<p>
</p>
<p>Whether or not professors are expected to adhere to a particular set of beliefs, they are sure as heck expected not to teach Creationism. So, of course, most professors are die hard Evolutionists. I’d challenge you to find more than a small handful of professors who have the intellectual honesty to mention some of the shortcomings of the Theory of Evolution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, on the subject of intellectual dishonesty, I’ll be the first to admit that many Creationists abuse the word “theory.” “Evolution is only a theory, not a fact,” they crow. Of course, in the scientific sense, a theory is a unification of observed “facts,” so this argument is completely invalid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course living things evolve and change over time; it’s called microevolution and has been observed in everything from Darwin’s finches to peppered moths. No reasoning person disputes the occurrence of microevolution. In fact, it’s how Creationists explain the feasibility of Noah’s Ark: there were only a relatively small number of animal “kinds” on the boat, but these kinds eventually evolved into the species we know today.</p>
<p>However, macroevolution is a different story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proven through observation? Sure, but by this test macroevolution falls flat on its face. We don’t observe macroevolution. Now, this is nicely explained by the Theory of Evolution: of course, since it took us billions of years to get here, we shouldn’t expect to have observed macroevolution in the time since Darwin - a mere blink of an eye in the eons of our gradual formation. All well and good, but it’s no more “science” than Creationism.</p>
<p>Back to intellectual dishonesty - Evolutionists are quick to bundle microevolution and macroevolution into the all-encompassing term “evolution.” Now, this is very convenient. Imagine an ill-informed Creationist who says, “You know, we haven’t actually seen evolution (thinking that ‘evolution’ is synonymous with ‘macroevolution’).” A suave Evolutionist will promptly point out countless scientifically observed examples of microevolution, leaving the bumbling Creationist confused and at a loss for words. Granted, it’s a clever ploy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not going to get into this issue of “real scientists with real degrees.” I mean, no scientific journal would consider publishing creationist research, even for reasons of reputation alone. And if I show you research that’s not published in a scientific journal, you’ll say, “But it’s not published in a scientific journal!” This Catch-22 has plagued Creationists in academia for years.</p>