Dear Mr. Moderator,

I am an Erskine student writing to you as a Christian and a Chemistry major who is concerned for Erskine College’s Christian commitment. I would like to voice my opinion on a specific problem that I have noticed pertaining to science at Erskine.

Erskine College is an institution that promises Christian commitment and excellence in learning to its students. When initially coming to Erskine, it seemed that this was true: I had a Bible professor who prayed before every test and an Erskine seminar professor who gave our class really good insight on how to view knowledge through a biblical lens. As the semesters progressed, I found that some of the professors strayed from Christian commitment, in turn also straying from excellence in learning.

I am a Chemistry major, and so in diving into the realms of science, the absence of an appreciation or even a tolerance of the theory of Intelligent Design is bothersome. I personally find it hard to line up the theory of macro-evolution (one in which death takes place before the existence of humans) with the biblical account of creation (where humans begot sin, which begot death). I have been able to discuss these theories and their compatibility with a selection of my peers, but in the few conversations that I have had with my professors about this topic, intelligent design is shut down the minute that it is brought up. Therefore, I have been discouraged from bringing this topic up within the department.

I wrote a paper on my Philosophy of Education for an education class that I took earlier this year. My main point in the paper was that students should come out of public and private schools with the ability to think critically. Here is a piece of my paper:

As for public schools, even though they cannot present the Truth of the Gospel, they could have religion classes that presented different religions and how they work. As for the rest of the classes, they could do a better job of not presenting everything from an atheistic point of view. For instance, they could present the intelligent design theory in science classes instead of just evolution.

In response to this paper, my professor sent me an email. In this email he stated that “I am also disappointed to see that you are buying in to simplistic division between science and religion.” Macro-evolution is not science. Evolution is a scientific theory that is based of off purely naturally evidence and no supernatural evidence. I cannot help but see a great divide between (macro, naturalistic) Evolution and Christianity, because of the theory’s lack to take into account a supernatural being, God, as part of the development of the Earth. In looking at God’s creation from a biblical standpoint, Hebrews 11:1-3 ties in the supernatural with the natural. If science professors continue to hold Evolution as the underlying truth for science, I will continue to look at what academia calls “science” and Biblical Truths as incompatible.

Science should be thought of as a way to explore God’s creation. Intelligent Design is a theory that states that there is too much intricacy in this universe for a higher power not to have put this universe together, which unites science and religion more than Evolution has ever done. In response to Intelligent Design specifically, my professor stated:

I have no problem talking about intelligent design, but it is a *philosophy*–it is *not* science, and I have a feeling that most of its proponents would recoil in horror if the courts took them seriously and encouraged science teachers to present all possible theories: 1) a coherent philosophical argument that the best explanation for life on earth was that we were engineered as part of a massive biomechanical computer designed to solve the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, by a race of pandimensional hyperintelligent beings that periodically manifest of earth in the form of lab rats. 2) the flying spaghetti monster did it, 3) the aliens from Chariots of the Gods. 3) we hatched from a egg laid by a snake that emerged from primordial chaos. 4) result of cosmic warfare, etc etc etc.

I want to point out that the first “theory” that my professor brought up is not a scientific theory, but actually the description of Earth according to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a comical, fiction novel. When I bring up this scientific theory for discussion at Erskine, evolutionists—students and teachers alike – at Erskine respond that Intelligent Design is a philosophy and not a science. How does this situation match up with Erskine’s professed mission of Christian commitment and excellence in learning?

Thank you for your time,

Andrew Larkins,
Class of 2010