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.
Can you prove that?
A non-functional pseudogene is found in other primates as well. All have collected a fair number of mutations over the years. Comparison of the human, chimp, orangutan and macaque monkey pseudogene shows a number of shared mutations as well as unshared mutations. Among the shared mutations is a deletion resulting in a frameshift which could have led to functional loss of the gene. Based on these comparisons, conversion of the active gene to a pseudogene occurred prior to the primate and old world monkey split.
Dietary habits at that time may not have maintained positive selection for the functional gene.
Well, duh. Since atheism is an absence of belief in God, making the existence of God axiomatic would invalidate atheism within that framework. The problem is that the existence of God is not axiomatic in science (but then, nothing really is in science). For that matter, evolution is not axiomatic in science either, but the creationists pretend like it is because it fits their world view. There are other perfectly scientific and mathematically sound theories for speciation besides evolution, a few of which are gaining steam in scientific circles. It looks to me like you are fighting the wrong battle.
But, it's a "scientifically proven" coincidence! FR's pro-evo crowd has yet to honestly admit that Darwin's THEORY has not earned any status beyond THEORY. Questioning the dogma of their religion is treated as utter scientific "blasphemy", and followers of such "heresy" are deemed unintelligent, at best. Hence, we are blessed with such works of brilliance as:
DIMENSIO post#3: The author of the article is a moron who ignorantly equates evolution and atheism. . . . Now that's an irrefutable scientific point of proof! - NOT
Neither creationists nor evolutionists can demonstrate by scientific experimentation their respective theory of origin. Each believes his theory is correct and supports that belief with observations believed to be the result of his non-provable process of origin. Only those who state that their view of origin is ultimately a belief system honestly participate in this debate.
In this debate, only the dogmatists are morons. BTW, Cal Thomas' article does not present his position in dogmatic fashion.
I will have to disagree with you on this one. With the coming genetic revolution, what well-off and well-meaning parents won't buy their embyonic children an intellectual upgrade, an enhanced immune system, stunningly good looks, and/or eliminate some recessive errors? They might even buy a fix for that vitamin-C genetic error and save money on children's vitamins (or would that make us more like monkeys instead of chimpanzees and apes). We might even get to the point where we can design out children's genetic code completely although I'm sure the the government will step in at some point and mandate some changes and prohibit others (not that anyone will pay attention to that).
Yes, and you'll get a Democrat evolutionist.
I'm sure it will happen sooner or later along with the complete copyright notice, the warranty fineprint, and the EULA.
Perhaps he would like us to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy too. They are alternative views also.
And while we are at it, why are we teaching this blatantly atheistic, newfangled theory that the earth revolves around the sun?
Interesting examples. When I was a student, it was axiomatic that a theory can be proven by its ability to predict what would happen if certain things were done. In chemistry, mixing A with B always produces C under specified conditions.
I do not have any clear ideas about what we believe to be true about supernovas. However, I am fairly confident that we cannot be certain how stars become supernovas until we are able to reproduce this phenomenon. By the way, how far away should a star be before we can induce it to go supernova … safely?
In the case of nuclear decay, we may not be able to determine when a particular nucleus will decay, but we can predict the aggregate decay of a collection of nuclei. Without this knowledge and the ability to predict and reproduce it time and time again, the nuclear bomb or a nuclear reactor would not be possible (or at least very, very hazardous [grin]).
Animal behavior is also predictable in the aggregate. We can tell with a high degree of certainty that a herd of caribou will do certain things: migrate, forage for food, breed, etc. The inability to predict whether caribou “Alf” will go left or right at any particular moment is if no consequence in our ability to predict what the entire herd will do.
Biochemistry is a science because we have learned many of it’s laws. We can predict what will happen if we combine X with Y under conditions Z. If we have absolutely no clue as to any of the these issues you may be full of theories, but they are nothing more than guesses.
Generally, science gives us a handle on things, or at least a reasonable hypothesis on how things work. In a very large number of cases we know enough to be able to use our knowledge of cause and effect to predict. It seems to me that our attempt to validate evolutionary theory rests on the assumption that given enough time, anything is possible. We then use shards of bone, imprints in the rocks and petrified remains to fit pieces of a puzzle into a predetermined pattern, papering over large holes with a fertile imagination.
So, where does that leave us? I suppose anyone can call anything a “science.” Is there a “science” of history? It seems to me that the entire discussion of evolution, it could be argued, is simply a subset of whatever we call history … and the study of history is usually found in the “arts” not the “sciences.”
Dogs have been bred for thousands of years. What dog breeding shows is that you cannot change a species by selection, whether natural or selected. In fact, the more selection, the less viable a species becomes:
That shows that you have no understanding of what speciation is. For starters, plenty of species can interbreed; old scientific definitions make this mistake, but they are woefully out of date, and simply repeating them as dogma does not make them true. One can have two different species that are capable of interbreeding (lions and tigers, for instance). Man cannot breed dogs into seperate "species", by which you mean, groups incapable of interbreeding with each other, because it is not the difference in appearance which makes species unable to breed with each other, but rather genetic drift and mutation, which takes place over millions of years. Given enough time, if these man made dog "species" were kept from breeding with each other, they would develop into species incapable of breeding with each other. But in the short term, speciation is accomplished simply by selecting which features get passed on to the next generation - either by natural selection, or by man made selection. Whether we call these species "species", or something else, is a matter of semantics, not science. But then, the anti-evolutionary crowd has always been big on semantics and weak on actual science.
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.