Skip to content

Does the U.S. Have Equality of Beliefs?

The question often raised is: Should Evolution and Creation get equal airtime in the schools? And in many people’s mind, the choice seems to be “No! Because one science and the other fairy tales?” they defend their answer with. That is a fair question and one the Lost World Museum would like to weigh in on.

We feel strongly that each person should have the right to make up their own mind on the question of origins without ridicule. 

Recently I watched a creationist and evolutionist in a debate and one thing seems to be happening so consistently that no one even realizes it. It happens with every issue argued about between creationists and evolutionists….Interpretation of the evidence.  Here’s one example:

The evolutionist said that we have back problems because we used to walk on all fours. And although I can’t remember the creationist’s response, this is enough to show what is happening.

Now imagine a 3 column work sheet. First you have the fact column, on the left side as a column you have a creationist interpretation, and of the right and evolutionist interpretation.

The fact is that many people have back problems. Now an evolutionist should have the right to postulate that people have back problems because we used to walk on all fours, but it should be acknowledged that they have left the fact column.  And a creationist should have just the same right to say that many people have back problems because we are overweight, lazy and have a lifestyle that is not conducive to healthy backs OR they could answer it with: as a result of thousands of years of an earth suffering the results of sin. And the creationist should be able to say this without ridicule.  

In this example BOTH evolutionists and Creationist have left the middle fact column in order to spin (Interpret) the fact column their way. Neither should be on stronger footing.  There are no facts or evidence that could ever prove either philosophy 100%. There is only interpretation of those evidences,  and both sides should be welcome to their opinion.

John Adolfi


  1. TwoD on January 2, 2008 at 12:01 am

    I find it really strange how someone can connect a common health problem like back injuries with “thousands of years of an earth suffering the results of sin” and not “we used to walk on all fours”.

    The other arguments (overweight, lazy, lifestyle) are given by the evolutionists as well, but that’s conveniently not stated in the article…

    The sin-cause is something we read from a book, written by people a long time ago, which does resemble a fairytale remarkably well.

    The walked-on-all-fours-cause can be deduced by studying skeletal remains and comparing that to our current anatomy and that of other animals. Anyone can see the similarities, combine that with obese, laziness, and overall bad lifestyles compared to how we used to live, it makes for a pretty solid argument which has yet to be seriously competed.

    I do read a lot of books, but I don’t believe in everything in them just because they say this or that, so I tend to stick with what I myself can find a reasonable conclusion when presented with the facts.

  2. latsot on January 2, 2008 at 9:08 am

    See my comment on the “Science and Admissible Evidence for a Hypothesis” post.

    There is a misunderstanding here on what ‘interpretation’ means. Anyone can take a bunch of facts and put together an ‘explanation’ for them, but this is by no means the same as constructing a theory, which makes predictions, which can be tested against observations.

    Why? Well, evolutionists say “if our theory is true, then we should be able to find evidence of x” then go out and look for x. If they find x, then it is evidence that the theory is correct. If they don’t find x, of course, it doesn’t mean that the theory is untrue, but it means no new evidence has been uncovered. However, evolutionists *also* say “if y is found, then our theory cannot possibly be true”. There are all kinds of ys, ranging from the most famous “fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian” to genuinely irreducible complexity in living organisms. If either of these things were found, then it would cause severe problems for the theory of evolution and we would have to dramatically change it or abandon it altogether.

    In my experience, creation/ID proponents don’t do either of these things and that is why they are not merely different interpretations of the same facts. Facts must be considered within the context of scientific theories so that it can be determined objectively whether or not those facts constitute evidence of those theories. ID isn’t a scientific theory. Perhaps someone can make it into a respectable scientific theory, but the overall impression I get is that nobody is really trying: ID seems to be more about trying to make creationism *look* like a scientific theory than about trying to make it actually be one.

    I may well be wrong about that and I’m always delighted to be put right, but it is certainly the case that ID is not *yet* a scientific theory.

    Which brings me to my final point. Why only three columns? If evolution is falsified (rabbits in the pre-cambrian or whatever) then it doesn’t automatically mean that creation – or ID – is true. Who’s to say that the very thing that falsifies evolution doesn’t also falsify ID? The point is that if you play the ‘interpretations’ game, rather than developing proper theories and looking for proper evidence, then you can never say that your interpretation is the right one.

    The best you can say is that according to your personal standards, all interpretations are equally likely.

    The theory/evidence approach avoids this trap entirely. It leaves no room for interpretation because the facts speak for themselves and the truth is determined objectively.

    If you believe that ID is the correct explanation, then the way forward would be to develop it into a proper scientific theory, with the same standards as the theory of evolution, then look for the evidence in support of that theory. Then we wouldn’t need judgement or interpretation because the answer would be obvious.

    Or am I being naive?

    • John Adolfi on December 9, 2017 at 5:28 am

      Two words “poly-strata fossils” Look us examples and see for yourself. Things in the field, according to bone digger and young earth creationist Joe Taylor of the Mount Blanco fossil museum in Texas are not what they are reported as. Contact him, he will give you a very eye-opening report on what you really find in out the bush geologically.



Scroll To Top