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.
I don't know. But if you have any monkeys left over I'd like to buy one for my kids.
And how many steps were there in between dust and Man?
Go back and read Genesis. Count the words used to describe what absolutly had to be an incredibly complex thing.
How God created everything.
There simply must be more to the story than those few hundred words. Like the book of Revelation, Genesis cannot be read litterally. The humans who recorded the words of the Bible were not there at creation, and they have not yet seen Revelation.
And as I've pointed out, obviously humans do not agree on the meaning of Gods will. So how could they have perfectly written either Genesis or Revelation?
Hehehhehhe, that is a job, indeed, isn't it?
As far as the ridiculousness of a "big coincidence" is concerned, it would depend on how many "trials" there were. If the cosmos was repeatedly attempting to jump-start a new universe with trillions and quadrillions of failures, eventually it will get lucky, assuming the probablility of the chain of events resulting in what we see around us is not zero.
BTW, I'm a creationist.
A few thousand years ago, more or less. Nobody is jumping up and down demanding that any of the variants of a Saturn thesis be taught as a fact in public schools at public expense, and a person could believe that the Earth was orbitting Saturn NOW and still make sense compared to evolutionists. Evolution stands everything we know about mathematics and probability theory on their heads.
Hey, I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.
That crap won't fly.
Did. Not persuasive.
If your DNA is found on a murder victim, we can presume with a high degree of assurance that you had contact with the victim.
If your DNA is similar to both simians and earthworms, but not similar to chickens, what can we conclude?
Like I said, by grace....
My point is that humans cannot ever perfectly interpret the will of God, and so many disagree with your statement. Humans recorded Genesis. They were flawed humans. Genesis has only two chapters on creation. There's just a bit more to the story to be discovered, and science is working on its discovery.
I agree with you there, even though I do believe Revelation can be interpreted ("Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near." Rev 1:3). But I do believe we got the abreviated version of creation.
We can objectively show that O.J. Simpson did not murder Anne Nicole Smith.
He's so far advanced, He created Evolution.
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.