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.
And happenstance placed us in just the right neighborhood, right?
I have been known to be wrong, but not in this case. I refer you to “Google.” Type in “Law of Gravity.” The first citation is “The Universal Law of Gravitation.” It refers you to Sir Isaac Newton who first propounded this LAW.
I understand that in this degenerate age words have been abused and twisted out of their obvious meanings, but that is no reason for me to allow myself to be sucked into an “Alice in Wonderland” world in which words mean anything we wish them to mean to support our prejudices. “Gay” to me still implies happiness, “Coke” is a carbonated beverage and “theory” is a hypothesis.
With regard to gravity (which is roughly where this "theory" thing began), gravity unquestionably exists, and is thus a "Law of Nature". The theory part lies in the various ideas of how it works.
Same with life on Earth. It obviously exists -- it's a "Law of Nature". The theory part resides in the how.
And what would have "placed" us where life cannot exist? ID is the science that says, "If it isn't a miracle, then that's a miracle!"
I'll agree 100% with that! God, (my specific deity) did know what was required to convince me. For me it involved a well placed smack to the side of my head, (figuratively that is). I received the message and made the transition from a hard core aetheist to a professing Christian, it took awhile but I made it.
Semper Fi
Why do you continually attack people for explaining to you the usage of terms that has been common in the scientific community for years.
Hey! I like that! ; * )
Dembski is a snake-oil salesman. His entire theory is based on "invented" mathematical concepts that literally don't exist in the mathematics he claims to be using, and in most cases, are demonstrably in conflict with core theorems of mathematics. Furthermore, he subverts information theory by grossly misapplying it (just because two unrelated fields of science and mathematics happen to use the same terms for things doesn't mean those terms are interchangeable outside their respective contexts); it is up for discussion as to whether he is merely grossly ignorant or intentionally deceptive in this regard.
Dembski talks a good line to someone only casually familiar with the mathematics and science he talks about, but it is a thinly guilded turd if you have any kind of expertise in the field. To date, nobody has been able to support his ideas in a rigorous mathematical fashion. Any mathematician worth his salt in information theory can cut his argument to shreds in a matter of minutes.
Can I jump in, because his post made perfect sense to me.
Because when the 'common' usage is suddenly not common anymore, it tends to get confusing and needs explanation. Why should a definition mean something within the Scientific community that is not the same as outside that community? It is used within the same context as we use it in the outside world, is it not? A is A.
Why just one creator? Why not two? Ten? Ten thousand?
AMEN! (Satire fully intended!)
Semper Fi
This is precisely what I was referring to. He slams Dembski rather than refutes his remarks. (and I haven't even read the book, so I'm not here to defend it, just making my point.)
missing dove(TRUTH/SCIENCE)---
appearing rabbit(RATS)!
Then came the...
SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/PSYCHO-EVO/NWO Soviet-LIBERAL-Socialist America---
via evo butchery---
the post-modern age of SPLIT-switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...
Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative...
REDACTING them
and calling/CHANGING---
all the... residuals(technology/science) === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...
to substantiate/justify/validate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...
anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)---
and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...
against God--man--society/SCIENCE(religious oath-TEST for office/employment)!!
But isn't the point of the thread whether creationism (or intelligent design) should be taught in schools as the logical alternative to evolution?
If so, would the science lesson end or start at "everything was created somehow"? I think it's pretty obvious that everything was created (somehow). But creationists and ID's won't stop there - it had to be - at a minimum - created by some singular god or supreme being.
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.