Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[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.

[BMCDA]

And we and our ape-like ancestors are still mammals. So what?

[f.Christian]

Evolution reminds me of the bubonic plague---mad cow disease---LSD infected barley bread from the 9th century warlock mad rage attack...

the poor victims!

[tortoise]

And without faith, my life would loose so much of its' meaning. It would, in fact, become meaningless.

So? This is the saddest story I've heard all day. Why do require someone telling you what to do all the time to have "meaning"? If you didn't have faith, you'd just stare at the wall all day and drool? It doesn't sound your life has meaning, it sounds like you are merely a puppet fulfilling someone else's "meaning". And for that matter what IS "meaning"? That word is observer dependent.

"Meaning" used in this way is just an excuse not to have a real answer.

[templar]

re: 249

This makes no sense to me. We are talking evolution of species from some mischance happening in some type of pre cambrian slime vs. creation of species by a God.

Creation says that all things were of devine origin and design. This would include electricity, thevarious phenomenon observed by physics, etc. (BTW, theories such as Netonian physics, electron clouds, and such are only usefull in explaining certain observable funcions of the universe, and do not apply beyond their limited scope. They are, basically, just mathematical tools that allow further structured research into observable phenomenon. These scientific theories are the result of creation. Period. Not even debatable.)

So, how do these theories have any bearing whatsoever on the evolution of species? Or creationism and the existence of God?

[f.Christian]

Did you know the purpose of FreeRepublic is to fight/stop liberalism not promote/prosyletize it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome!

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

[dubyagee]

And we and our ape-like ancestors are still mammals. So what?

Oh, come on. Evolutionary theory has ALL species evolving from a few cells. Wasn't too long ago that they had us evolving from a single cell. So now you're telling me there were 'mammal cells' and 'reptile cells' and 'insect cells'?

[f.Christian]

Science/reality is ANTI-possibilty/FANTASY(infinite/irrational)...

Science has to be OBJECTIVE predictable-probable-facts-LOGIC(finite/rational)---

Science must limit itself from the political-ego/subjective lower CARNAL animal world!

Science(physical/social) is law/design---CREATION!

Evolution is manmade myth/legend---FICTION/fantasy/denial!

[Physicist]

Couldn't those genetics consequences also be said to 'back' creation, in that the codes are written to support life. Wouldn't they need to be 'written' by an Intelligence? How is that more difficult to believe than 'accidental' order?

Evolution--at least as regards the higher organisms--requires the tree structure exhibited by genetic cladograms. Had it been otherwise, evolution would have been falsified. Any old structure would have been compatible with special creation, so no particular structure can be said to lend support to the idea.

[f.Christian]

Culture--bias--ideologies just like smuck-schlock science/evolution does evolve...this is voodoo/mold---MORPHOLOGY!

Truth--science--creation never changes!

First of all---ALWAYS is philosophy...our conception of the universe--reality--humanity and God/theology.

Science and social science are laws/principles of philosophy/reality concerning technical/physical/moral aspects of the dual physical-spiritual(soul) nature of the universe.

Evolution does not rise above an ideology/superstition---a subconscious-DEAD knee jerk ATTEMPT only...to form an intelligent explanation of anything real!

More like an urban legend---mass hysteria with a political/financial/social agenda!

Dogs--dogmas---rigor mortis is evolution...anti-PHILOSOPHY-reality/science/Truth---LIFE too!!

------------------------------------------

Good News For The Day

‘But I say to all of you: In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty One.’ (Matthew 26:64)

"If the universe is moral, (and the fact that such a person as Christ existed, is strong evidence that it is), then what Jesus said about himself and the future, must come true. If morality has an infinite source, and backing, then the moral excellence of Christ will ultimately... triumph---over evil."

"I know some very agreeable people. I know some that I would call gentle giants. But their easygoing spirit is never a threat to greed and corruption. Kindness, patience, understanding, and love are not better than envy and bitterness, if they only ever exist as counterweights to their opposites. A good man who is content to coexist forever with badness, and wrong, cannot be a good man in any absolute sense."

"The goodness of Jesus is surpassing because he not only sorrowed over sin, and was outraged by it, he set himself against it, and warned his enemies that by suffering for it, he would rise above it, and eliminate it."

"If our universe is a moral one, then Jesus' values can never be viewed in any offhand way. Rather, he must be seen as a hazard to every act, motive, system, institution, or law, that is not in sympathy with him. A question that governments and their constituents ought to ask is: Are we making laws; invoking policies that clash with Christ and the direction of his Spirit? If so we are building badly. The universe itself will not back us. The future belongs to Christ-and to all who follow him."

[BMCDA]

Of course you're right, that's the minimum requirement. However, in general evolution is what happens to imperfect self-replicators in a restrictive environment. So you have mutations because they don't make perfect copies of themselves and an environment that provides the selection.
If such an entity loses the ability to replicate, it can still acquire changes that are either beneficial, neutral or detrimental in that particular environment but a population that consists of such entities can only decrease in number (or stay the same at best). So one can say that the ability to replicate is a trait that is heavily selected for.

[BMCDA]

My point was only to show that when you say the mutated bacterium is still a bacterium is similar to saying that wolves and bears are still mammals (or better still vertebrates).

[Joshua]

"God also created fruit bearing plants before he created the Sun and the stars. That's a neat trick considering that the earth's temperature would have been at absolute zero. "

Let me give you the scriptures in order

" Gen 1:3-5 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-- the first day. (NIV)

" Gen 1:11-13 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-- the third day. (NIV)" "

Notice the light was created on the first day. The seeds ordered to "produce" (planted, bring forth) on the third day.

Now you can argue that the moon and the stars were created on the fourth day but the light of the day was created day one.

Believing everything some 1960's, tenured, burned out, only goal in life is to snort Peru's main cash crop up his nose, college prof, can make you look like an "Absolute zero"

[dubyagee]

Evolution--at least as regards the higher organisms--requires the tree structure exhibited by genetic cladograms. Had it been otherwise, evolution would have been falsified. Any old structure would have been compatible with special creation, so no particular structure can be said to lend support to the idea.

You're above my head here, but let me see if I am correct in what you're saying.

Are you saying that genetics shows that everything has progressed over time? That everything shows evidence of having gradually aged? Butcouldn't it have been created that way? According to the Bible, Adam was a man, not a baby, at creation.

Hope I'm not too far off base on what you're saying.

[balrog666]

I run into the same response when a vendor comes to management with a gee-whiz PowerPoint presentation about the latest buzzword in the IT industry. Management thinks that the vendor has somehow "proven" their technology; us worker-bees then have to go in and correct their impression, using language that can be understood by idiots and education majors.

Now that was a good one!

[f.Christian]

Petroleum - the archetypal fossil fuel - couldn't have formed from the remains of dead animals and plants, claim US and Russian researchers1. They argue that petroleum... originated---from minerals at extreme temperatures and pressures.

[BMCDA]

That's the problem, you can always say that a creator intended it to be that way, whatever the scenario may be.
BTW are you familiar with Last Thursdayism?

[tortoise]

Huh? Then how did those first cells ever survive long enough to 'mutate'?

Replication is one of the mechanisms by which biological (and some chemical systems) effect mutation/change. Evolution is only predicated on differentiation and a selection function. The mechanisms used to generate the required differentiation are system dependent and not particularly relevant to evolution per se.

[dubyagee]

That's the problem, you can always say that a creator intended it to be that way, whatever the scenario may be. BTW are you familiar with Last Thursdayism?

You're right about that, but is that a reason to rule out a Creator?

And no, I'm not familiar with Last Thursdayism, but I'm sure you'll fill me in, and I feel certain I'll be offended. ; * )

[balrog666]

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?

ding-ding-ding! Give that man a a cigar!

[balrog666]

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.

Another cigar for you.