Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[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.

[templar]

We on the evolution side always seem to agree that we'd be perfectly happy seeing creationism taught - just in a comparative religion or philosophy class.

Yeah, we are pretty mucn in agreement. As long as comparitive religion or philosophy are given as much standing as science. They don't have to be the same to be of equal importance in life.

[Nebullis]

I had meant to specify the multicellular organisms, and am shamefast that I did not. Lateral gene transfer is important in microorganisms.

Indeed. It's also important for muliticellulars like plants.

[Dynamo]

Actually, as He wrote in His book, oh numb one. Get a grip.

[stryker]

No, you don't "just have to believe" when it comes to Christianity. If you have the guts and stamina, try getting off of your overstuffed couch, secluding yourself away from all human contact for six weeks and reading the Bible and fasting and praying for proof of His existence and love, and I will guarantee you that you will get the shock of your life and more proof than you ever wanted that God exists, listens, and loves. But then you will be in the same position as Jodie Foster in Contact--you'll be the only one that got the vision, and only those willing to believe you, that is, have faith, will know the truth from you. The problem is that very few people are willing to suffer enough to actually hear from God, so they have to proceed on faith. But if you have the guts, you can touch the wounds; and when you do, you find yourself on your knees in awe of all that you haven't believed.

[gore3000]

Why couldn't some other deity be responsible? Why would it automatically mean that the God of the Bible is the one who is real?

See my answer to tortoise above. Briefly if is not Christianity that needs to disprove evolution, it is evolution that needs to disprove Christianity for evolution to be true.

[AndrewC]

OOOOOH! So you think the majority does determine truth!

I doubt that, but I suppose you as an objectivist must accept it.

[Poser]

No, you don't "just have to believe" when it comes to Christianity. If you have the guts and stamina, try getting off of your overstuffed couch, secluding yourself away from all human contact for six weeks and reading the Bible and fasting and praying for proof of His existence

Back in my hippy days, I had lots of halucinations. They seemed very real. So I guess ceilings really are pink and green.

[cookcounty]

"Five hundred years ago, there were no hairless cats. "

Going from genes that express "hair" to lack of genes that express "hair" may be described many ways, but it is NOT evolution. What this IS, is an example of how sloppy the definition of terms is in this whole argument.

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."

[Heartlander]

OK Jenny, maybe pictures will help…

FIG A: Philosophical naturalism as exemplified in the Hard Facts Wall from the California Academy of Sciences exhibit in San Francisco, CA Life Through Time: The Evidence for Evolution

FIG B: Fossil data applied to the philosophical framework of Fig A. (Hard Facts Wall from the California Academy of Sciences exhibit in San Francisco, CA Life Through Time: The Evidence for Evolution)

FIG C: Empirical data of the Hard Facts Wall after removal of materialistic philosophy with Occam's razor.

FIG D: LIFE THROUGH TIME: Framework for theory of Macrostasis based upon the pervasive patterns of natural history. "Stasis is data." -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Opus 200," Natural History, August 1991, p. 16

FIG I: The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

Contrary to both Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibria theory, the vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa.

[tortoise]

You are evading my point. If God exists, why would He lie about creating man?

The existence of God in no way proves the validity of the Bible or any other religion. This is a fairly gross fallacy that isn't brought up often enough. If I accept that God exists, and I do in fact accept that possibility, it says absolutely nothing about the Bible, Christianity, or any of that being anything other than utter nonsense cooked up by some fellas a few thousand years ago. Even if God exists and he is more or less the same God the Biblical people were talking about, it does not lend much support to anything in the Bible being true. God could very well exist AND you might be wrong on every single account of the truth EXCEPT the fact that God exists. But I don't see too many believers asserting any reasonable limits of their knowledge of God; if they know anything, they seem to know most everything.

[Tribune7]

Why couldn't some other deity be responsible?

That's actually a more rational position that the atheistic accident which some are striving to have be our mythological explanation for the existence of the universe.

Why would it automatically mean that the God of the Bible is the one who is real?

We have to make a choice as to who or what to worship. That's what free will is all about. Our culture and nation is based on treating the God of the Bible and Jesus' teachings as an axiom. It works pretty well. Cultures that reject the God of the Bible are superstitious hells on earth.

How can you really know what's for certain? That's what the Gospels are all about. That's what Jesus Christ's sacrifice is all about.

But again, it is your choice to accept or reject.

[Dimensio]

That is exactly my point. Again: Evolution needs no creator, not evolution denies a creator.

Gravity doesn't need a creator either. It just needs matter. I don't understand what your point proves.

[tortoise]

So I guess ceilings really are pink and green.

I'm only going to tell you once: Stay out of my house! :-)

[Poser]

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."

Over a few hundred years we have dogs as different as a mastiff and a chihuahua, caused by man. Over millions of years, mutations did a lot more than we could in a few hundred years. It's surprising that there aren't more species.

[Dimensio]

Me too. This also struck me as an odd statement.

That is probably because you do not understand the scope of the theory.

My kid's Unit on "Evolution" starts with lengthy discussion of abiogenesis. Ditto for other textbooks. Gosh, I wonder why?

Perhaps those textbooks are misrepresenting the theory, or perhaps you are misreading what the books are calling evolution and what they are talking about otherwise.

[Heartlander]

OOOOOH! So you think the majority does determine truth!

Jenny, you do not believe in any God. Who determines your truth and why?
Your statement is ‘your’ question…

[Poser]

Contrary to both Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibria theory, the vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa.

But the earth is only 4,000 years old. How can any of that be true???

[cookcounty]

Sorry I'm so slow, I'm trying to do laundry, talk my son out of buyinf a Wrangler and this at the same time!

"What exactly do you mean by this? What exactly did your father think was bunk? And how exactly did mainstream scientists' explanation of the petrified forests change?"

Well, he said the 27 forests growing up, dying, then petrifiying in sequence was bunk. I think his reasoning was something like: A. Petrification of a standing forest is rare, almost impossible to conceive of. B. How does this happen 27 straight times without any intervening stratification?). [at this point, the evolutionary geologist would have said "you can't argue with the facts discovered in situ!!]

Mainstream geology has come to a similar conclusion, interpreting the stratification as the result of seasonal flooding of a single forest. If you are worried that geologists have based this new interpretation on an analysis of the book of Genesis, I think you're still safe.

[Heartlander]

You better get some better bait on that hook…

[Poser]

You better get some better bait on that hook…

You mean you detected my sarcasm without a smiley??? You have evolved to a higher state than many.