Doubting Darwin: panic in the suites of evolution

The sky is falling! Many interest groups and journalists raced to tell that to the public when a modest but important bill became law in Tennessee early in April. The law instructs teachers and administrators to "create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."

What's not to like? The law, similar to one in Louisiana, also protects teachers who help students (I'm quoting from the official legislative summary) "understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. ..." Oh, here's the problem: Evolution is one of the theories that can now be analyzed and critiqued.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, and many others have gone ape over the inclusion of evolution. They revere critical thinking and the freedom to explore, but not when it might produce irreverence toward their idol.

Those groups and many journalists brought up Tennessee's 1925 law that made illegal the teaching of evolution in public schools and led to the Scopes "monkey trial." They did not note that most public schools in the four score and seven years since then have gone to the other extreme by forbidding the teaching of anything but evolution. In states from Virginia to Washington true believers in evolution have harassed and driven away teachers who dared to teach both sides of the Darwin debate.

If macro-evolution were proven, the true believers would have a case, but more than 800 Ph.D.-bearing scientists have signed a statement expressing skepticism about contemporary evolutionary theory's claims that random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity of life. These scientists say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The 1925 law tried to close off debate, but the think tank that has proposed laws like Tennessee's new one, the Discovery Institute, is working to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It wants evolution, including its unresolved issues, to be fully presented to students: "Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned."

That gets to the heart of the hysteria. The New York Times editorialized in 1925 for "faith, even of a grain of mustard seed, in the evolution of life." The Times said evolution gives us hope for progress: "If man has evolved, it is inconceivable that the process should stop and leave him in his present imperfect state. Specific creation has no such promise for man."

Specific creation, of course, has the ultimate promise: God cares. Sadly, many look desperately for hope elsewhere, anywhere. Last month the New York Times editorial page editor, consistent with his predecessors, criticized critics of evolution who have "learned to manufacture doubt." The Times, of course, daily manufactures doubt regarding God, but thunders, "Thou shalt not doubt" evolution. If other states follow Tennessee's example, we'll have a robust debate instead of more attempts to suppress it.

The Paluxy River evidence [and many others worldwide] are only controversial b/c the evo defenders spew tons of garbage [like the msm] in trying to discredit anything in the way of their agenda. In their heart of hearts they love their ‘science’ and their fantasy land more than right living as God describes in the Bible. In Job 41 God describe to Job various ‘where were you when I created’ scenarios. Mere mortal men would always be rendered speechless in review of these 1 literal week accomplishments.

In light of how much science has uncovered [both micro and macro] the astounding complexities and details of life, the Earth and the Universe could only have been created by an intelligence far surpassing anything mere mortal men could ever dream of attaining. Yet they all too often love their free-willing sinful pride too much to ever fall to their knees in awe of his marvelous and wondrous attributes.

Storytelling 101: How to continue the hoax of evolution in the modern world, where even Darwin himself, would have to conclude in reviewing the weight of scientific and mathematical evidence against evolution how totally unsupportable it is. It’s been said by mathematicians there is simply not enough time, even in trillions of years, for the odds required for evolution to ever happen by chance.

Schaef21 wrote ‘A PhD scientist named Philip Skell once said: “A theory that is so flexible that it explains everything, in reality, explains nothing at all.”

The theory of evolution fits that description.

Come to think of it, how does evolution explain...’

Simple ~ IT DOESN’T!!!

Its Defenders and pretenders always choose any of the following:

a.) Tell made-up stories that sound scientific,
b.) Discredit and smear their opponents with ridicule and name-calling, &
c.) Ignore the most compelling evidence as if it does not even exist.

So in conclusion NotarySojac if you were to be completely honest it appears if the evidence you are describing were ever found then you’d again be compelled to choose one of the 3 above. Most likely you’d ignore it, as this category contains the highest percentage of items that completely stand evolution on it’s head ~ In other words DEVOLUTION in accordance with the irrefutable thermodynamic laws at work throughout the Earth and Universe.

Here is some of what Dr. Werner found..... this is word for word from an email he sent me this morning:

Actually it was not a rabbit (Sorry about that, Notary... it’s been a while since I watched the DVD) but a parrot, a duck, a loon, a boa constrictor, a possum, a flamingo, a squirrel like tooth, a hedgehog like animal, an iguana like lizard, a monitor lizard, a primate tooth.

He then gives these links:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=winged-victory
http://creationrevolution.com/2011/04/new-evidence-shows-duck-like-birds-lived-at-same-time-as-dinosaurs/
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/dinosaurpark.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eTNoTHewY&feature=plcp

He then says this:

“Have him download the second edition of my ebook Living Fossils and it gives the specific references to each of these animals from Nature, interviews, the textbook evolution.”

I’ve encouraged you to get the DVD.... Here’s where you can download the ebook:

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Fossils-Edition-Evolution-ebook/dp/B007WFZQ82#_

This is from an article called “The So-Called Age of Dinosaurs” by Calvin Smith in Creation Magazine Vol. 33 No. 3:

Interviewed in Creation Magazine, Dr. Carl Werner pointed out that already over 432 Mammal Species have been identified in “dinosaur rock” including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton.

This is also in there:

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about
20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s
not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

Here’s the reference for that quote:

Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner,13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—
Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173.

This information is readily available but unpopular with secular scientists who would rather ignore it than deal with it.

The list given by BrandtMichaels in post#121 is accurate in regard to how they react to evidence like this:

a.) Tell made-up stories that sound scientific,
b.) Discredit and smear their opponents with ridicule and name-calling, &
c.) Ignore the most compelling evidence as if it does not even exist.

You have to be willing set aside your ego and your worldview and be honest with yourself. That’s what I did about 8 years ago.... it wasn’t easy because I had a really big ego.

Having said all that.... I’d love to have you answer my questions in post #117.

Blessings to you Notary.... I hope you’ll pursue this further.

Quote out of context if that is a reference to holy scriptures ~ see ANSWERS.com

“Nowhere in any Book or Verse does the Bible refer to Pi.
You are probably thinking of 1 Kings 7:23 which some people believe references Pi. But, it does not mention Pi.

What it says Solomon’s circular sea was 10 cubits wide and “it took a line of 30 cubits to go around it.” People now use that to claim that, “The Bible says that Pi=3.” But even most skeptics find that rather silly, as the claim assumes that Biblical writers measured a *perfect* circle with modern accuracy, and no rounding. This claim also assumes that Biblical writers were familiar with the concept of Pi, but they were not familiar with this. Pi as a mathematical concept comes hundreds of years after the Bible was written.

1 Kings 7:23 NIV

He [Solomon] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim [diameter = 10] and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. [circumference = 30]

Circumference = PI x diameter. But some argue that the Bible “seemingly” tells us that PI = 3.

Debunkers of the Bible then say, “this is obviously false or a mistake and therefore the Bible cannot be from God.” This reasoning is faulty because Pi was not a known concept that that time.

However, Bible scholars maintain that the Bible was inspired by God, written by men. God’s intent was not to provide a scientific or mathematical text, but to reveal spiritual truths. There are numerous other scientific, mathematical, medical, astronomical, and other important areas of knowledge that were never addressed in the Bible.”

better yet

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

****Here’s a question for you to think about. Could God create a circle whose circumference is exactly 3.0000 times its diameter? What would that circle look like? And if he could not, why not??****

The answer to this will be rather lengthy, Notary. I’m sorry for that but you’re the one who opened this can of worms.

I appreciate this opportunity to defend the Bible. What you are really doing with this question is playing “Bible Gotcha”, hoping that I’m not aware of what is said in 1Kings 7:23 and its parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 4:2. That way I’ll come up with an answer and you can hang it around my neck with a hearty “haha”. I’m sorry to disappoint you, Notary. What I’m going to do is explain this passage to you.

This is one of the most commonly used by non-believers along with this one: “The Creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not the same, which one is correct.” (Incidentally, I’ll gladly help you with that one as well.... just let me know)

It really helps if you actually study the Bible and go back to the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament).

The 1Kings passage says: “Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.”

Before I dig into this one let me just ask you this, Notary. If you put a kiddie pool in your back yard and your neighbor asked you how big it was, would you say “it is 10 ft. across and 30 ft. around” or would you say “it is 10 ft. across and 31 ft. 4.159265358979 inches around”?

I’ll play your game anyway. If you read a little further, 1 Kings 7:26 says “it was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.”

A cubit is a very imprecise measurement.... the length of the forearm between the elbow and the end of the middle finger. A handbreadth is also imprecise, the distance between the thumb and the pinky. For engineering purposes, the cubit and the handbreadth description would be inappropriate but for giving someone a general idea, they would do the job.

However, if you would like to pretend that they are intended to be exact, perhaps you’ll agree that the discrepancy could be found in the “handbreadth” thickness.

The Bible is filled with idioms, similes, metaphors, hyperbole and all the rhetorical devices that we use today. Those of us who believe in the inerrancy of scripture and study the Bible will go back to the original language to find out the writer’s intent. Just as we have many words in English that can be used to describe something (just visit your nearest thesaurus) they did too. One of the keys when looking at a difficult passage is to look at the word that was used and also the words that were not.

A lot of Bible scoffers like to say that it is a “flat earth” book. They repeat this because others have said it and they never bother to investigate what it really says. The Bible does use the phrases “the ends of the earth” and “the four corners of the earth”. As you know, these are metaphors and they are commonly used even today. Those scoffers choose to ignore Isaiah 40:22 which says: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers” This passage is clearly describing the shape of the earth and is not metaphorical. Incidentally, Isaiah was written about 700 BC. Anaximander was the first (after Isaiah) to posit a round earth. He did it in the 3rd century BC.... some 400 years later.

I want to make a couple of points to you about math (since you brought it up), science and scripture.

Amos 9:6 -
The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens
And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The Lord is His name.

This passage (along with others that can be found in Psalms, Job & Jeremiah) describes the Hydrologic Cycle. The book of Amos was written about 700 BC. The Hydrologic Cycle was discovered by science in the 17th Century... if you’re counting, that’s about 2400 years later.

Psalm 102:25-26 -
25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.

This passage says that the heavens and the earth will wear out like a garment, a perfect description of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Psalms was written about 1000 BC, the 2nd Law was discovered in the 19th Century by Rudolf Clausius. That’s about 2900 years later.

Believe me when I tell you that I can give you many more examples just like these.

Leonardo Da Vinci said: “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests”.... so I’ve got one for you.

Hemoglobin is a protein that carries oxygen through our blood cells to our tissue. Suffice it to say that without hemoglobin we would assume room temperature.

There are 20 Amino Acids used in the building of life. For hemoglobin (or any other protein) to function properly they must be sequenced properly.

High School math has taught us that the probability of getting the first one right by random (and thus evolutionary) processes is 1 in 20. The probability of the second one is also 1 in 20, making the probability of getting the first two 1 chance in 400. There are 287 Amino Acids used in building hemoglobin. When you multiply that out the odds of getting hemoglobin are 1 in 2.5 X 10^373. While I’m not a mathematician, I understand that number has 373 zeros in it.

Hemoglobin in but one protein. There is some disagreement about the number of proteins in the human body but on the low end it is 10,000.... what you saw there with hemoglobin has to happen at least 10,000 more times. I don’t care if the Universe is a trillion years old, it is not enough time.

One last thing I want you to think about as you chase the sexual reproduction stuff I asked in an earlier post. Please be honest with yourself.

An unfertilized egg is rejected by the mother and will not implant. A fertilized egg will. The difference in the two obviously comes from outside the mother’s reproductive system. It is the baby that signals the mother “It’s ok to implant this one”. Please contemplate that from an evolutionary perspective and the sheer enormity of the odds against that.

There is a Creator, Notary. If you’d like to know Him, I can help you with that.

Blessings, Notary.

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.