Posted on 01/27/2007 4:40:50 PM PST by balch3
One of my favorite early Steve Martin routines went something like this: "Would you like to make a million dollars and pay no taxes? OK. First, make a million dollars. Now, just don't pay any taxes; and if somebody from the IRS asks you about it, just say … 'I forgot!'"
Nonsense? Sure. But funny, especially as Steve delivered it? You bet.
But there's some absurd nonsense, not especially funny, being taught our school kids every day, in almost every school in America.
Darwin's theory of evolution.
(Column continues below)
"But it's science," you say. No, not really. Certainly, not yet, if it ever will be. It's a theory, an extremely farfetched, unproven theory and – at its base, its fundamental core – terribly unscientific!
To me (and I'll explain, so stay with me) this theory is exactly like Steve Martin's joke. It starts with a wish, a desire, proceeds through a ludicrous construction or process, and leads to a preposterous conclusion.
But this unfunny joke has been taken very seriously by a host of scientists, and now most educators, and it has been universally accepted as "fact" by most universities and school systems. And woe to the teacher, from grade school through college, who dares to question this improbable, unproven theory. If he or she dares to suggest or present the alternative theory of Intelligent Design – the vastly more plausible notion that this incredible universe and all living things point logically to a Creator with an intelligence far beyond our feeble comprehension (no matter how many Ph.D. degrees we might have among us) – lawsuits and intimidation will surely follow that teacher.
In one of his many excellent and substantive mailings, D. James Kennedy drew my attention to Tom DeRosa, who grew up Catholic in Brooklyn and spent his high-school years at a Catholic seminary. He was voted "Best Seminarian" in 1964, but one year later, instead of taking vows to enter the priesthood, he became an atheist.
His encounter with Darwin in college led to that decision. "There was a point where I became so rebellious that I yelled out, 'No God!' I remember saying, 'I'm free, I'm liberated,'" DeRosa recalled. "I can do what I want to do; man is in charge! It was pure, exhilarating rebellion!"
That rebellion soured after a while, and after 13 years as a respected public-school science teacher, he experienced a spiritual awakening that completely changed his perception of existence – and science. He's now founder and president of the Creation Studies Institute and author of "Evidence for Creation: Intelligent Answers for Open Minds."
Did his IQ leak out his ears? Did he cease being a scientist? Far from it; he became a real scientist, an honest seeker after truth who could look at facts without a predisposed belief and actually see the obvious all around us.
As a real scientist, he looked again at what he'd gullibly accepted in college. And, examining the prevalent claim that life "evolved" from molecule to man by a series of biological baby steps, tiny mutations over millions of years, he realized there is no historical evidence for that claim. He writes, "Millions upon millions of fossils have been collected to date, but there is no evidence of transition fossils, that is, fossils of organisms in an intermediate stage of development between steps on the evolutionary ladder."
Had you thought about that? If all life on this planet were actually in a process of "evolution," would every species evolve in lock step, regardless of different environments? Or wouldn't there be all the intermediate steps still in evidence, at various places around the globe? Wouldn't there be plenty of evolving apes, tending toward homo sapiens, in the jungles and rain forests, possibly developing verbal skills and capable of elementary math and reasoning?
None such. Ever. Nada. Apes have always been apes, and humans always human (though some of us less so than others).
I wonder if any science teachers today ever share with their students that Charles Darwin acknowledged "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe … as the result of blind chance or necessity." If the originator of the theory of evolution and the author of "The Origin of Species" (the book which later students eagerly used as an excuse to leave a Creator out of the picture) couldn't imagine everything we see and know happening without some design and purpose – why should any of us?
Why indeed?
Could it be that this whole evolution idea has grown out of a deep desire to escape the implications that necessarily accompany the concept of an infinite Intelligence, a Creator? If humans want to prove some theory, no matter how farfetched and self-serving, they will inevitably find some "evidence" that they can wedge into their theory.
Some years ago, Johnny Carson had a lady on his "Tonight Show" who had a large collection of potato chips, each of which she said resembled some famous person. And if you looked at the chip from a certain angle, and maybe squinted just right, you could see what she was referring to. While she bent down to carefully select another chip, Johnny removed one she said looked like George Washington, and replaced it with one he had under his desk. Then, when she had straightened up, he "absentmindedly" picked up the substituted chip and put it in his mouth, crunching loudly. The horror on her face was a huge laugh for the audience, and Johnny quickly relieved her, handing back the George Washington potato chip, intact.
This decades-long scavenger hunt, in which intelligent and educated seekers keep digging up artifacts to "prove" an unprovable and patently unscientific concept, is very much like the potato chip lady on "The Tonight Show": You see what you want to see. Whether it's there or not.
I'm grateful to Joseph Farah and the editors here at WND for letting me take this space each week. This topic, I feel, is so important – and I've got so much to say about it – that I'll pick up here, in this space, next week. I hope you'll stop by.
Related special offers:
"The Case Against Darwin"
"Tornado in A Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism"
Pat Boone, descendent of the legendary pioneer Daniel Boone, has been a top-selling recording artist, the star of his own hit TV series, a movie star, a Broadway headliner, and a best-selling author in a career that has spanned half a century. During the classic rock & roll era of the 1950s, he sold more records than any artist except Elvis Presley. To learn more about Pat, please visit his website.
Intelligent design is a belief. It cannot be scientifically proven. Unless you happen upon God creating species.
***So im related to Hillary after all oh gross***
Not so! A turtle s..t on a rock and the sun hatched her out.
Evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving a creator, of course. It's a scientific explanation for the origin of species in the same way plate tectonics is an explanation for the origin of mountains and oceans.
Human reasoning also tells us that two plus three equals five. Is this, then, capable of being subverted, too?
Evolution is a theory.
So, you'd rather listen to corrupt scientists more interested in getting grant money than getting at the truth??? How odd.
Evolution happens. Darwin and the others who used science to prove it should be admired.
So is General Relativity.
"...used to destroy the notion that our rights don't come from a creator..."
I'm sorry, how does evolution lead to that? What you are writing, what you apparently believe, is that those of us who believe evolution is at least a pretty good theory *don't* believe in a Creator and moral absolutes? Correct?
I fail to see how that is the case. My Creator, to the best of my current understanding, chose to use evolution as His method to get to us. It in no way shape or form diminishes His majesty. In fact, it makes him more imaginative than you give Him credit for.
Given the way the scientific method works, yes.
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pdf/Origin_of_Species.pdf
How many people talking about Darwins "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES By Means of Natural Selection" have read it?
Yes, but not all theories have equal validity.
The bottom line is that evolution is a tool of the left, used to destroy the notion that our rights don't come from a creator and are inalienable, but that they stem from human reason and understanding and thus are flexible and able to be subverted.
The problem is that evolution has become the "accepted" view, and anyone who quesitons it is automatically labeled a creationist or intelligent design believer. I do not accept any of these, especially as "science," and none of them ought to be taught in any public school. (They cannot teach them how to read and write, but they're all worried about which hypothesis regarding origins they are taught. Good grief).
Here's what's wrong with evolution. (I'm not saying it can't be so, just saying it is not a science, and is a long way from being established.)
All those fossils you call "transitional" are only called that because you are looking at them with the idea that evolution has been established. In themselves, they prove nothing at all. The similarity or difference between fossils establishes nothing but the similarity and differences, but not one thing about why they are similar or different. Unless you have the preconceived view of evolution, they are evidence of nothing except their previous existence.
But, I suppose I'll be accused of being a creationist, even though I'm an atheist.
Hank
"Evolution is a theory."
No, evolution is a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been sceintifically proven, or at least satisfies scientific criteria, which evolution (or any other enquirey about origins, like cosmology) cannot.
Hank
I have to disagree. This can't be reconciled with a couple of basic realities:
1. About a third of liberals describe themselves as creationists.
2. Feminists hate Darwin.
3. There is no shortage of conservatives who find the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory compelling.
So is God, but the god theory just doesn't explain as much as evolution. In fact it really doesn't explain anything at all.
I suppose that's the whole point. If some magical being can do anything anywhere anytime without cause, then that means no explanation is needed.
The god theory has to be the biggest mental cop-op of all times.
I have.
If a theory is something scientifically proven what is theoretical about it? You may be comfusing 'theory' with 'law.'
Talk about an unfunny joke, the idiot doesn't even know the meaning of the word "theory" but he has no hesitancy in attacking it.
A sad unfunny has-been way out of his depth.
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.