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.

Vade, you said Are appearances everything? Yes, they are. The jury [the public] is only half-listening, they don't have patience for lots of fancy words, pictures, diagrams and charts.

History so far has been a lurching, stumbling voyage to greater understanding of the world. A catalog of all the times that science was wrong or reversed itself, or that political power dictated orthodoxy, merely obscures this fact. We aren't still huddling in caves, cringing when the Thunder God booms his disapproval because two kids from the tribe fornicated and we didn't stone them to death in time.

Pseudoscience can demagogue, in a time and place. Perhaps it never dies. We still have astrologers, after all, and sometimes they have the ear of the Great Leader.

But pseudoscience isn't true, so the trends are against it. Overall, we lurch ever closer to real understanding.

The Intelligent Design proponents are presenting their case with the precision of a trial lawyer.

I suppose there is semantic precision--the finely calculated sentence--and factual precision. I am guilty of not appreciating the cool, reasoned language of the papers by the leading lights of ID despite your attempts to call attention to it. That they in the textual content of their arguments try to pull my hat down over my eyes and do a mocking dance about distracts from the study.

As to the old earth, new earth theories, the Bible is quite clear that the earth is billions of years old having been created and inhabited by intelligent beings numerous times. Don't get your Christianity from Jerry Falwell. If you have any interest, ask people that know what they are talking about.

So, what you are saying is that it's a particular group of creationists who *really* know the truth and the rest of them, while creationists, don't really know what happened. I'm glad you're the one who knows what the bible really says. I guess those millions of creationists who believe the 4000 year thing are just plain wrong! But you, of course, aren't.

I understand your point of view perfectly. I just think it's a bunch of crap. The whole idea that God only reveals the truth to a small, select group of people is ridiculous.

As to the old and new earth arguments, the question is one of reading the Bible rather than parroting the teachings of some idiot generating billions with his televangelism. Men and women were told to replenish the earth, a distinct reference to the fact the earth had been previously inhabited. One cannot replenish something that had not once been previously full. Additionally, the prophets write extensively about intelligent beings that lived and fought over the earth before God created Man in the form He now exists.

This discussion is now at an end. I can feel the hatred in your words. You have no desire for open and honest discussion of the issues at hand with someone who is your intellectual equal. You are afraid to debate me on the merits of my arguments, but always push on to some new topic, usually involving a personal attack like the one of which you first accused me. The funny thing is that people like you almost always end up being people like me. The more you hate Him (as I once did), the more he will seek you; for, "He who is forgiven much, loves much."

So long Poser. We'll talk again when you have matured--spiritually that is.

You continue to jump from point to point without ever addressing the one you just slipped on. Now suddenly, I am claiming that God only reveals the truth to an elite few among the many millions when everything I have written is, if not contrary in fact, it certainly is in spirit. I have merely argued that anyone wanting proof of God's existence sufficiently will be given that level of proof which that particular person needs. Therefore, I have argued no less than that God, and therefore, salvation, is open to all of the inhabitants of the world. Only your childish tantrums could blind you to this fact.

How nice... An ad hominem attack. I suppose I should have expected it.

Telling me that I will only see God the way you see him if I want it badly enough is a silly, circular arguement. It brings no facts to the discussion. When I seriously consider your statement, the most likely explanation is that you are hallucinating. Your basic argument is that if I agree with you, I will agree with you. Duh.

I disagree with you. I hoped for some logical arguement or proof that your point of view had merit. You gave me circular logic that has no substance. Then you made personal attacks, ridiculing me for not agreeing.

I'm afraid your technique is poor. Not only did you fail to convince me, or even interest me in your point of view, you left me with the impression that creationists are insulting and intolerant.

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.