Is that first sentence (“Many early scientists thought that
each species appeared on Earth independently of every
other species”) perhaps a tip of the hat to creationism? Even
if it is, it’s presented here as a theory we’ve outgrown. And
although the paragraph uses phrases such as “it appeared as
if they were related,” “suggests,” and “what appeared to be a
sequence,” the text does not indicate that such appearanc-
es can be deceiving. They are treated as unassailable facts.
Nor does the text differentiate between what is often called
microevolution (small changes within a biblical kind that do
not result in a different species) and macroevolution (small
changes over millions of years that result in a new species).
Christian textbooks are careful to make such distinctions.
Here’s one more example: “Scientists, governments, and
concerned citizens around the world are working to identify
environmental problems, educate the public about them, and
help find solutions.” 5 Here’s the unspoken assumption that
science, government, and education will solve mankind’s
problems. Sadly, religion of any kind does not figure into the
discussion. Once again, the problem isn’t in what’s said but
in what’s been left unsaid—things left undone.
HISTORY
advantage to the plant to have flowers that look like bees?
How did the appearance of the flower develop over time?” 3
Now, what the book has done is to jump from the evidence
(flowers that look like bees) to an interpretation of that
evidence. Not only does the second question, “How did the
appearance of the flower develop over time?” reveal a clear
bias for evolution, so does the first, implying that somehow
plants and animals evolve based on what is most advan-
tageous to them. No mention of even the possibility of a
Creator allowed here!
Another example from the same book: “Many early
scientists thought that each species appeared on Earth
independently of every other species. However, as more
fossils were discovered, patterns in the fossil record began
to emerge. Many fossil species in nearby rock layers had
similar body plans and similar structures. It appeared as if
they were related. For example, the series of horse fossils in
Figure 5 suggests that the modern horse is related to other
extinct species. These species changed over time in what
appeared to be a sequence. Change over time is evolution.
Biological evolution is the change over time in populations of
related organisms.” 4
Closely related to these assumptions in science are
assumptions found in history books, especially when
dealing with early man: “What were the earliest humans
like? Many people have asked this question. Because there
are no written records of prehistoric peoples, scientists
have to piece together information about the past. Teams
of scientists use a variety of research methods to learn more
about how, where, and when early humans developed. ...
Prehistory ... dates back to the time before the invention of
writing—roughly 5,000 years ago. Without access to writ-
ten records, scientists investigating the lives of prehistoric
peoples face special challenges.” 6
Here again, we have many things left unsaid. Yes, “many
people have asked this question,” including Jews, Christians,
and many other religious groups. But the answer comes not
from religious writings 7 but instead from “information”
that has been “[pieced] together” by “teams of scientists.”
According to this worldview, ultimate answers come not
from the Bible but from the scientific method.
Of course, no one expects a secular text used in public
schools to endorse Christian beliefs. (That being the case,
why do so many Christian schools use them?) But such texts
do not even mention the existence of such beliefs or the fact
that many highly intelligent people for thousands of years
have given credence to those beliefs.
A couple of pages later, the book mentions the 1974
discovery of an “unusually complete skeleton of an adult
female hominid.” “Lucy” is presented as an example of
evolutionary proof. According to the text, she lived “around
17