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.
Work breaks? Whoever heard of such a thing? :)
Tsk tsk tsk... Don't you remember all those discussions regarding the difference between "evidence" and "proof"?
Word games as usual Jenny. Call it evidence, call it proof, evolution does not have the kind of evidence that other scientific theories can and do give. Let's see you refute that with facts instead of rhetoric.
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!).
What exactly do you mean by this? What exactly did your father think was bunk? And how exactly did mainstream scientists' explanation of the petrified forests change?
That is an illogical assertion. The existence of God is orthogonal to the validity of evolution as a mechanism for speciation. The existence of God doesn't require that He is the cause of speciation nor does the non-existence of God prove that evolution is valid. As I've mentioned in the past, there are other lesser known theories for speciation that don't assert evolution but which are still stronger theories in any scientific sense than creationism in its various guises. The God versus evolution dichotomy is a false one, a strawman that is apparently stimulating to some people but nonetheless worthless as an argument.
Your assertion is false. There are atheist creationists (usually weird liberal nutters though -- I've known some of these), and there are also atheists who subscribe to other scientific theories of speciation besides evolution. I'd say you missed a spot with that brush you are painting with. Try again.
Much the same can be said about viruses. They have been doing experiments on them for decades also. The government funds research on viruses to cure diseases. Private companies do it to make new drugs. Universities fund it to learn new things. Billions are spent every year on just Aids research alone. They have thrown everything at viruses up to and including the kitchen sink: chemicals, radiotion, other viruses, anything they can think of. Yet no one has seen a virus change into a higher species such as a bacteria or into anything else.
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)
I'm sorry, I thought it was you who had said:
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?
This doesn't seem to be saying anything about the God of the Gaps per se. You seem to be saying here that someone who has a negative claim ("I don't believe God/unicorns exist") is the one who "requires an active belief system". This is clearly untrue. The person who makes the positive claim ("I believe God/unicorns exist") is the one who has to have some positive evidence to hang on to; otherwise they need to continually generate some kind of faith to sustain their belief.
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.
OOOOOH! So you think the majority does determine truth!
Nonsense. If they believe in God they are not atheists. Your assertion proves nothing except your willingness to say anything, no matter how ridiculous to advance your agenda.
Actually, you've once again demonstrated a clear lack of reading comprehension. I stated that there are "atheist creationists". It clearly demonstrates how wedged your thinking is that you think Creationism has anything to do with God; you lack of objectivity is showing. A creationist is someone who believes speciation on Earth was caused intentional manipulation by entities external to that system (at least in this context). It looks like your religion has muddled your critical thinking faculties.
This statement neatly demonstrates how erroneous literal interpretation of the Bible leads to what amounts to junk "science" such as the so-called "creationism". In fact "creationism" has nothing to do with science and everything to do with shoving religion down someone's throat.
That is exactly my point. Again: Evolution needs no creator, not evolution denies a creator.
Me too. This also struck me as an odd statement. My kid's Unit on "Evolution" starts with lengthy discussion of abiogenesis. Ditto for other textbooks. Gosh, I wonder why?
Most of them are in the nut house. Split personality.
You are evading my point. If God exists, why would He lie about creating man? Why could he not have created the different species? The main argument of evolution is that there is no other way that species could have come about. If evolution admits that God exists that argument is null and void. So yes, evolution requires that there be no God. That evolutionists do not admit it is because they know quite well that there is no way that abiogenesis could be true, so they are willing to have half a loaf rather than losing the whole argument.
Of course. Nobody but mathematicians talk about evolution in isolation. It is usually talked about as a part of a discussion on the origins of life as we know it or some such, which covers all sorts of ground.
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.