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.
Yeah, it really hits the nail on the head ;-D
So Vade, consider it stolen, arrrr ;->
Your post #218 - "And, evolutionists do make all kinds of claims about the origin of life"
Which is it?
(As if it matters. Evolution - as explained to you about 100 times - is not concerned with the ultimate origins of life).
Such as?
No, it only means that pebbles didn't evolve since they are not self replicating, or are they?
Why, no. But...you weren't thinking of advancing the notion that fish formed by erosion, were you?
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.”
I am always willing to learn. However, where did you get your definitions of laws and theories? Please cite your sources. Are you aware of any other “Laws” that have been shown to be incorrect? (I am a chemist by education, not an electrical engineer so I will take your word for Ampere’s Law being incorrect.)
However, if we use your definitions, we then run into a quandary, don’t we? How do we differentiate between the real and the ephemeral? Do we count heads and have the theory with the largest number of adherents become established fact? How do we take two unprovable theories: one being mechanistic evolution, the other positing the existence of an intelligence at the initiation of life, and deciding which one should be embraced and the other shunned? We don’t have the means to repeat the process of theory number one, and can’t order the creator to prove theory number two.
No, Pasteur proved that enormous multicelled creatures - maggots, IIRC - do not spontaneously form from meat left in a jar within a few weeks.
Abiogenesis is the theory that organic chemicals came together & formed autocatalytic or cross-catalytic relationships that kept replicating themselves, thus keeping their existence above the general "chemical noise". If so, some of the principles of evolution would apply here, though it's really still just chemistry. Eventually (maybe even several million years later) some such catalytic molecular colonies excreted bubble-like bags around themselves, thus segregating into individual metabolic entities. ("AKA cells.") These cells continued to reproduce themselves, and only at that point does biological evolution per se enter the picture, because only then do the self-replicating entities begin to fit the traditional definition of "living organisms".
This has nothing to do with Pasteur, nor with any "Law of Biogenesis". The Biogenesis Police keep pulling abiogenesis over, but he keeps getting it thrown out of court.
I want those bananas back right now!
(And maybe some ice cream to go with them.)
Evolutionists make claims about the origin of life, but then refuse to discuss the issue when you press them for an explanation other than it just happened. I was just reviewing Richard Dawkins book, Climbing Mount Improbable, and he plays it both ways. His conclusion, after all is said and done, is that he thinks the first cell contained some non-replicating RNA. But he is not sure...and he cannot explain where the "non-replicating RNA" came from...so he makes claims, but he can't explain it. But, he does address the issue - and, if I remember correctly, he is considered a leader in the evolutionary movement.
Does that mean the pebbles have always existed?
Pebbles didn't exist until after Fred and Wilma were married.
Chicken is a vegetable at our house. Makes for some funny notes home from the teachers.
I am not attacking people. I have tried to be logical and polite. I am simply stating my views and using the education that was instilled in my in college and in my subsequent study. However, I do not subscribe to the theory that one can re-define the meaning of words to suit one’s particular ideological perspective. In other words, I am not a deconstructionist.
If you wish to apply the same terms to scientific facts that have been conclusively proven and scientific theories that are still … shall we say “evolving,” well have at it. But I believe words have consequences.
If an evolutionist sticks to the subject - i.e. evolution - than there is NO REASON to discuss the ultimate origin of life - it is outside evolution's jurisdiction.
If an evolutionist wishes to discuss the ultimate origin of life then they are no longer talking about just evolution.
An evolutionist could just as easily believe that God created and is responsible for evolution and there would be no conflict.
Simple enough?
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.