Posted on 02/02/2004 3:47:15 PM PST by DannyTN
CNN reported, “A new book offering a non-evolutionist view of how the Grand Canyon was formed, featuring essays from 23 scientists (most with PhD's, many having conducted serious geological scientific research at the Canyon), is the object of an intense book-banning effort by leading evolutionists. They have demanded that Grand Canyon National Park remove the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View, from bookstores within the Park.
The book, which claims the famous area can be no older than a few thousand years (contrary to the claims of traditional secular science, which contends the canyon is millions of years old), was unanimously approved by a panel of park and gift shop personnel, the Los Angeles Times reported.”
CNN reported that the National Park Service (NPS) in Washington, D.C. is “preparing to draft a letter telling Grand Canyon administrators the book makes claims that fall outside accepted science... so it likely won’t be restocked.” Meanwhile, an NPS spokesman has confirmed that the book has been moved from the natural sciences section of the bookstore to an ‘inspirational’ one (which would thus downplay the book’s legitimate scientific message).
What is this if it is not blatant censorship? The Evolutionists have formed what amounts to a ‘cartel’ of influential liberals and agnostics who are bent upon silencing all challenges.
On the basis of elaborate non-proven theories, the Evolution Cartel now protects itself from scientific challenge by banning all books that don’t agree with their arrogant claims, which are fundamentally based on enormous assumptions that are then supported by circular reasoning.
Evolution Cartel Out of Step with Majority
According to recent poles, at least half of Americans believe in a recent “creation” of no more than 10,000 years. Some of the greatest names in science are among those who believe in recent creation.
In the 1960’s, I had the privilege of leading a scientist from the Rocketdyne Propulsion Laboratories to faith in Jesus Christ. Charles Morse then spent the rest of his life studying the Biblical account of creation and the universal flood.
Using some the world's most sophisticated computers, he set up models from scientific information that established a global flood had to have taken place.
From these models, he was able to interpret the geological records in scientific terms so that they supported a recent creation.
Evidence to Consider
Since Morse had been a naval officer in WW2, he had studied and had access to scientific oceanography data. This included the ‘mid-oceanic ridges’ with deep trenches traversing their length. These ridges extend along the length of all earth’s ocean. He also learned about the ‘river cones’, which are underwater river channels that extend along the ocean floor for over a hundred miles out from the mouth of every great river in the world.
Morse found that the Evolutionist’s explanation of the ‘river cones’ could never work. Evolutionists contend that the ‘river cones’ were etched into the ocean floor by slow moving currents that etched them out over ‘millions of years’.
(Whenever evolutionists are stuck for an explanation, they always seem to think that adding a few million more years solves everything.) But this could not explain how the underwater channels were formed.
These so called river cones are literally extensions of the rivers on the ocean floor. Only water moving at tremendous velocity would have the ability to carry the large rocks necessary to etch out such deep trenches on a line continuing out from the river on the ocean floor.
The same thing is true concerning the phenomenon of the Grand Canyon. If these were formed by slow moving currents over millions of years, why has this not taken place in other places where the rivers are about the same age?
Rivers such as Mississippi, Nile, Amazon, Euphrates, etc., should have produced similar phenomena. If the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, why has there not been more erosion of the steep cliffs?
The Biblical account of a universal flood better explains the geological phenomena of the Grand Canyon than does the evolutionist theory. If there was a universal flood, and it was caused to drain of the land rapidly as the Biblical account declares, then there would have been enormous amounts of water draining off at terrific velocity.
This would easily form the rivers and canyons we see today. And most important, it would also explain how the river cones were formed out from the mouth of every river into the ocean floor.
The fossil record is also explained best this way. Why do we find fossilized fish at the top of mountains all over the world? Why do we find evidence of sea life on land areas the world over?
Where Did The Water Come From?
Morse also dealt with the question of where the tremendous volume of water came from that would be needed to cover all the land mass of the planet.
The Bible says, “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:11-12 NIV)
Morse observed that there could not have been enough water stored in the atmosphere to cover the whole earth. Most of the water came from what the Bible called “the springs of the great deep…” This is where the “mid-oceanic trenches” come in.
There is evidence that there were tremendously violent eruptions that took place in these Great fractures of the earth’s tectonic plates. There is also radioactivity coming from these areas. Morse reasons from the evidence that God used some kind of nuclear reaction to burst open the great fountains of the deep and release the water stored there.
Then Morse dealt with the problem of how that much water could be removed from the land masses of the earth. The geological evidence supports that God caused enormous forces under the continental plates to erupt and force them to rise upward. This caused the water to drain off with violent velocity.
This gives the best explanation of the evidence as to how the rivers, mountains and canyons were formed. The water velocity had the carrying power and force to move great rocks so as to quickly etch out what we see today.
In the final analysis, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, it takes faith to come to a conclusion about how the earth was created and formed.
I believe in creation because the God I worship has the power to do any of these things. And it explains the scientifically available fact better than the evolutionist theory.
Even Darwin Found a Better Way
As a matter of fact, even Charles Darwin came to that conclusion before he died. According to Frank Charles Thompson, God used the wife of the First Admiral of the British fleet to reach Charles Darwin with the Gospel. Here is what he reported:
“God used Lady Hope, wife of the first admiral of the British Fleet, to reach Charles Darwin with the Gospel during the last years of his life. He was bedridden, and she would often visit him. One afternoon, as he was reading this Bible, she asked, “What are you studying now?” “Still Hebrews,” he replied. “I call it the royal book. Isn’t it grand?”
When she mentioned how popular his theory of evolution had become he gave her an anguished look and said, “I was a young man then, with uninformed ideas. I thought out queries and suggestions, wondering all the time … and to my astonishment, those ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them."
Later Darwin asked Lady Hope if she would share the Word of God with some of his friends in his summerhouse. She asked, “What shall I speak about?” He replied, “Jesus Christ and His salvation. Is that not the best theme?”
Dr. Victor Pierce, an Oxford scholar, says, “When some one tells you evolution explains everything, tell them that Darwin discovered a better theme — “Jesus Christ and His salvation.”
I think there is a significant difference.
The Dixie Chicks insulted our President from a foreign shore, resulting in a grassroots backlash. Radio stations dropped them due to pressure not from a competitor but because both radio station owners as well as listeners were offended and no longer wanted to hear the chicks. Dixie Chicks were not removed from record stores, just nobody listened to them anymore.
In the book's case, there is no grassroots movement to avoid reading the books. The public wants the book available for us to choose. The pressure to blacklist the book is coming from competitors who are pushing their own explanation of the canyon.
Fortunately the park service didn't bow completely, but in moving the book out of the science section to the religion section. They did give in to pressure from the book's competitors. There is no indication that they moved the book based on a scientific review of the science contained therein, but rather due to the pressure from the competitors.
Wow, another subject you seem to know nothing about. Why am I not surprised?
Come on! Are you serious?
The term was actually coined by a Russian evolutionist, Iurii Filipchenko, in 1927.
From the same article:
Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.
Ouch!
Species are a human category; they have no object6ive biological significance. But if you want a case of a species that is changing to become very like another species in historical time, take the American Black Duck. In the borders of this species' range, male mallards are out-competing male black ducks for mating with female black ducks, introducing mallard genes into the black duck population and changing the observable appearance of the species.
I love the way you rule out my solution before I even have a chance to raise it.
"Come up with a better model, but it had better not be creationism or intelligent design"
Why would I want to develop another false model of the development of life on earth? As a false model, evolution is doing just fine.
Quoting from Michael Michelangelo's own cited source
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
Species are human constructs, which defy exact categorization. Macro- versus micro-evolution is therefore a similar distinction, without any objective significance.
IMO, the wonders of national park itself is "proof" of a creator. The literalists are making a big fuss over nothing, in my opinion.
I don't follow the reasoning of needing one's faith validated by the book selections in a national park giftshop.
I try, not always successfully.
We all know that the scientific establishment can't be biased. /sarcasm off Where's my list of famous scientists who were ridiculed by the scientific establishment only to be proven right? Ah there it is.. Ridiculed Science Mavericks"
I laughed aloud when I saw this as well. I believe in ID, but have little use for the attention grabbing hucksterism displayed by guys like Hal Lindsey. He's part of the Jan and Paul Crouch, TBN circus and has an assigned seat in the make-it-up-as-you-go school of religious broadcasters.
You misunderstand. We don't need our faith validated by the park service. But we also don't want the park service suppressing and discriminating against alternative scientific theories, simply because this book is more in line with our religious belief than is evolution.
To allow that kind of unscientific discrimination, allows the appearance of the park service endorsing one scientific explanation over the others.
It's not for us, it is for the betterment of all mankind that there is a free and open scientific debate that is not hindered by undue political pressure from an entrenched closed minded group of scientists.
Looks who's in bed with the LA Times now.
Is every "idea" these days considered a scientific theory?
Do you know what the definition is of a scientific theory?
Papers are supposed to report. That the LA Times reported on this dispute instead of their typical suppress anything on the right, hardly makes them in bed with the creationists.
Good grief. Have you ever even read a text book on the subject? Or do you get all your information from Jack Chick tracts.
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.