Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
If you read nothing more than the recent news reports concerning the new Tennessee law that provides protection for teachers wishing to teach the scientific weaknesses of evolution, global warming and other issues, then you might answer “yes” to the question in this post’s title. I was rather amazed at the language used to describe the beliefs of scientists on these issues. Here are just a few quotes from articles with the relevant phrases in bold for emphasis:
We are specifically writing to address the nature of the Bill itself, which we feel was not adequately discussed during either the House or Senate hearings and misrepresents the undivided consensus among anthropologists, biochemists, biologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, genome scientists, geographers, and molecular biologists.
However, it is abundantly clear from both a careful reading and from the testimony at hearings that the intent of this Bill is to encourage teachers to call into question universally accepted scientific principles.
Scientific evidence supporting the occurrence of biological evolution, global climate change, and the chemical origin of life are not controversial among scientists. Scientists universally accept these principles based on their predictability and the overwhelming evidence supporting them.
“What it does is bring the political controversy into the classroom, where there is no scientific controversy,” said Larisa DeSantis, who teaches in the Department of Earth and Environment at Vanderbilt University.
“As a science teacher I would say there is no controversy over evolution or climate change in the scientific literature,” said DeSantis.
The problem is that there is no important “scientific weakness” in the theory of evolution that could scientifically undermine its essential truth. Scientists agree that it is the animating principle of modern biology. Scientists also agree on the reality of climate change.I’m a scientist, I work with other scientists at AiG, and all over the world there are scientists who do not accept the ideas of evolution and global warming. Many of those scientists are Christians, but some are not. As Dr. Andrew Snelling (PhD, geology) noted,
There is a lot of controversy, not over climate change itself, as everyone agrees climate changes, but over the cause of such changes, specifically whether man has contributed significantly to such changes. I am personally aware of several secular professional scientific societies whose memberships are very divided on this issue, and the continuing debate is heated. Therefore to assert there is no controversy over climate change is utterly deceitful. Students should be told the truth about this debate among professional scientists.These news reporters and others are saying that anyone who does not accept evolution or climate change is not scientific! Despite the fact that scientific evidence is consistent with the Bible and the scientific principles presented within its pages and is inconsistent with evolutionary ideas based on man’s fallible ideas about the past. I gave one example of this in an article on our website about the new Tennessee law:
Evolution cannot be the “animating principle of modern biology” since molecules-to-man evolution falls under the category of historical science and not observational science. There is no doubt that living organisms change; this is something we can observe. But the type of change involves the loss of genetic information and not the gain of new genetic information required for one kind of organism to evolve into a different kind of organism.(You can also check out the Get Answers section of the website for more examples.)
A few days ago in our staff chapel service, we focused on a passage from 1 John 2 that I thought was very fitting in relationship to this issue.
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:15–17)Scientists who deny God’s existence are loving the things of the world, the praise of man, more than the praise of God. They are focusing on the temporal instead of the eternal. If we do the will of God, which in part is to stand on the authority and truthfulness of His Word, then we have this promise:
Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life. (1 John 2:24–25)God promises eternal life to those who abide in Him. May these scientists come to saving faith in Christ, devote their lives to bringing glory to Him, and receive eternal life!
Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!
 Kari Huus, “Activists cry foul as Tenn. science education bill hits governor’s desk,” April 5, 2012, http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11040270-activists-cry-foul-as-tenn-science-education-bill-hits-governors-desk.
 Valerie Strauss, “Tennessee back to the future with new anti-evolution law,” April 11, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-back-to-the-future-with-new-anti-evolution-law/2012/04/11/gIQAJb7g9S_blog.html.
 Elizabeth Mitchell, “The Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act,” April 12, 2012, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/04/12/teacher-protection-academic-freedom-act.