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.
Not necessarily; as long as something is "good enough," there's no reproductive advantage to something better, and hence natural selection won't select for it.
Of course, the real roots of the argument have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with whether or not one wants there to be a God. Atheists obviously do not, and so they grab at evolution to "prove" their point.
Obviously? It's not obvious at all--it would be nice if there were a possibility of eternal bliss, wouldn't it? I think so, and I'm an atheist. There are a lot of things about life as it is right now that make a heaven appealing; there's just no reliable evidence that there is such a thing.
Evolution needs no creator. No creator means no god, no divinely ordained right or wrong, no Saviour from our sins since there is no creators' rules to violate (sin). Christianity (probably all religions) is a lie.
I don't think this is ignorantly equating evolution and atheism. I believe evolution is the nescessary basis for atheism.
That's rather like answering the claim that "no credible scientist believes in the phlogiston theory" by listing a bunch of pre-Priestly scientists. Note the use of present tense in the claim; it's not "no credible scientist has ever believed..."
Evolution is based on certain presuppositions. One of those presuppositions is that that there is a naturalistic explanation for life (read, non-supernaturalistic). You can ignore the issue of origins all you want, even though many people, like Richard Dawkins choose not to ignore it. And, I am well aware of the claims of evolution. But, at some point to establish the validity of your position you have to illucidate your presuppositions - the most important of which is where did life originate. Until that is done, the rest is unimportant. Life had to come from somewhere. Ignore the answer to that question at your own peril.
Good afternoon to all of you. I wish I had more time, but I must, at some point, justify the paycheck that my boss seems insistent on giving me.
Aye, she really contributed a lot to the crevo-threads. Too bad she is so busy now... but well, so am I :(
Now look what you have done. I said the previous post was the last. This one is. :-)
Seriously, "stream of unconsciousness" style lumps of words joined by hyphens and slashes, not being intelligible, aren't going to persuade anybody, and if your intent is not to persuade, why are you posting at all?
Evolution needs no creator. No creator means no god, no divinely ordained right or wrong, no Saviour from our sins since there is no creators' rules to violate (sin). Christianity (probably all religions) is a lie.
I don't think this is ignorantly equating evolution and atheism. I believe evolution is the nescessary basis for atheism.
Interesting argument. Let's see...
Or this:Electricity needs no creator. No creator means no god, no divinely ordained right or wrong, no Saviour from our sins since there is no creators' rules to violate (sin). Christianity (probably all religions) is a lie.
I don't think this is ignorantly equating electricity and atheism. I believe electricity is the nescessary basis for atheism.
Or...The Electron Cloud Theory of chemistry needs no creator. No creator means no god, no divinely ordained right or wrong, no Saviour from our sins since there is no creators' rules to violate (sin). Christianity (probably all religions) is a lie.
I don't think this is ignorantly equating the Electron Cloud Theory and atheism. I believe the Electron Cloud Theory is the nescessary basis for atheism.
Hehe, this is fun!Newtonian physics needs no creator. No creator means no god, no divinely ordained right or wrong, no Saviour from our sins since there is no creators' rules to violate (sin). Christianity (probably all religions) is a lie.
I don't think this is ignorantly equating Newtonian physics and atheism. I believe Newtonian physics is the nescessary basis for atheism.
How are those alternatives? I believe that God created everything, and that evolution is the way He created living things.
The short answer is: There is no Law of Conservation of Information except in the mind of prof. Dembski.
On the contrary, I believe in Gods' existence and am not uncomfortable with being unable to prove it. After all, if I could prove Gods' existence, I wouldn't need faith. And without faith, my life would loose so much of its' meaning. It would, in fact, become meaningless.
So, one can not observe bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics?
REDACTING/morphing them
and calling/CHANGING---
all the... residuals(technology/science) === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY...
evolution is DENIAL---lies/bias---THEFT...
I get high/rich on the TRUTH!
Evolution is like a child theft ring---forgery!
Not everyone is an evo junkie like you!
What you believe is fine with me. However, stating that certain things can happen because God can or did make them happen is not science.
LOL!! Law of Conservation of Information - where did he get that form? I guess his dog never ate his homework when he was in highschool ;)
I suppose I learned them as I was being trained. Since I am a professional scientist, I think I qualify as a source on this particular matter.
Are you aware of any other “Laws” that have been shown to be incorrect?
Oh, yes. Newton's second law is incorrect (fails at large velocities). Newton's law of universal gravitation is incorrect (superseded by the theory of general relativity). Kepler's laws are incorrect (also superseded by general relativity).
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?
Science can rarely, if ever, determine whether a theory is correct, even in principle. It can only weed out what's incorrect. Even the atomic theory of matter might be said to have been superseded by quantum mechanics, which describes the constituents of matter as waves, rather than as Democritus would have described them. (In practice, however, we simply changed our expectation of what an atom "ought" to be in light of quantum theory, notwithstanding the fact that most people still mistakenly think of them as little billiard balls in any case.)
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.
Well, I don't call creationism in general a theory for exactly that reason. Specific creation models, such as the one in Genesis, can have testable consequences and thus may qualify as theories. (As it turns out, the Genesis model fails those tests rather badly, so shunning is required in that case.)
But evolution, by contrast, does have testable consequences, and it passes those tests brilliantly on two fronts: genetics and paleontology.
Furthermore, the fact that the phenomenon of evolution it isn't easily reproducible doesn't mean it can't be modelled (i.e., described by a theory). We can't reproduce a supernova or the big bang, either, but we have extremely quantitative models of both that can be tested through observation. In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long 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.