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.
Worth repeating. Another cigar for you.
This is basically BS. Evolution is not a theory in the same way as other areas of science, because all others that I'm aware of are based on repeatable experiments with measurable results which can be used to confirm or deny the theory.
Or Cthulhu or (my favorite) a giant chicken named Harry from Pasdena. Have a cigar.
No, but why postulate one if you don't need him in your explanation?
And no, I'm not familiar with Last Thursdayism, but I'm sure you'll fill me in, and I feel certain I'll be offended. ; * )
Last Thursdayism says that the Universe, and everything in it, was created last Thursday, along with our (false) memories of everything that happened prior to that.
It's also not falsifiable, just like your creator.
‘But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.’ (Matthew 6:33)
"Once there was a change in our family situation. Our pet dog passed away and we salved our grief by acquiring a new one-a blue cattle pup. He was intelligent and very mischievous. We had a lot of fun with him. while he was small, he would amuse us by trying to catch his own tail and bite it. He would spy the tip of his tail out of the corner of his eye, and, readying himself, lunge at it, as if hunting prey. But of course, the more he pounced, the more his tail moved out of his reach. The only way a dog can really have its tail is to allow it to be an attachment to its main body."
"The... tail comes along just fine---when it is not its owner's preoccupation."
"Jesus advises us that though there are many good and important things, only one can be most important-the kingdom of God and his righteousness. First things must come first. All of life, with its experiences, decisions and relationships, needs to be evaluated in light of the highest ideal."
"When God is given pride of place, the machinery of existence operates at its best."
Typically they come from other life forms. If you are referring to the ultimate origin of life, that is not relevant to evolution. You also presented a false dichotomy of "evolution" or "God created the universe and all life within". Those are not the only two possibilities.
A fistful a cigars to you too.
Sorry, but it's falsifiable by my reason and common sense. One cannot for a minute claim that that is as logical as the two choices for life: creation or accident. One of those choices will turn out to be true in the end.
Because if you're a bible believing Christian you know that he desires acknowledgment for his creation. That is not too much to ask considering he gave us life.
No homework needed; I think it's Dembski's own special contribution to the field.
Well, why does He need a boat at all then?
Secondly, if one believes there was not supreme intelligent force behind the creation of all matter, then one is left with the impossible task of trying to explain how something came from nothing.
Probably true, Big-Bang-Theory-wise. The first problem with your statement is "impossible" - we haven't established that. The second is presupposing "nothing". The third is assuming "intelligent".
No, it has nothing to do with age, but with relationships. The notion of common descent (and this isn't limited to Darwinism; other models of evolution such as Lamarckism would predict this also) is that all creatures develop from previous forms. Sometimes this means that a species will change over time (confusion over this prompts children to ask adorable questions such as, "if man evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys"), but it also means that a species, separated into two or more non-interbreeding populations, can develop into two or more different (but closely related) species. It NEVER happens that a species has two or more independent "parent" species; the branching is always in the "downstream" direction. Exactly this sort of interrelatedness is evident when you compare the genomes of the world's species.
Butcouldn't it have been created that way? According to the Bible, Adam was a man, not a baby, at creation.
As you say, but if the world's species were created by fiat, there would be no particular reason to expect that their genomes could be arranged in such a tree. Furthermore, there'd be no reason to expect to see that arrangement reflected in the fossil record...and yet, it is reflected.
A law is a law. If you're familiar with Christianity, you know that God is subject to His laws.
But evolution, by contrast, does have testable consequences, and it passes those tests brilliantly on two fronts: genetics and paleontology.
Furthermore, the fact that the phenomenon of evolution it isn't easily reproducible doesn't mean it can't be modelled (i.e., described by a theory). We can't reproduce a supernova or the big bang, either, but we have extremely quantitative models of both that can be tested through observation. In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long enough
Another great post. Have another cigar.
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.