Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[gdani]

Apologies to Cal Thomas but I have yet to find any scientific evidence that shows that woman was created from a man's rib, that it was possible to load at least two of all of the land-dwelling creatures on a large boat, that Adam & Eve were the first two humans, that the universe was created in 6 days, etc, etc.

[mlo]

Perhaps he would like us to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy too. They are alternative views also.

[Dimensio]

The author of the article is a moron who ignorantly equates evolution and atheism. Belief that evolution is the best explanation available for origin of the species is not the same as asserting that there exists no Creator of the universe. That premise makes every argument within bunk, though I could certainly point out faults with various other aspects of the article.

[dd5339]

I'd suggest reading William Dempski's book, "Intelligent Design". It lays out a very strong arguement against evolution.

Semper Fi

[Doctor Stochastic]

Once again the Post-Modern-Deconstructionist journalists claim to have a method of getting knowledge that supercedes scientific inquiry.

[moneyrunner]

Actually, I have seen no evidence that modern man evolved from pre-human simians. I have hear this asserted, but I have seen no evidence and have not heard of anyone attempting to replicate this process to prove that this is possible.

[moneyrunner]

” Perhaps he would like us to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy too. They are alternative views also.”

I can hear the physicians who bled people to death to rid them of “bad humors” making the same assertions about the nut who asserted that something called “germs” WHICH WERE INVISIBLE caused diseases.

[moneyrunner]

”The author of the article is a moron…”

I like the way you begin your discussion with your strongest argument. By the way, have you read Ann Coulter’s latest book? It’s called SLANDER and it addresses arguments like yours.

[Dimensio]

Well anyone who asserts that germs are invisible is a nut. Germs are visible, you just need a powerful magnifying lens to detect them.

Of course, you're just throwing that out as a red herring, because comparing the scientific method that brought about germ theory to "scientific creationism" is apples and oranges.

[Dimensio]

I made a statement of fact. The author is arguing against evolution by asserting that 'famous' and 'intelligent' people believed in a Creator of the universe. That is like arguing that the Denver Broncos suck as a football team because BMWs have nice engines.

[jim35]

You find these things difficult to believe, but you're just fine believing that all the complex diversity of life, and the ordered existence of the universe was just some freaky accident? You need not be a Christian to believe in a higher form, or a supreme being. Open your mind. You either believe in creation, or just a big coincidence. Personally, I find the latter to be quite ridiculous.

[jim35]

Perhaps you could stop equating apples and oranges.

[Tired of Taxes]

I have yet to find any scientific evidence that shows that woman was created from a man's rib, that it was possible to load at least two of all of the land-dwelling creatures on a large boat, that Adam & Eve were the first two humans, that the universe was created in 6 days, etc, etc.

And that's the whole point, right there. In science, one can bring forth evidence to dispute a theory, thus creating a new theory. In religion, you "just have to believe." A scientist may still subscribe to religious beliefs, but, without evidence, those beliefs alone don't really dispute any scientific theory, not within the laws of logic, anyway. I have heard that Stephen Jay Gould makes a good argument, but I've never read "The Panda's Thumb" (though it's right here on our bookshelf), so I cannot comment further.

[stanz]

ping

[Dimensio]

It isn't apples and oranges. Alchemy and astrology are pseudosciences, just like "scientific creationism"/"intelligent design theory".

[r9etb]

The author of the article is a moron who ignorantly equates evolution and atheism.

Although Thomas isn't a moron, I agree that he tends to shoot off his mouth, which is why I stopped reading him years ago. (I count Walter Williams as a more recent addition to that class of columnists....)

However, there is indeed a strong philosophical connection between evolution and atheism. Atheists quite often cite evolution as justification for their views -- essentially, they say that evolution does away with the "need" for a God.

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way." One common argument of this type is the old "optical nerve in front of the retina" example. (Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?)

Of course, the real roots of the argument have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with whether or not one wants there to be a God. Atheists obviously do not, and so they grab at evolution to "prove" their point.

On the "theistic" side of the fence, believers in God are uncomfortable with the idea that they can't prove God's existence to the skeptic. (God reveals His existence to us individually.) They instead attempt to argue the atheist's "proof" -- which amounts to a requirement to attack evolution.

This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.

[Eternal_Bear]

God also created fruit bearing plants before he created the Sun and the stars. That's a neat trick considering that the earth's temperature would have been at absolute zero.

[r9etb]

I have heard that Stephen Jay Gould makes a good argument...

I distrust Gould's writings for the simple reason that he often put his politics ahead of his science. For a good example of this, read Mismeasure of Man.

[elephantlips]

Since the events were overseen by God who, if you believe in Him, would naturally have powers infintely beyond man, why should any of us expect to comprehend Him? If we could, we wouldn't need Him for we would be equal to Him. Only arrogant man expects that if he doesn't understand something, it cannot be true.

[Non-Sequitur]

You'll note that one of Cal's 'famous' and intelligent' people died 370 years ago, about 220 year before Darwin published his theory.