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.
Hehehe
Ahhhh! But that is where my faith comes into play. I read the Bible and it tells me he loves me and you regardless of whether or not my views are erroneous. 8 * )
You seem to be getting a bit defensive so I will leave you be. Enjoyed the discussion, tho.
Okay, you can have the last one.
I simply see no reason to assume that one or more deities exist. And just because it would be nice if a god of some sort existed is no valid reason for me to believe that this deity really exists.
Ohhhh! I see, you just have to have faith. And if you have faith it's automatically true. Nice trick ;-D
You seem to be getting a bit defensive so I will leave you be. Enjoyed the discussion, tho.
Huh, defensive?
"Obviously enough, the dispute here is ultimately ontological, or theological, or metaphysical; here we see the ontological and ultimately religious roots of epistemological discussions of rationality. What you take to be rational, at least in the sense in question, depends upon your metaphysical and religious stance. It depends upon your philosophical anthropology. Your view as to what sort of creature a human being is will determine, in whole or in part, your views as to what is rational or irrational for human beings to believe; this view will determine what you take to be natural, or normal, or healthy, with respect to belief. So the dispute as to who is rational and who is irrational here can't be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is fundamentally not an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. How can we tell what it is healthy for human beings to believe unless we know or have some idea about what sort of creature a human being is? If you think he is created by God in the image of God, and created with a natural tendency to see God's hand in the world about us, a natural tendency to recognize that he has been created and is beholden to his creator, owing his worship and allegiance, then of course you will not think of belief in God as a manifestation of wishful thinking or as any kind of defect at all. It is then much more like sense perception or memory, though in some ways much more important. On the other hand, if you think of a human being as the product of blind evolutionary forces, if you think there is no God and that human beings are part of a godless universe, then you will be inclined to accept a view according to which belief in God is a sort of disease or dysfunction, due perhaps, to a sort of softening of the brain."
"So the dispute as to who is... healthy---and who diseased..."
A detailed reply, which I truly appreciate. You ae several cuts above the rest of the crowd.
You still miss the point I'm trying to make (my lack of communication skills?)that science is limited to observations about the natural world, the world of the physical senses. Scientific investigation is measuring, directly or by extension with instruments, that which we can sense with our senses. Sometimes interpreting that which instruments can sense into that which our biological senses can understand, but still limited in concept to that which originates in the experiences of our physical senses.
Still, we cannot develop any instruments that can sense, directly or indirectly, that which is beyond the conceptual lmitations of physical senses. Theories of science are often an attempt to explain things we cannot sense (the causes of physical behavior) acting on things we can sense (physical behavior). None has ever fully explained the behavior of the sensory world (consider Quantum mechanics vs Newellan mecahnics vs Newtonian mechanics. each applicable on its own observational level and not on another)
This is where religion is valid, in explaining that which cannot be understood by the facts of natural science. The origins of man are not observable, nor are the 'rubber bands' that hold opposing charges together in the nucleus of an atom (actually an atom is a concept used to explain observations, and changes in definition over time). IMHO electron clouds are a vain attempt to apply lorenz-fitzgerald contractions to sub atomic particles to explain why they aren't really there (at a definite and measureable point i sensory space-time).
Science is an attempt to define "what is reality" but cannot define "what is the meaning of reality" (philosophy) or "what is the origin and purpose of reality" (religion).
Maybe I misinterpreted.
But you're right. Christianity does come down to faith if you don't accept any of the other evidence, ie. the mideast situation, the historical accuracy of the Bible, the fact that the Bible was written by different men over thousands of years, the Bible itself, I mean Revelation predicts the whole world seeing two men lying in the street in Jerusalem. How could anyone in Christ's time have had any idea that would ever be possible? Daniel's words, "knowledge shall be increased...many shall run to and fro" and so on and so forth.
Atheism requires an active belief system. Since no absolute evidence refutes God’s existence, one is required to reject (and reject and reject). A belief without absolute facts requires faith. Does your faith and belief make it true?
You can hardly call Intelligent Design modern, it is as old as Aristotle and it was the view which Darwin was trying to refute.
Let's look at a couple of quotes and you tell me:
He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
From: Origin of the Species, Chapter 6
Compare the above with the quote below on the same subject:
What is needed to make a light sensitive spot? What happens when a photon of light impinges on the retina?
When a photon first hits the retina, it interacts with a small organic molecule called II-cis-retinal. The shape of retinal is rather bent, but when retinal interacts with the photon, it straightens out, isomerizing into trans-retinal. This is the signal that sets in motion a whole cascade of events resulting in vision. When retinal changes shape, it forces a change in the shape of the protein rhodopsin, which is bound to it. Now part of the transducin complex dissociates and interacts with a protein called phosphodiesterase, When that happens, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability chemically to cut a small organic molecule called cyclic-GMP, turning it into 5'-GMP. There is a lot of cyclic-GMP in the cell, and some of it sticks to another protein called an ion channel. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions into the cell. When the concentration of cyclic-GMP decreases because of the action of the phosphodiesterase, however, the cyclic-GMP bound to the ion channel eventually falls off, causing a change in shape that shuts the channel. As a result, sodium ions can no longer enter the cell, the concentration of sodium in the cell decreases, and the voltage accross the cell membrane changes. That in turn causes a wave of electrical polarization to be sent down the optic nerve to the brain. And when interpreted by the brain, that is vision. So this is what modern science has discovered about how Darwin's 'simple' light sensitive spot functions.
From: Michael Behe, 'Design at the Foundation of Life".
Now which one of the two is science and which one is nonsense?????
Nonsense. Intelligent design has been fully shown to be correct by the last 150 years of scientific discoveries. It is evolution which has been discredited at every turn. The very complexity which Darwin admitted would falsify his theory has been shown to be the case in discovery after discovery.
But I think you're missing the fact that the whole Darwinian enterprise assumes a priori that all things have a natural explanation, in other words, that the supernatural does not exist.
I understand fully that science has to be about seeking natural explanations for phenomena, but what bothers me is the lack of willingness to admit that at some point, it could be that natural explanations may possibly be insufficient. What's wrong with saying "we don't know how cells could have formed from inanimate matter"? What's wrong with saying, "We're not sure how humans appeared on the earth"? Instead, your typical high school bio text is written with a "we know almost everything" attitude.
Ah, I can pretty much agree with your post. However, you're kinda agreeing with me, then, that creationism isn't really something that should be taught in science class. We on the evolution side always seem to agree that we'd be perfectly happy seeing creationism taught - just in a comparative religion or philosophy class.
Aaaah please! We have plenty of evidence for gravity, no one falls up. We have plenty of evidence for relativity, the atom bomb. We have plenty of experiments proving infections diseases. However, we do not hava any such proof for the theory of evolution. In fact, we have no proof at all.
I have a question: Out of all the problems that science has tried to solve in the last few hundred years, which scientific problems exactly has any form of supernaturalism solved? Science uses methodological naturalism because otherwise the scientist can just throw up his hands at any time & say "goddidit" & go home. So, when in the history of science has "goddidit" ever advanced science or answered any scientific question?
Mea culpa, mea culpa. I had meant to specify the multicellular organisms, and am shamefast that I did not. Lateral gene transfer is important in microorganisms.
Oh Steve. In the first minute of my 55-minute class, I will demonstrate experimentally the validity of "gravity." Then you can have 54 minutes to demonstrate that macroevolution occurs. Take as much time as you need. Need more time? An extra week, a month, several millenia? You get the point?
You can argue that you could demonstrate it, given enough time, but the fact is, you haven't, and neither has anyone else.
That's why you can't put "evolution" on the same level with "gravity."
You have it backwards. Darwin brought religion into the discussion when he denied that God created man. Darwin was an atheist however, he dishonestly kept this from the public.
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.