Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
It's back-to-school time. That means school supplies, clothes, packing lunches and the annual battle over what can be taught.
The Cobb County, Ga., School Board voted unanimously Aug. 22 to consider a pluralistic approach to the origin of the human race, rather than the mandated theory of evolution. The board will review a proposal which says the district "believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species."
Immediately, pro-evolution forces jumped from their trees and started behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. Godzilla forbid! (This is the closest one may get to mentioning "God" in such a discussion, lest the ACLU intervene, which it has threatened to do in Cobb County, should the school board commit academic freedom. God may be mentioned if His Name modifies "damn." The First Amendment's free speech clause protects such an utterance, we are told by the ACLU. The same First Amendment, according to their twisted logic, allegedly prohibits speaking well of God.)
What do evolutionists fear? If scientific evidence for creation is academically unsound and outrageously untrue, why not present the evidence and allow students to decide which view makes more sense? At the very least, presenting both sides would allow them to better understand the two views. Pro-evolution forces say (and they are saying it again in Cobb County) that no "reputable scientist" believes in the creation model. That is demonstrably untrue. No less a pro-evolution source than Science Digest noted in 1979 that, "scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities . . . Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin.")
In the last 30 years, there's been a wave of books by scientists who do not hold to a Christian-apologetic view on the origins of humanity but who have examined the underpinnings of evolutionary theory and found them to be increasingly suspect. Those who claim no "reputable scientist" holds to a creation model of the universe must want to strip credentials from such giants as Johann Kepler (1571-1630), the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote, "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
Werner Von Braun (1912-1977), the father of space science, wrote: " . . . the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Who would argue that these and many other scientists were ignorant about science because they believed in God? Contemporary evolutionists who do so are practicing intellectual slander. Anything involving God, or His works, they believe, is to be censored because humankind must only study ideas it comes up with apart from any other influence. Such thinking led to the Holocaust, communism and a host of other evils conjured up by the deceitful and wicked mind of uncontrolled Man.
There are only two models for the origin of humans: evolution and creation. If creation occurred, it did so just once and there will be no "second acts." If evolution occurs, it does so too slowly to be observed. Both theories are accepted on faith by those who believe in them. Neither theory can be tested scientifically because neither model can be observed or repeated.
Why are believers in one model -- evolution -- seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It's because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.
The parallel views should be taught in Cobb County, Ga., and everywhere else, and let the most persuasive evidence win.
You deserve high praise if you succede in getting him to comply. We've been begging him, without success, for about a year to LINK his set of links and canned essays instead of SPAMMING them every time he shows up.
Thank you.
We certainly live in dangerous times - for freedom anyway. The tools for enslavement of the populace seem to be growing and there do not seem to be any possible countermeasures at hand. I am sure that eventually they will be found, but it may take a long time for that to happen, longer perhaps than our lifetimes.
I guess you only read the first paragraph instead of the whole post. The author of the vitamin c nonsense admitted that he had no proof that the mutaion is identical in man and chimp. I have provided links so that you can verify the veracity of my quotes:
The above is the equivalent of an evolutionist "urban legend". It's just plain is not true at all. Neither chimps nor humans can produce vitamin c. However, the devil is in the details:
It is interesting to note that most animals produce their own vitamin C. Man, primates (apes, chimps, etc.) and guinea pigs have lost this ability.
From: How Stuff Works
Hmm, your sources did not mention the guinea pigs did they? Guess man and chimp descended from guinea pigs? Are guinea pigs the missing link? Seems evo 'scientists' are very selective. They only 'remember' what serves their purposes. But wait, it gets better:
Actually, the LGGLO pseudogene (an inactivated Vitamin C synthesis gene) has been found in one human so far and no apes, according to Edward Max, but in his essay he predicts that it should be found in apes, too.
From: Shared Errors in DNA
So, it seems someone claims that this is not true, and cites an evolutionist as saying that this claim is an assumption not fact. So while to me, this might be credible enough, to you an assertion by a Christian alone would not be. So, we must dig a little deeper:
if primates closely related to humans have the SAME crippling mutations in their LGGLO pseudogenes as we see in the human pseudogenes, this finding would support the evolutionary model. As I pointed out, the data on this question are not yet available for the LGGLO pseudogenes, but in other shared pseudogenes identical crippling mutations clearly favor evolution
From: Response to Plaisted
So it seems that the evolutionists have been found lying again (and by this I do not mean you or anyone else here - this garbage is all over the internet). Max in his original article, while not outright saying that men and chimps shared the exact same mutation in the exact same pseudogene went into a long and very contrived discussion which to most laymen would indicate that such was a proven fact. In other words, he clearly was trying to deceive and clearly deceived many. (the original article is here ). So much for vitamin c. Another evolutionist snow job disproven.
BTW this whole nonsense started - as usual - in that fountain of evolutionist disinformation - TalkOrigins
Absolutely wrong. The only valid determination of species is the ability to interbreed and produce young which can produce viable offspring. Anything else is subjective. The reason why interbreeding is so important is that it takes in encompasses everything which makes and organism. Anything else just takes part of it into consideraton. In addition, anything else is therefore subjective. More important though, if organisms cannot interbreed as per above, then they are clerly separate from each other, and that is what the concept of species is all about.
Evolutionism was the philosophical cornerstone of naziism and communism, and the most major factor involved in allowing Clintonistas and people like them to think they could conduct themselves in their accustomed manner, with no consequences. In other words, as I see it, the battle is worth fighting.
Hence there were two articles which I was posting on multiple threads, a list of links and the little Eastwood-quote article, together 30K or so bytes, both 100% signal items. The people doing the crybaby acts over this and accusing me of "spamming", by contrast, are the same ones running these crevo threads to 3000 posts with banter and blather and stupid images, most of which are over 30K bytes and, as far as I could tell, always consisted of the same little group of six or eight hard-core evolutionists.
I assume they are primarily motivated by a desire to prevent newcomers from seeing some of the information which the two items in question provided.
Not necessarily, there is a phenomena called an evolutionary plateau. In order for some characteristics to change in populations it would put a lineage at a selective disadvantage before the transitional process was complete. Having the optic nerve behind the retina would offer an organism possessing such an eye a selective advantage with increased visual acuity over those that had their nerves in front of the retina. However, moving the nerve from in front of the retina to the rear is a radical evolutionary process. It could not be accomplished with a single mutation, but would require many mutations over many generations. Most likely it would require completely new proteins involved in embryonic development to place the nerve in the rear. The transitionary phases would put an organism at such a disadvantage (blindness) that any individuals possessing the transitionary mutations would be strongly selected against and the mutations would not become fixed in the population. Transitionary individuals are actually less fit then the “nerve in front” individuals. Therefore the transition dies as soon as it is started. Evolution often goes with whats “good enough” rather than the best possible solution for a particular selective pressure.
However if one were designed by a perfect god "good enough" wouldn't cut it. I would expect a god to design an eye as effeciently as possible.
Prove it...
This is an old talk.origins archive post. Basically, I had challenged the talk.origins crew (bandarlog) to see if they could tell the difference between ideological writing samples from the famous racist and evolutionist, Chuck Darwin, and the famous racist and evolutionist, Adolf Hitler. A champion (Pflanze) from amongst the bandarlog arose to take up the challenge:
Subject: Re: Darwin/Hitler Test
From: medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Date: 1997/05/11
Message-ID: <3375fdd4.143923491@newsreader.digex.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,talk.origins
On 11 May 1997 12:06:52 GMT, cwpf@news.utk.edu (Charles W Pflanze) wrote:
Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.
>This is more likely Darwin's work. Anyone doing experimental or
>developmental work in biology knows and uses all the the above
>observations. What's the big deal?
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world...
>This is more likely Hitler's work. Now we read about civilized races
>exterminating "savage races."
My reply:
Congratulations, you have earned an incredible distinction for yourself; you can tell your grandchildren that you were the first to flunk the official alt.fan.splifford Hitler/Darwin test. In years to come, after evolutionism has been laughed to scorn and is no longer taught in civilized nations, your name will be famous. Textbooks will note that, once it became obvious that even a genius such as Charles Pflanze could not tell the difference between Darwin's writings and those of Adolf Hitler, it was pretty much all over but the shouting.
In forming a judgement of evolutionism, you must at some point consider the circumstances under which it arose and the most probable set of reasons for its rise to dominance.
You've heard of the Medelin Cartel, El Pino, Pablo Escobar, the Pagans, and all of the other drug dealers of our times. The truth is, all together they probably don't add up to a hill of beans compared to the operations of the British empire in the 19'th century. At least one major eastern city was set up for no other reason than to serve as a conduit for Indian opium into China and an entire war was fought to protect the opium trade.
Now, you don't need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend that for a supposedly Christian nation to be engaging in this sort of business must have created at least two problems on an organizational level. One was the question of motivating men to fight and die for such causes: "For God, Bonnie Queen Vickie, and the Opium Trade, CHARGE!!!!!!" probably wouldn't get it...
The other problem which springs to mind immediately would be that which the CEO or chairman of the board of the East India Company must have faced in conducting board meatings. Picture it:
"Gentlemen, I have some good news, and I have some bad news. The good news is that profits are up 73.2% on a volume of trade which has increased 27% over the same three-month period last year, and that all of our operations appear to be running smoothly. Indigenous peoples of India, Burma, China, and several other areas with a propensity to cause problems are now happily stoned out of their minds on our products, and are causing no further trouble.""The bad news is that we're all probably going to spend the next 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years roasting on a barbecue pit for this ####..."
Now picture Chuck Darwin walking into this scene and telling all of these people that they're sitting around worrying over nothing, and that the only moral law in nature is "The Survival of the Fittest". Can you not see all of those peoples' eyes lighting up, their hair standing straight up, and somebody screaming "By Jove, I think he's got it?"
I mean, it doesn't even matter what led Darwin to devise the theory of evolution. In any normal time or set of circumstances, he'd have either been laughed to scorn, hanged, or burned. He succeeded precisely because he solved several major problems for the Godfathers of 100 years ago. In other words, there's more than a little truth to my claim that someone has to be stoned to buy off on this BS.
In fact, this post appears to be the random babbling of a madman and is clearly "tin-foil" material as Jim Robinson has defined it and it does not enhance the reputation of Free Republic to find this kind of nonsense posted here.
Please remove this post from the thread.
And thank you, balrog
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.