Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

Eagle Forum ^ | August 16, 2006 | Mrs. Schlafly

[jla]

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

---

by Phyllis Schlafly, August 16, 2006

---

The liberal press is gloating that the seesaw battle for control of the Kansas Board of Education just teetered back to pro-evolutionists for the second time in five years. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the movement to allow criticism of evolution are grossly exaggerated.

In its zeal to portray evolution critics in Kansas as dumb rural fundamentalists, a New York Times page-one story misquoted Dr. Steve Abrams (the school board president who had steered Kansas toward allowing criticism of evolution) on a basic principle of science. The newspaper had to correct its error.

The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism. The current Kansas standards state: "To promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."

This "advice," which the Kansas standards quote, is: "The Conferees recognize that quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

The newly elected school board members immediately pledged to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject evolution to criticism. They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.

Liberals see the political value to teaching evolution in school, as it makes teachers and children think they are no more special than animals. Childhood joy and ambition can turn into depression as children learn to reject that they were created in the image of God.

The press is claiming that the pro-evolution victory in Kansas (where, incidentally, voter turnout was only 18 percent) was the third strike for evolution critics. Last December a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, prohibited the school from even mentioning Intelligent Design, and in February, the Ohio board of education nixed a plan to allow a modicum of critical analysis of evolution.

But one strikeout does not a ball game win. Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.

Intelligent judges are beginning to reject the intolerant demands of the evolutionists. In May, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the decision by a Clinton-appointed trial judge to prohibit the Cobb County, Georgia, school board from placing this sticker on textbooks: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Fortunately, judges and politicians cannot control public debate about evolution. Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has enjoyed weeks on the New York Times best-seller list.

Despite bitter denunciations by the liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism. She calls it the cosmology of the Church of Liberalism.

Coulter's book charges that evolution is a cult religion, and described how its priests and practitioners regularly treat critics as religious heretics. The Darwinists' answer to every challenge is to accuse their opponents of, horrors, a fundamentalist belief in God.

Although the liberals spent a lot of money to defeat members of the Kansas school board members on August 1, they are finding it more and more difficult to prop up Darwinism by the censorship of criticism. The polite word for the failure of Darwinism to prove its case is gaps in the theory, but Ann Coulter's book shows that dishonesty and hypocrisy are more accurate descriptions.

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed, which is why they refused the invitation to present their case at a public hearing in Kansas. But this is America, and 90 percent of the public will not remain silenced.

---

Further Reading: Evolution

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-16.html

[Dante Alighieri]

Delphi User said, "It is a theory based on facts water can be steam, or ice, not both at once.
There are facts like Fossils, they exist, there are theory’s about the fossils, how old, how they lived, what they looked like… some things we will never know for sure unless we can literally see the past. Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture."

False analogy. Evolution is a theory in that it explains the diversity of life and the relation of all to each other. It is also a fact in that there is the well-supported observation of evolution, both directly and indirectly.

Sure, there are some things we may never know. The fossil record is necessarily incomplete. I don't understand this sentence though: "Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture." I know it's English but I haven't clue what you just said.

Delphi User said, "First, I challenge you to show me a single instance of observed “speciation” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciation Evolution within a species is not speciation, show us something that has evolved to the point there it is not genetically compatible with its grandmother."

Simple: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"I disagree, there is the Law of gravity (independently verified by apple growers world wide) and theories about strength, cause, and even refinements of the mathematical formula used to describe gravity, but that there is gravity is not doubted as it is repeatable, constant, and measurable."

You realize that the Law is a mathematical description of the tendency for objects will mass to accelerate towards each other, and that the theory is an explanation of that phenomenon - right?

"Evolution is neither repeatable, constant, nor measurable by us mere mortals." Hardly. It's repeatable in experiments and continually occurs. What do you mean precisely by "measurable?" Are you referring to rates of evolution or what?

"'I can’t imagine a better…' has been uttered by provincial self proclaimed illuminati for generations, then someone comes along with a better idea, and they can’t imagine that there could be a better idea than the current 'best' idea."

Certainly. After all, all theories are tentative and are subject to change. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that evolution is the best explanation according to current data. Therein lies the problem of creationism/ID ignoring the evidence.

"Really, when did that happen? I must have missed the proof that turned a highly speculative, and tenuous theory into a law; please post links the scientific paper(s) that prove The Theory of Evolution, along with filling in all the gaps in the Fossil record, and the explanation on how sentience cam about."

Proof is non-existent in science though.
You know what's funny? I searched PubMed for articles relating to vertebrate evolution alone. You know how many hits I found? 108,159 papers. That's right; nearly 108,000 papers on only vertebrate evolution alone. You don't have to listen to me, search for it yourself: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

No scientific papers showing evidence for evolution? Really?

There are of course some small compilations of the evidence, one of the most readable of which is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You stated that "I must have missed the proof that turned a highly speculative, and tenuous theory into a law." You know that theories are not highly speculative (if anything, that would be hypotheses) and theories never become laws. Things can be simultaneously laws and theories - ergo, gravitation.

However, theories are the goals of science - explaining the observations.

[Dante Alighieri]

Wrong; it is. I already gave you a clue: falsification tests. Experiments are not the only way to test theories.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I have met people like that. They are usually the ones fueling the fire behind rumors that stir up factions within a church congregation and cause it to split.

We homeschool, and the group we met with before our move is religious in nature, but it is nondenominational, and not restricted. We were very clear that it is a Christian group, but if non-Christians wish to meet with us we encourage it. Unfortunately, the people who have caused the most problems over the years have not been non-Christians, but Christians who were uncomfortable about religious overtones of the group. I know exactly why this was so. I grew up in a church that preached that all other denominations were wrong. I do not believe that now, and I don't teach that to my children. We do have some member of our Homeschool support group that attend a church of that belief. It is fine for them to meet with other homeschoolers of other denominations as long as God is not discussed. Our group does pray, and attempts to serve the community as a positive Christian influence. The problem is that these people feel that they are condoning something they think is wrong, that being the Christian beliefs of other denominations, if they engage in prayer and worship with us. They would rather leave it out all together, even though they are very likely homeschooling for religious reasons themselves. So, in our group they have continually pushed for it to become secular. There may be a need for a secular group within the community, but that was not the principle that this group was founded on. I served as President of our group for three years. We encountered this push by a few loud people from time to time. My response was always that the group was formed with the intent of being a Christian group, and 95% of the members wished to keep it that way. I sympathized with the fact that they were uncomfortable, and understood that they may not wish to meet with us because of this. I kindly told them that we would not be changing the structure of the group to accommodate them, but would support them if they wished to start their own support group. Exactly zero of them ever did. All they wanted to do was fuss. Sometimes they would quit coming for a while, then show back up. The fussing died down when they realized it wouldn't go anywhere, but the moment they thought they had traction it would pick back up. This happened when we moved and a new President took over. She tried to accommodate them a little, and they only got louder. These peoples numbers within the group have never grown, even though the group itself has, but they still make it very difficult at times.

[spatso]

The Catholic church has not had a problem with science or notions of evolution for over a century. Tiehard de Chardin, a paleontologist and Roman Catholic priest comfortably established a meaningful framework that allows us to be entirely comfortable with both the earliest forms of dinosaur's as explained by science and with the sacredness of the Creation stories in Genesis. There should be no conflict for people of faith.

It bothers me that some who claim to be people of faith are so fragile in their religious beliefs that they need to attack and distort scientific understanding without comprehending the meaning. They choose to create a straw man in Darwin rather than face their own call to Christ. If they were able to know the warmth of Christ in their hearts, do you think they would spew so much bitterness and hatred? I am profoundly offended by any religious movement intent on pushing conservatism into an anti science posture.

[wyattearp]

Yep. Those are the folks that I was talking about. I was in a church like that, a long time ago. Specifically, it was a non-denominational, evangelical, fundamentalist off-shoot of the four-square church, and was the result of the kind of split that you mentioned. Members of our church were Christian, and nobody else was.

That church is one of the reasons that I am no longer a Christian. There are other reasons, of course, but that was the catalyst. They were what opened my eyes, and made me really look into myself. They don't see that. They can't see that. What they are doing to Christianity is no different than what they are doing to the Republican Party, and it is not good.

Most of my closest friends are Lutheran. Some are YEC's. We don't discuss it. We used to, but we stopped. We disagree on that subject vociferously, but we like being friends.

That could never happen with the folks in the church that I used to attend. When I see folks here on FR behaving like them, it sets my teeth on edge. I know exactly where they are coming from. That's why I fight them.

[DelphiUser]

Delphi User Said: Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture.

Dante Alighieri replied: It is also a fact in that there is the well-supported observation of evolution, both directly and indirectly.

You mean we’re here, so we evolved? I hope it’s not that simplistic for you.

Dante Alighieri replied: I don't understand this sentence though: "Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture." I know it's English but I haven't clue what you just said.

Evolution, much like a religion is a theory backed up by facts. Evolution is not a fact, because we can’t prove or disprove that we evolved from goo in the sea.

Delphi User said, 'First, I challenge you to show me a single instance of observed “speciation” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciation Evolution within a species is not speciation, show us something that has evolved to the point there it is not genetically compatible with its grandmother.'

Dante Alighieri replied: Simple: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I went, I read, What a pant load!

This is an example of the 'Stuff' on this site.
!!!begin cut
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
End Cut!!!

Cross breeding in Laboratory is not Evolution being observed in nature.

I did not read the whole site, I got bored over the repetitive “Experiments” which would produce sterile results, or breed back into the original species being presented as 'Proof it happened in nature' and stuck.

Nice try.

Dante Alighieri Said: You realize that the Law is a mathematical description of the tendency for objects will mass to accelerate towards each other, and that the theory is an explanation of that phenomenon - right?

Yes, I am the one who pointed out that Laws exist, theorys are creted to try to explain them. Your problem is that you have stated there is enough evidence to “Prove” evolution right. Good Luck.

Dante Alighieri Said: What do you mean precisely by "measurable?" Are you referring to rates of evolution or what?

If I drop a ball off of a building, and I know the exact height of the building, I can predict how long it will take the ball to reach the ground. IF Evolution were predictable we should be able to figure out where and when the next species will appear, and get photos.

Instead, we get “Well you have this fossil, then a miracle happens and 1.23460983 million years later we get this fossil that looks completely different, because this guy on the other side of the world evolved from the first guy, and… hey, why are you laughing back there, don’t you know this is irrefutable?”

Sorry, I couldn’t even fake this fakery seriously (Grin)

Dante Alighieri Said: Proof is non-existent in science though.

Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proofs

Most science have proof, atomic science has proof, math has proof, quantum physics has proof (Those are formulas that allow them to predict what will happen next to the last decimal place the instruments are good for (That is why Einstein was able to correct Newton, better instruments)

I don’t care what searches you did or will do, they are all papers on people trying to prove what you just said was un-provable, and for evolution, for now it is un-provable.

Dante Alighieri Said: Things can be simultaneously laws and theories - ergo, gravitation.

Here we go again, gravity is a LAW, and there are many THEORIES about it. Just because you have a theory about a law does not make your theory law nor does the reverse happen.

Things do not go both ways in reality, bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles.

Dante Alighieri Said: However, theories are the goals of science - explaining the observations.

Proof is the goal of science, something you have dismissed as impossible.

“Scientists dream great dreams, Engineers accomplish them.” – James Mitchners Space.

You sir are a true scientist.

[RunningWolf]

Here we go again, gravity is a LAW, and there are many THEORIES about it. Just because you have a theory about a law does not make your theory law nor does the reverse happen

Hey great post in total, and thanks for articulating that out so well. I also saw the gross weakness in those sort of logical arguments but never articulated it out in a manner I was satisfied with. You have encapsulated it all quite well.

Also BTW, your description to talk-origins content as 'what a pant load' is quite apt, for well over 90% of it anyway ;)

'Wolf

[Conservative Texan Mom]

A good friend of mine is Pentecostal. She believes in YEC, and I do not. We agree to disagree, and don't debate it either. It's not worth ruining a wonderful friendship. We have such a great time talking about other things. I'd rather spend my time being joyful than beating people over the head until they agree with me.

[metmom]

But ID as it stands, does not rule out evolution. It's basic premise is that certain aspects of the universe are best explained as having an intelligent cause. While it is true that creation is a very specific subset of ID, it names the creator and gives Him specific character qualities based on knowledge imparted from the creator Himself; the reverse is not necessarily true. One can believe that the universe was intelligently designed without it having be *God*, but rather a highly evolved extraterrestrial. So in that case, an atheist could technically be an IDer just not one who believes the creating agent is God, or a god but rather another inhabitant in an alternate dimension.

I also don't see any difference between ID and evolutionists who claim to believe in God. An evolutionist who believes that God created the universe, set it in motion, and established evolution as the method for life arising on earth is basically an IDer.

[metmom]

I could count on one hand the number of people I know personally (not FReepers) whose views on evolution I know. It simply never comes up for discussion and I've found that most people don't care. I've tried to bring it up in conversations on occasion, just to see what the response is and usually people change the subject.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Good point! It's perfectly normal for scientists to insist that scientists never doctor their experiments or papers to appease their grantors. However, I tend to believe scientists I can trust personally, or those that have left 'the system' to expose the corruption. Some of these people believe their science as fanatically as some who believe in religion do. With evolution it's become a 'secular' religion as AC might say.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I would imagine that if the subject got brought up at church there would be a firestorm of differing views. All would still believe in the Creator though, or else I can't imagine why they would attending church.

This evening I was feeding our horses after the rain. It was so cool out, and I could hear the waterfall at the creek beside our house. My thoughts were "Isn't God's creation glorious!" This thought always overwhelms me when I walk to our back pasture, It's on a hill, overlooking the creek, and we have mountains in view behind all this. The horses are usually in the back area of the pasture. When they hear us, they know we have feed, so the ten of them come running across the creek and up the hill. It's breath taking! I'm marveled every single time I see this. I have to say a prayer and thank the Lord for His wondrous creation. There no way that I can keep from it.

[RippyO]

Do you believe that the people who want to see ID in schools would allow students to believe Gleep Glarp from the planet Deltazoid is the creator of all things on Earth? One look at the bios of Dembski and Johnson would dispute that immediately.

Evolution, as I understand is concerned with the process of nature, not the creation. ID says that the creation is by design and that the process is, well, negligible. You can believe in a supreme being that grants humanity certain rights while allowing that we arise via non-sentient means.

[Dante Alighieri]

"You mean we’re here, so we evolved? I hope it’s not that simplistic for you."

No; I'm referring to observed speciation, fossil evidence, comparative genomics, etc.

"Evolution, much like a religion is a theory backed up by facts. Evolution is not a fact, because we can’t prove or disprove that we evolved from goo in the sea."

Proof doesn't exist in science; evolution is a theory not a religion. Evolution does not address the origin of life. It addresses the diversity of life.

"I went, I read, What a pant load!

This is an example of the 'Stuff' on this site.
!!!begin cut
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
End Cut!!!

Cross breeding in Laboratory is not Evolution being observed in nature.

I did not read the whole site, I got bored over the repetitive “Experiments” which would produce sterile results, or breed back into the original species being presented as 'Proof it happened in nature' and stuck.

Nice try."

You want specific examples? Heard of ring species? Or, maybe mosquitoes? (Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.) By the way, proof is non-existent in science.

"Yes, I am the one who pointed out that Laws exist, theorys are creted to try to explain them. Your problem is that you have stated there is enough evidence to “Prove” evolution right. Good Luck."

No. You got it wrong. Laws describe the fact. Theories explain facts. Theories can incorporate laws to explain the facts, but they do not attempt to explain the laws. Proof is non-existent in science. There exists plenty of evidence for evolution. Maybe you should read Theobald's article. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

"If I drop a ball off of a building, and I know the exact height of the building, I can predict how long it will take the ball to reach the ground. IF Evolution were predictable we should be able to figure out where and when the next species will appear, and get photos.

Instead, we get 'Well you have this fossil, then a miracle happens and 1.23460983 million years later we get this fossil that looks completely different, because this guy on the other side of the world evolved from the first guy, and… hey, why are you laughing back there, don’t you know this is irrefutable?'"

Sure evolution makes predictions. Haven't you heard of the predicted chromosomal fusion in humans, the prediction that trilobites would be found in the Pre-Siluran layer, or Darwin's prediction of PE?

"Most science have proof, atomic science has proof, math has proof, quantum physics has proof (Those are formulas that allow them to predict what will happen next to the last decimal place the instruments are good for (That is why Einstein was able to correct Newton, better instruments)

I don’t care what searches you did or will do, they are all papers on people trying to prove what you just said was un-provable, and for evolution, for now it is un-provable."

At no time does a scientists accept his research as true. If it were true, it would not be subject to change nor correction. However, that isn't the case. He make be confident that his results are accurate, but not true. Proof is non-existent in science. It does however exist in math.

"Here we go again, gravity is a LAW, and there are many THEORIES about it. Just because you have a theory about a law does not make your theory law nor does the reverse happen.

Things do not go both ways in reality, bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles."

Wrong. There is Newton's Law of Gravitation. His theory of Gravitation however was replaced with General Relativity. Motion wasn't absolute, etc. I'm not suggesting that the theory becomes a law or vice versa. What I'm saying is that things can be both laws and theories. If Gravity were just a law, it would be poor science as all we would be doing is describe gravitation but not actually explain it.

"Proof is the goal of science, something you have dismissed as impossible."

No it isn't. Theories are. Science attempt to explain natural phenomena around us. Theories are systems of explanations of the natural world. What are you talking about?

"'Scientists dream great dreams, Engineers accomplish them.' – James Mitchners Space.

You sir are a true scientist."

If the scientists hadn't done research in the first place, engineers would have nothing to apply. What are you talking about?

[DelphiUser]

>> Proof doesn't exist in science;

Then what is science for?

>>evolution is a theory not a religion.

It requires faith in something that cannot be proven, has a dogma (which hit by my karma), has tenets, and is diametrically opposed to many of the religions of the world, claiming to be the only true source for mankind. Sounds like a religion to me. You call it whatever you wish.

>>Evolution does not address the origin of life.

Snort, chuckle, can I quote you on this? “Evolution does not address the origin of life” no, really Dante Alighieri said so!

>>You want specific examples? Heard of ring species?

You mean things that choose not to mate with each other, but could in a lab? Hey, I just saw a site about that recently…

>> mosquitoes?

They can still breed, just have adapted to their environment, not a differing species

S P E C I E S There I said it really slowly and loudly, look it up, you keep quoting controlled micro evolution or evolution within a species (Hey we can breed for Beaks!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution thinking that proves macro evolution (Hey those fish grew legs and can only breed with each other now!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

>>No. You got it wrong. Laws describe the fact. Theories explain facts.

I see why we are having a problem, Facts are, Theories are created by men like us.

>>>> If I drop a ball off of a building, and I know the
>>>>exact height of the building, I can predict how long
>>>>it will take the ball to reach the ground. IF Evolution
>>>>were predictable we should be able to figure out where
>>>>and when the next species will appear, and get photos.

>>>>Instead, we get 'Well you have this fossil, then a
>>>>miracle happens and 1.23460983 million years later we
>>>>get this fossil that looks completely different,
>>>>because this guy on the other side of the world
>>>>evolved from the first guy, and… hey, why are you
>>>>laughing back there, don’t you know this is
>>>>irrefutable?'"

>>At no time does a scientists accept his research as
>>true. If it were true, it would not be subject to change
>>nor correction. However, that isn't the case. He make be
>>confident that his results are accurate, but not true.
>>Proof is non-existent in science. It does however exist
>>in math.

Science , like religion is a search for truth, not Theory, that’s science fiction.

>>his results are accurate, but not true

Sounds like fake but accurate to me…

>> Sure evolution makes predictions.

Wake me will you, I mean when one happens?
That should be in about a billion years or so.

>> If Gravity were just a law, it would be poor science as
>>all we would be doing is describe gravitation but not
>>actually explain it.

OK, I’ll bite; explain something to me without describing it (Grin).

>>>> "Proof is the goal of science, something you have
>>>>dismissed as impossible."

>>No it isn't. Theories are. Science attempt to explain
>>natural phenomena around us. Theories are systems of
>>explanations of the natural world

Theories are the goal of Science fiction writers, not Scientists, Science it the search fro truth, theory is another word for conjecture.

>>What are you talking about?

I am talking about reality; walls exist, if you theorize you can walk through them that won’t stop you from bumping your head.

>>>>"'Scientists dream great dreams, Engineers accomplish them.' – James Mitchners Space.

>>>>You sir are a true scientist."

>>If the scientists hadn't done research in the first
>>place, engineers would have nothing to apply.
>>What are you talking about?

Your tenuous connection with reality, and scientific method.

I spent some time in the east, I learnt a poem there:

It does no good for the Christian health to hustle the Asian brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Asian smiles and weareth the Christian down.
At the end of the fight is a tombstone white on the grave of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: "a fool lies here, who tried to hustle the East".

I have no dog in this fight; I just took umbrage at the statement that “Evolution” was the only truth, and decided to have some fun. You have not proved your case; you have spoken in circles, which sound suspiciously like a liberal explaining “Global Warming” everything proves GW to be true, for you there is no such thing as proof, yet to deny the truth of evolution is to put your fingers in your ears and yell I can’t hear you. You speak in riddles and it’s getting late, I have destroyed your attempt s to prove what you say is un-provable, and I am not even trying to replace it with anything.

IF I were trying to convince you of anything except your need to tone down the rhetoric, I would have to quote my father: “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

G’night

[jla]

Physicist: News flash for Mrs. Schlafly: the scientists overwhelmingly have considered the evidence more deeply than you ever possibly could have, and more honestly besides, and almost to a person have reached a conclusion that is the opposite of yours.

jla: This is an outright lie. Would you care to verify it? Especially that "almost to a person" claim.

---

I'll take your failure to reply as an admission of culpability.

[jla]

Then why should we listen to the evo proponents on these threads? Many of them, by their own admission on these threads, have no degree in the biological sciences, yet continue to tell the non-evo crowd that they are wrong about evolution. Well, if Phyllis Schlafly's word on the subject had no credibility because she's not a biologist, that should logically apply to all the non-biologist evos on these threads. They are not qualified to speak on the subject any more than she is so their word on the subject has no more credibility than that which they give her.

The evols wish that the pesky believers in Creationism be silenced. The formers little, fallacious theory doesn't weather scrutiny very well.

Of course you also make a very good point, in that the evols themselves don't hold up well to scrutiny either.

[jla]

There should be no conflict for people of faith.

Oh? If evolution is accepted as viable then you can negate the Book of Genesis.

[RunningWolf]

You Da Man!, Great thread. And btw, your opposition has yet once again revealed just how little science is left/there/ever-was in the Darwinian ideology.

W.

[185JHP]

She's amazing. But then, she's got an amazing Father...