Of course, that would be miraculous, –which it is! But it is far more difficult to believe that out of nothing the universe appeared 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 beyond comprehension. 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 (forensic analysis), and interpretations are guided by one’s beliefs which often deliberately overlook the obvious. Science can only prove what it can replicate. The rest is theoretical, based on the use of reason, faith and the forensic analysis you trust most.