Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

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.

Could we encode the National ID Card in an embryo's DNA?

Very doubtful because you would have to change the DNA in the short time after conception and before replication of the cells begins. All the cells (100 trillion of them!) end up with the same DNA which was formulated after conception by the mixing of the nuclear genes of the mother and the father.

However, they do not have to go that far. They are already doing it with criminals and in some places with anyone arrested for anything. They are taking DNA samples of them and putting them in a database. Since they already are forcing Social Security numbers on babies before they leave the hospital, I can see how they may soon start doing the same for every child born (in fact, they may already be doing it).

IFF Creationism could be presented as genuine science, I would agree to having it presented as such...but by the looks of these threads, that's going to be darned difficult to do. Until and unless Creationism applies the scientific method, I think it's better off left to parents, or simply presented as a novel idea outside testable (or verifiable) science.

Always discussing a straw man, never discussing the real challenge to evolution - Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is certainly testable. It is testable now. In fact Behe's famous example of the bacterial flagellum has indeed been tested. Nowadays we are able through genetic manipulation to 'knock out' individual genes. This has been done with the bacterial flagellum and as Behe has claimed, it will not operate if you 'knock out' any of some 40 genes.

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.

Me! I'm a witness because up to now everything
I've ever seen or experienced is an evolution. My
whole life even, I have evolved. I have even looked
around the corner and seen a glimpse of my own
extinction. Every year nature creates a more virulent
form of Flu, known by various names, Hong Kong,
Swine, etc., that we are all cautioned to be inoculated
for and I suffer the consequences because I don't.
Sadly, I see Societies and Cultures evolve due to
internal or external forces, such as ours after Viet
Nam and 9/11. A child in the inner city adapts or
pays the consequences. Even my words here have
evolved as I type. I can see this so obvious pattern
of existence so clearly that it is certain that God's
only plan is evolution. It always amazes me to hear
of fools that attempt to find a religious problem in
the simple reality of our origin.

I'm glad my daughter just graduated from Kennesaw.

You don't have the guts to do it without drugs? Like C.S. Lewis wrote, if there is even a colorable claim that a single human rose from the dead, then any sensible human would make his life's goal the determination of whether that claim were true or not. The fact that the original disciples all, except one, were put to death rather than recant the resurrection is at least a colorable claim. Therefore, a true scientist would explore not only the outer world, but also the inner one. Your reply connotes that you haven't the personal will or strength to seek God in a manner in which He will prove to you His existence. One must want that proof above all other things before it will be granted. Your joke proves you are not ready for such a reward.

"Reductionism? Devolution? Breakdown? Simplification? Maybe so, but "Evolution?" Nope.

The same thing applies to the "dog breeds" argument. Dog breeds are developed by eliminating unwanted genetic information, not by creating new info. Therefore, it is not "Evolution." It is merely "change."

[[[[Once again the anti-evos play the game of semantics.]]]]

No, the principle is definitely NOT a matter of "semantics!"

Back to cats bred for "hairlessness" being an example of "induced evolution": I would suggest again, this merely requires the excision of genetic material. This process is not the same as going from a hitherto hairless species to one with hairy individuals. It is much more than "mere semantics."

Do you honestly believe you can take a hairless species, say clams, and produce fur-bearing clams by a couple hundred generations of careful selective breeding? That is astounding. It's also ludicrous.

Do you honestly believe you can take a hairless species, say clams, and produce fur-bearing clams by a couple hundred generations of careful selective breeding? That is astounding. It's also ludicrous.

That is ludicrous! But, then again, it's your claim not his.

You think everything is evolving...evolution?

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(brainwashing)...

Then came...

the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 Dumb downed---

V chromosomed warped liberal twisted(evolving) America---

everything...if you go by your perception/understanding of reality---wow!

Since I believe in God, and all things are possible with God, I believe it to be possible that both evolution and creationism occurred. And there are indications in Genesis that there were other 'men' and women at the same time as Adam and Eve. Otherwise, how could Cain have 'knew his wife' and had descendents. There was no mention of Adam and Eve having daughters for Cain (and later Seth) to marry prior to Cain leaving for the land of Nod.

Even more convincing is this statement: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.(Genesis 6:2). Thus, there is a distinction between the Sons of God (descendents of Adam who was created by God from the dust of the earth), and the daughters of men (possibly descendents of evolution).

Listen, if people want to believe they are descendents of monkeys, snakes, fish, rodents, whatever, maybe they are. I, personally, believe to I am a descendent of Adam, who was the (first) son of God (see the ancestry of Jesus in Luke 3:38, the last part which reads: ". . . Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God").

"That is ludicrous! But, then again, it's your claim not his."

No, his claim was that to differentiate between development of characteristics and elimination of characteristics is just the usual crevo semantics game. My position is that development requires a far more complicated process, and you cannot "prove" a process of characteristic development by giving examples of characteristic elimination.

and the daughters of men (possibly descendents of evolution).

The normal English word for a "descendent of evolution" is "ape"...

Human evolution in particular is unworkable. Documentaries typically show australopithines or some similar "human ancestor" coming down from trees to live in the savannas. All such productions ignore the fact that there are real reasons why apes and monkeys live in trees: they are too slow on the ground and they make too much noise to survive very long other than in trees.

The most major difference between human infants and baby deer, for instance, is that baby deer have the sense not to attract attention to themselves. Picture some group of "proto humans" out on the savanna for the first time with thousand pound carnivores walking around all over the place, and picture some human infant screaming his head off the first time something displeased him. Kind of like somebody ringing a dinner bell...

Evolution, Catastrophism, Intelligent Design Links

You are again failing to read what I wrote. The guinea pig (which I mentioned as "other") doesn't have the same mutation as chimps and people. Chimps and people have the exact same mutation.

While chimps, people, and guinea pigs all have a similar phenotype (not able to make vitamin C), only chimps and humans have the exact same genotype for this defect.

There are other similar markers in the literature. You can read about them in PNAS or Cladistics.

I would venture to say that you are not speaking of Darwinian evolution, the topic of this thread. The examples you cite have aboslutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. There is not a scientist of any repute who would place them in the realm of science. Darwinian Evolution has to do with the origin of the Species, the emergence of the variety of animal life through what is Darwin "descent with modification" - the gradual transformation of one species of animal into another, by means of random mutations happening by chance.

With all due respect, your entry in this thread is at best incoherent.

Trying to make a straw-man argument where there wasn't one?

Of course there was. You are saying that Christians only argue religion:

"Until and unless Creationism applies the scientific method,"

It is the evolutionists that keep injecting religion into this discussion. Christians are trying (and not succeeding) in getting evolutionists to argue the scientific arguments of their position. If you wish to discuss how science disproves evolution, I can show you.

That is ludicrous! But, then again, it's your claim not his.

The point is that it is ludicrous to say you can get a trait that does not already exist by natural selection. You can destroy traits, but you cannot add them. You clearly have to add a lot of stuff for evolution to be true since you cannot get from bacteria to humans without adding a lot of new traits, a lot of new functions.

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.