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.
It doesn't. I recommend Christianity as a religion myself, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that evolution is so abysmally stupid, that you could believe in any sort of a religion at all, and be better off. You could worship Odin and Thor, Cthulu, Dagon, the great pumpkin and pumpkinism, or absolutely anything and you'd still be better off than believing in an ideological doctrine which required an endless series of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events.
My own attempt to make some sense of the biblical miracles and other facets of antique literature reside here. There is, to my thinking, no making sense of evolution.
Evolutionists are the weed(maggot-flies)...
rotten infested fruit from the REPROBATES/parasites/blood-life suckers of Truth/civilization!
Pretty simple...Tree of Life/Truth vs death/lies(devils/heresy)!
-------------------------------------------------
The MO...MAGIC of the EVO taliban...
missing dove(TRUTH/SCIENCE)---
appearing rabbit(RATS)---lies/fraud!
Is God impatient? Has he not been in existence forever? What would he do in forever, except patiently wait on his creation to develop?
God's time is forever. Humans think in human time periods. I think He took millions of years, and His methods are best described by scientific Evolution.
I think evolutionary theory it's self points to a Creator. The fact that man now thinks that everything came from a few cells points to one Creator of everything. If everything appears related, it is because the same Mind created it all. I just don't buy the 'millions of years' at this point.
Incorrect. Laws are empirically observed relationships, whereas theories are conceptual models. The term "law" and "theory" refer only to how they are derived, and not to whether they are correct.
Examples: the atomic theory of matter is known to be correct, but because it is a conceptual description of matter, it is and always will be a theory. Ampere's Law for electrical circuits is known to be incorrect (as the presence of a capacitor will show), but it is and always will be a law, because it is a statement of observed behavior.
Sincerely sorry. Did not mean to offend. Should have stated some scientists.
From my point of view, everything is created, so it would be impossible to point out anything that isn't.
I love these threads when they are civil, and do not wish to be guilty of being uncivil. Again, I apologize. No offense intended.
No it's not. However, what gets taught in public, taxpayer-financed schools largely is. That was the original posters point.
Come to think of it, I'm not so sure popular vote, or at least popular opinion, doesn't determine scientific fact (i.e., theory - even what we think we know as fact usually isn't the entire picture). Think of Galileo who dared suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe. He was threatened by his old college roommate, who happened to be the Pope, with burning at the stake, or some such barbarism. He promptly revised his scientific fact/theory.
Just where do you think we are in the universe? A garden-variety star in a spiral arm of a garden-variety galaxy. And, before you bother, if the neighborhood didn't support life, life wouldn't be here.
Just curious if you have read Dempski's "Intelligent Design"? I think if you had you would not be making the statement you did. Dempski's arguements stand up to critical, logical, and scientific reasoning. They don't take a professing Christian to accept. Just someone who hasn't closed off all possibilites in their mind.
Semper Fi
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.