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.
That is what evolutionists say now after that claim has been thoroughly discredited. Read Darwin's 'Descent of Man', he spends many chapters at the beginning of the book saying just that.
One of the first principles of science is that "Where there is a design, there must be a designer."
Think about it. Just becaus you can't conceive of Creation doesn't limit God's ability to Create. Not to mention, your insistence in relying upon ignorance and irrational rebelliousness offend Him.
OK, let's see how logical that is:
A-unicornism requires an active belief system. Since no absolute evidence refutes unicorns' 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?
Nope. We're not required to try to prove a negative. OTOH, you have the positive belief, so you do require either positive proof (or at least good positive evidence), or else you're left with having to actively sustain your faith.
As He mentioned to you in passing earlier today? :-)
Tsk tsk tsk... Don't you remember all those discussions regarding the difference between "evidence" and "proof"?
”Pull the other one” (Monty Python)
You may be Von Braun or Lysenko. But one thing I have learned is that the person on the other end of the e-mail connection presenting himself as God’s Gift to Women (or young, slinky and voluptuous) had better present some bonda fides … or source his references. Too many pimply teen agers inhabit the internet using their parents passwords. Sorry Charlie.
”Science can rarely, if ever, determine whether a theory is correct, even in principle.’
Which makes the ultra-fierce support of evolution a puzzling phenomenon, unless the reasons are more emotional than intellectual.
”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.)”
The creation model in Genesis is not testable since it is not reproducible without the cooperation of the Creator.
”In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long enough.”
Right. See you in roughly several million years? Meanwhile, keep those corpses frozen for evidence as we evolve into the Ubermensch and see from whence we evolved.
As a matter of curiosity, what does the evolution of man theorize we will be in another million years? For a theory to have validity it has to have predictive powers. The theory of evolution certainly cannot imagine evolution purring along for this long and then coming to a dead stop, having decided that man in 2002 is the culmination of sentient development in the universe.
DNA. Check it out.
You need to check it out. DNA has proven that man did not descend from monkeys. It also has proven that we did not descend from the closest species to ours - the Neanderthals.
Deal!
(Oops -- you've assumed that you get to pick and choose from the examples I gave. Wrong.)
Because under the scrutiny of the truth there false religion is shown for the joke that it is.
I think you can see from my post just above to Steve, that I am not opposed to methodological naturalism. I don't know of anybody who pronounces "goddidit" and goes home. I'm sure there IS someone like that, it's just that I've never come across them.
That makes it hard to answer your last Q about "when has godidit ever advanced science?", but I have a little story for you that might help:
When I was a 12-year-old, back in 1960, My Dad took me on a trip to Yellowstone Park, where we came upon a formation named "Specimen Ridge." The explanatory plaque there informed us that at Specimen Ridge there are 27 different petrified forests resting one atop the other. My father, a plumber, a fundamentalist with an 8th grade education, studied this for a while. Then he said, "Do they have any idea what the odds of that are? This is bunk."
His attitude toward evolution (what you would probably call "godidit") enabled him to not only doubt, but to seek rational argument in mathematics. My father, with his 8th grade fundamentalism was thinking critically, while the worlds's "experts," with their U/Chicago and Harvard PhD's, were uncritically amazed at the explanatory power of "modern science." It turns out my Dad was right. The scientific establishment was wrong, though they did come around to his view (not that they ever heard of him!).
Jenny, I know you didn’t miss my point – you are ignoring my point.
Yes, I am aware of the “God of the gaps” theory, but the “godless filling the those gaps” requires more faith. (I believe)
(Super) Naturalism permeates the classrooms and Darwin should not be a anti-god leader in the schools.
You are in the 6% group here in the USA that does not believe in (a) God. Now sure you can go around asking the majority here why we are sooo stupid as to believe in God, but moving to China might be a better option.
It seems the burden of proof is on you…
If life did not come from inert matter, then God created it as it says in the Bible. If evolutionists have to admit that God exists then they can in no way deny that God, not evolution created man.
Abiogenisis is not part of evolution because Darwin knew he would be laughed at for even proposing it. He also knew that he would immediately be marked as an atheist if he did. You will have a really tough time finding a Christian that believes abiogenesis is possible and an equally hard time to find an atheist that does not believe in abiogenesis.
What's he gonna demonstrate in 55 minutes which nobody was able to demonstrate in the decades of the fruit fly experiments? Fruit flies breed new generations every few days and they ran those experiments for decades, producing the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of years of human lifespans. They subjected the flies to everything known to cause mutations and then tried to recombine the mutations, and all they ever got was fruit flies, sterile individuals, and individuals which returned, boomarang-like, to the norm for a fruit fly. They never got anything but fruit flies.
The way you normally read that statement from evolutionists is:
Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, it is a completely seperate matter, you jackass.
The basic translation into plain English: "If I get good enough with the ad-hominems, I might only have to defend one brain-dead and untenable ideological doctrine instead of two."
I don't think this is ignorantly equating electricity and atheism. I believe electricity is the nescessary basis for atheism.
Very cute, but of course evading the point completely. The question you need to answer is how can an atheist believe there is no God if God created life and all the species on earth. Evolution is totally necessary for atheism and that is why it was an atheist, Darwin, that made it up.
Since you said Johnny Cochran, I'll say Johnny Carson. I think we can state as fact that Juice didn't off Johnny Carson. :-)
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.