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.
Go find an sizeable and influential constituency and then we'll talk.
I see the light and the methods which go about producing it. ; * )
Scientific fact is not determined by popular vote.
Let's say, for the sake of debate, that evolution is total bunk and everyone accepts that statement.
How in the world does that make creationism (Adam & Eve, Noah's ark, woman coming from man's rib, talking snakes, etc) the leading scientific alternative or any viable alternative at all?
As many posters on this thread seem to assert, biblical creationism is entirely plausible and there is no need for proof because God works in mysterious ways beyond our understanding.
I believe his methods are so far advanced it wouldn't have taken him quite that long. 8 * )
I think this sums it up very well.
Absolutely right.
No, academic freedom is for academics, not for grade school students. I don't want my kids presented with alternatives to mathematics, chemistry, electromagnetism or evolution. If they want to question any of those things later, that's fine, but before they can question them, they first have to learn them.
Creationism simply does not qualify as an alternate theory to evolution. It is pure religion. It has no place in schools.
Hilarious!!!!
We are now dealing in fact, not theory. I am also willing to assert that O.J. did not kill Johnny Cochran. Any other candidates?
Evolution just does not fit in with the first three. Observation is the key. (Give me a dime, I made a rhyme.;* )
No need to provide a cite, since I never made that claim to begin with.
What I said was that I believe atheists start from a position of not wanting to believe in God, and use evolution as an argument in support of their position. You can see this in action, in FR threads and elsewhere (e.g., from Dawkins).
That is true. Sad, but true.
Go back again and re-read the two creation stories. They can, with difficulty, be reconciled. But if you work just as had at reconciliation between Genesis and the scientific evidence, they too can be reconciled.
In particular, I think it's Genesis chap 1 that has the sequence of creation in basically the same as science. It's only those pesky "days" that get in the way, and those can easily be seen as symbolic.
I was taught that the Genesis stories were oral historys (read them like a novel, they obviouly were) recorded on paper in Moses' time. You know how oral histories are corrupted in the retelling.
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.