Evolution under fire? -- Part 4

Laurence Tisdall, posing with a model Chasmosaurus at the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa.

By David F. Dawes

Previous interviews: Kirk Durston | Denyse O'Leary | Ed Neeland

LAURENCE TISDALL, M.Sc., is president of L'Association de Science Creationiste du Quebec (ASCQ). He is also a voting member of the Missouri-based Creation Research Society.

CC.com: Does the general public realize the extent to which evolutionary theory is under attack by people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials?

Laurence Tisdall: Not in my opinion. However, in every survey done, almost 50 percent of the Canadian population don't believe in the theory of evolution as taught in our schools.

CC.com: What is being done to increase this awareness?

LT: Nothing is being done in Quebec, in the educational institutions. My association, the ASCQ, has done more than 600 invited conferences; and I personally have debated 12 times in universities and colleges in Quebec. My debates almost always concern the origin of life; and I naturally use Intelligent Design (ID) arguments such as irreducible complexity and the origin of information of the genetic code. I also use basic science, though -- such as the idea that spontaneous generation is impossible; that life must come from pre-existing life; and probability calculations.

CC.com: As you know, evolutionists tend to use 'evolution' as a blanket term, without making the crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Because micro-evolution is scientifically provable, they can say that evolutionary theory is legitimate science -- and by using the general term 'evolution,' they imply that macro-evolution is also legitimate science. Do you think there is sufficient awareness of the fact that there is no concrete evidence for macro-evolution? Are evolutionists simply afraid to admit this to the public -- and perhaps to themselves?

LT: This is somewhat of a leading question. But my answer is yes, I think that most evolutionists have not thought it through. Frogs do not become princes, no matter how much time is made available to the frog. After more than a century of trying to prove that small changes become large changes -- there are still no examples.

In fact, with the advancement of our knowledge of the inner workings of the cell and the genetic code, it is now even less likely that small changes can become big changes -- either through special areas, or 'hot spots'; or [through] pre-programmed ability to change within limits. In fact, even the small changes are controlled. Not to mention the fact that the genetic code also will repair itself -- thus doing everything in its power to not allow any significant evolution.

Note these quotations from the late Stephen J. Gould:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontonlogy. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference -- however reasonable -- not the evidence of fossils." ('Evolution's Erratic Pace,' Natural History #86, 1977)

"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." (Natural History, Vol. 94 #10 pp12-13, 1985)

One could never fly with only two percent of a wing. In other words, how could natural selection develop these small changes? It's a dilemma.

So it is obvious that this issue has been known for some time; but the educational establishment, or priesthood of higher learning, has decided that the public should not know about it -- maybe to further their own personal liberal agnostic belief system, and their desire to explain everything from a naturalistic viewpoint.

CC.com: The PBS special on evolution a few years ago was a clear demonstration that the theory is still deeply ingrained in scientific thought. Why does the scientific establishment (in a general sense) seem to be so determined to cling to evolutionary theory? How did this theory become so deeply entrenched as 'scientific' orthodoxy?

LT: To answer this I will quote 2 Timothy 4:3-4. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Romans 1:18-21 states: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

The issue here is what Dr. Henry Morris calls "The long war against God." The PBS special was a marketing attempt by PBS to counter all the creationist/ID attacks against the general theory of evolution. It was a poor attempt; but many who are not aware of the frauds and poor science involved might be duped.

Evolutionary theory became entrenched for several reasons.

As a scientist, I understand the desire to make everything fit into a neat naturalistic box. However, we should be more interested in finding out what is the truth about the world that surrounds us, and not trying to make everything fit into a naturalistic paradigm. By forcing everything to be 'natural,' we put a limit on true science and do not demonstrate an open mind. However, when one considers 'the minimal gene concept,' which limits the first set of genes to at least 100, then the only logical conclusion is that to go from zero to 100 -- in one shot -- it takes intelligence.

People are uncomfortable with the God concept, in part because of the teaching they may have received concerning who God might be and what his desires are. Like Darwin, they get hung up with bad theology concerning suffering, and blame God for things he is not responsible for. Also, there are those who do not like the idea of being under any type of authority -- especially one that would determine what is right or wrong. They would prefer to do things as they desire, making themselves God. Which basically brings us back to [Satan's question in] the garden of Eden: "Did God really say?"

CC.com: Are a significant number of scientists now open to alternatives to evolutionary theory?

LT: Depends what you define as significant. I meet many; but they do not divulge their beliefs concerning evolutionary theory, for fear of losing their jobs. I can provide you with a list of more than 450 individuals who have been refused their Ph.D. because they were creationists.

CC.com: Are a lot of schools and school boards showing increasing willingness to give a platform to origins theories other than evolution?

LT: No. The general response by teachers is that they will teach what is in the manual, and are not interested in changing any of the information to reflect new or better science.

CC.com: To what extent has the Intelligent Design movement given added credibility to creationist views? Is the ID movement making serious inroads into the scientific, educational and philosophical establishments? Specifically, do you know if much is happening in Canada, in this regard?

LT: In Quebec, little. However, in western Canada, I get the feeling that more is happening. Basically, the French educational establishment is not aware of most of what is going on, and usually I am the first creationist they have ever heard of or met. They are often astounded that a scientist would not be an evolutionist; but when I finish explaining to them why I am not an evolutionist, they do not have anything to say. Sometimes they go into a sort of intellectual 'shock,' as they realize that much of what has been called 'foundational science' is nothing more than a humanist religion.

I have the feeling that it is the students that are pushing this agenda, especially the evangelical students.

CC.com: Some critics have raised objections to the ID concept of origins. Also, it's my understanding that some creationists have mixed feelings about this movement. What is your view of ID?

LT: I am aware of this situation. The argument, from my understanding, is that ID doesn't go far enough since it doesn't identify the creator. I personally have no problem with that. ID, instead of evolution or creation, is what should be presented in science classes -- because it represents the limit of what observable science can tell us. The question of 'which creator' is a question of faith, not science. My approach in my debates is also not to mention which creator. However, people are open to ask me what I think about the Creator; and I am then free to tell them my beliefs, and what I consider to be the logical and rational underpinnings to my Judeo-Christian faith.

CC.com: You may recall that Canadian Alliance politician Stockwell Day was publicly ridiculed sometime ago for his belief in Creation. What do you think this says about Canadian society, mass media and the general public's view of origins?

LT: I think that the media is clearly controlled by the liberal graduates from our liberal colleges. An article about a recent pro-family march on parliament did not show the thousands that were present in favour of maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman; it showed two of the five homosexual protestors on the front page. This has also happened every year in Montreal, when they have had more than 10,000 people march in the streets in the March for Jesus; in most cases, this parade is never even mentioned on the media -- be that French or English. I do not think this represents the general public's view; but I do think that this may be due, in part, to the years of evolutionary, anti-God teaching that goes on in our universities.

CC.com: Is belief in evolutionary theory crumbling, in a general sense? Can you speculate whether it will finally be publicly discredited -- and if so, whether you think that may happen in the near future?

LT: Interesting question. I think that evolutionary theory has been around for thousands of years, in one form or another. In Homily VIII:2, St. Basil writes: "Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish."

I doubt that it will 'crumble.' As it is now, the emperor has no clothes. It is simply by blind faith that evolution is maintained as a plausible explanation for origins. People do not appreciate it when blind faith is removed.

In John 11:43-53, it says: "And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death."

Blind faith was removed because only the Son of God could raise a man from the dead. This was not appreciated, as can be seen in the text.

CC.com: Can you share an anecdote involving an encounter you've had with someone who believes in the theory of evolution, and their response to creationist concepts and materials?

LT: Many. I virtually always have positive encounters. Every once in a while, I will meet an irate person. For instance, after I gave a conference on the 'Evolution of Man' at the University of Laval, a professor got up, very mad, and pointed a finger in my face, and declared "You are a dangerous man" -- and then left the room. He never told me why; but I guess the problem is that the truth will set you free, and this is the most likely cause. I am having more and more difficulty getting evolutionists to debate me -- because I basically never lose, on the subject of the origin of life.

Life obviously did not evolve; and the ridiculous scenario of non-living matter evolving to living bacteria to fish to amphibian to reptile to bird to mammal -- and then the mammals don't like it on land anymore, and return to the sea to become marine mammals -- is beyond credibility in the eyes of most regular, rational folk. But I guess, as long as our schools encourage regurgitation of information instead of critical thinking, this sad situation of believing fables will remain.

I will leave you with these verses from 2 Peter 3:3-7: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

The "scoffers" in the last days -- our days, I believe -- will deny that God created by the word of his mouth; they will deny the world-wide flood; they will deny the second coming; and they will deny final judgement. But denial is not an excuse, according to Peter.