Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

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

[steve-b]

Perhaps he would like us to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy too. They are alternative views also.

That's why Cobb County has no leg to stand on. To single out the theory of evolution for a disclaimer that is not equally applied to the theory of gravity, the theory of infectious disease, the theory of relativity, etc. is facially sectarian.

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[elephantlips]

My point concerns the concept of God not whether I or anyone else believes in Him. If there is a specific God as described in the Bible, than He has the power to accomplish things way beyond us. The mere statement that because we, as humans don't comprehend Him He therefore doesn't exist, just doesn't hold water.

[narby]

If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along.

medved obviously doesn't understand the scientific community. Scientists thrive on controversy. That's how they get funding. If someone has some shred of evidence that say some new Blodget particle could be discovered if they only build some billion dollar gizmo. Then they'll build it.

Likewise, if there was any scientific evidence of a "creator", it would instatly be big news, and would then attract huge funding to discover facts about "Him". It would be like finding ET, who could resist it?

But there is no genuine scientific rebuttal yet found to evolution. If there were, it would be big news, and big science would study it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually, there are many methods to falsify evolution. Just because Mr Thomas is ignorant about biology, proves little. (Example, mammal skeletons found in oldest rocks.) What is Mr Thomas's evidence for creationism?

[Dimensio]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would suffice for you to conclude otherwise?

Honestly, I don't know. Best way to do it is to define a specific means for testing a deity -- an experiment that would produce a result that has no other known explanation apart from a deity's involvement.

Arguably, a deity with sufficient knowledge and power would know exactly what is required to convince me and would be able to do so.

[Dimensio]

I take it then that you don't have any coherent thoughts of you r own. Not surprising...

[jim35]

Hmm... the Earth orbiting Saturn. Did he mean yesterday, or 5 billion years ago? Or do you believe that the Earth has always been here, since the dawn of time, orbiting our ever-existing sun? Sounds like a creationist idea to me.

[js1138]

It certainly takes more knowledge.

[steve-b]

Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?

Nope, since it doesn't make a big enough difference to determine whether or not you see food/threats/mates/etc. Thus, natural selection is neutral toward it.

It is, however, a fatal objection to the theory that the eyes were desinged by a perfect intelligence, since such a designer would do the job so it was right, not "good enough for government work". (However, an intelligent design theory postulating a flawed designer -- perhaps the Earth was seeded by space aliens or something -- remains possible.)

[Dimensio]

You'll have to ask Ted, I'm not into catastrophism. I believe that it's at least on the order of millions of years ago, though, and certainly not "yesterday".

[Doctor Stochastic]

Re-hashed spam?

[A2J]

Who is Cal Thomas to say that an omnipotent God didn't create the universe, knowing in advance that it would eventually produce humans through the process that we call Evolution?

Maybe he bases his remarks upon what is written by the omnipotent God of the Bible where it says:

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness;" (Genesis 1:26)

Virtually every Christian (not to mention many of other faiths) would adamently disagree with the contention by evolutionists who masquerade as "believers" that God's "likeness" and "image" resemble anything close to apes

[f.Christian]

A cure for lieing/theft/fraud...liars/thieves/scam artists aren't interested!

[jim35]

If you believe in God's creating all this, why is it a stretch to believe he could keep his plants healthy before he made the sun and stars? Where does it say in the Bible that the temperature was absolute zero? Maybe it's nice and toasty in God's workroom.

[gcruse]

I believe that the universe came into existence in the form of monkeys flying out of The Great Ass. Since this can't be disproved, I demand it be taught in public schools as an alternative to the Big Bang and evolution. Who can say I'm wrong?

[Dimensio]

It is, however, a fatal objection to the theory that the eyes were desinged by a perfect intelligence, since such a designer would do the job so it was right, not "good enough for government work".

This presumes that the designer did not deliberately create the retinas with the flaw. It is also possible that a 'perfectly-able designer' deliberately inserted the flaw for some unknown purpose.

[LiteKeeper]

Name a single eye witness to the "evolutionary" beginning of the universe. Evolution is a philosophical position that attempts to explain the beginning of the universe, the age of the universe, and the animal world as it is today. Name one thing that you know is scientifically true about evolution - please.

[moneyrunner]

”Everything in science is theory.”

Sorry, that is simply wrong. It is a fact that certain germs cause certain infections. It is a fact that when you drop something it falls. That is why it is called “The law of gravity” not the “theory of gravity.”

Scientists and mathematicians recognize that there are “laws” and there are “theories.” Laws are not disputable. Theories are possible explanations for events. They can have strong support, like the theory of relativity, or weak support like the “big bang” theory. They may have passionate supporters and passionate detractors.

It is, however, ill advised for passionate defenders of evolutionary theory to adhere to that theory in such a way as to appear to be mystics defending their faith.

”Many creationists like to ignore that because it makes "evolution is only a theory" sound like a more meaningful statement.’

As I have demonstrated, the word “theory” is not identical with proven fact, generally referred to as “law.” And therefore the statement that evolution is “only” a theory is a meaningful statement.

[steve-b]

The problem with evolutionary theory is that is does not appear to be reproducible – at least until now. Therefore, alternative hypothesis regarding the development and creation of living things should be entertained.

The murders of Anne Nicole Smith and Ron Goldman are not reproducible. Therefore, by your reasoning, the bafflegab spun by Cochran & Co. is just as credible as the belief that O. J. Simpson is a murderer. Heck, by your reasoning the theory that Smith and Goldman were disintegrated by space aliens is just as credible a notion.