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.
That's why Cobb County has no leg to stand on. To single out the theory of evolution for a disclaimer that is not equally applied to the theory of gravity, the theory of infectious disease, the theory of relativity, etc. is facially sectarian.
medved obviously doesn't understand the scientific community. Scientists thrive on controversy. That's how they get funding. If someone has some shred of evidence that say some new Blodget particle could be discovered if they only build some billion dollar gizmo. Then they'll build it.
Likewise, if there was any scientific evidence of a "creator", it would instatly be big news, and would then attract huge funding to discover facts about "Him". It would be like finding ET, who could resist it?
But there is no genuine scientific rebuttal yet found to evolution. If there were, it would be big news, and big science would study it.
Nope, since it doesn't make a big enough difference to determine whether or not you see food/threats/mates/etc. Thus, natural selection is neutral toward it.
It is, however, a fatal objection to the theory that the eyes were desinged by a perfect intelligence, since such a designer would do the job so it was right, not "good enough for government work". (However, an intelligent design theory postulating a flawed designer -- perhaps the Earth was seeded by space aliens or something -- remains possible.)
Maybe he bases his remarks upon what is written by the omnipotent God of the Bible where it says:
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness;" (Genesis 1:26)
Virtually every Christian (not to mention many of other faiths) would adamently disagree with the contention by evolutionists who masquerade as "believers" that God's "likeness" and "image" resemble anything close to apes
Sorry, that is simply wrong. It is a fact that certain germs cause certain infections. It is a fact that when you drop something it falls. That is why it is called “The law of gravity” not the “theory of gravity.”
Scientists and mathematicians recognize that there are “laws” and there are “theories.” Laws are not disputable. Theories are possible explanations for events. They can have strong support, like the theory of relativity, or weak support like the “big bang” theory. They may have passionate supporters and passionate detractors.
It is, however, ill advised for passionate defenders of evolutionary theory to adhere to that theory in such a way as to appear to be mystics defending their faith.
”Many creationists like to ignore that because it makes "evolution is only a theory" sound like a more meaningful statement.’
As I have demonstrated, the word “theory” is not identical with proven fact, generally referred to as “law.” And therefore the statement that evolution is “only” a theory is a meaningful statement.
The murders of Anne Nicole Smith and Ron Goldman are not reproducible. Therefore, by your reasoning, the bafflegab spun by Cochran & Co. is just as credible as the belief that O. J. Simpson is a murderer. Heck, by your reasoning the theory that Smith and Goldman were disintegrated by space aliens is just as credible a notion.
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.