Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
It's back-to-school time. That means school supplies, clothes, packing lunches and the annual battle over what can be taught.
The Cobb County, Ga., School Board voted unanimously Aug. 22 to consider a pluralistic approach to the origin of the human race, rather than the mandated theory of evolution. The board will review a proposal which says the district "believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species."
Immediately, pro-evolution forces jumped from their trees and started behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. Godzilla forbid! (This is the closest one may get to mentioning "God" in such a discussion, lest the ACLU intervene, which it has threatened to do in Cobb County, should the school board commit academic freedom. God may be mentioned if His Name modifies "damn." The First Amendment's free speech clause protects such an utterance, we are told by the ACLU. The same First Amendment, according to their twisted logic, allegedly prohibits speaking well of God.)
What do evolutionists fear? If scientific evidence for creation is academically unsound and outrageously untrue, why not present the evidence and allow students to decide which view makes more sense? At the very least, presenting both sides would allow them to better understand the two views. Pro-evolution forces say (and they are saying it again in Cobb County) that no "reputable scientist" believes in the creation model. That is demonstrably untrue. No less a pro-evolution source than Science Digest noted in 1979 that, "scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities . . . Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin.")
In the last 30 years, there's been a wave of books by scientists who do not hold to a Christian-apologetic view on the origins of humanity but who have examined the underpinnings of evolutionary theory and found them to be increasingly suspect. Those who claim no "reputable scientist" holds to a creation model of the universe must want to strip credentials from such giants as Johann Kepler (1571-1630), the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote, "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
Werner Von Braun (1912-1977), the father of space science, wrote: " . . . the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Who would argue that these and many other scientists were ignorant about science because they believed in God? Contemporary evolutionists who do so are practicing intellectual slander. Anything involving God, or His works, they believe, is to be censored because humankind must only study ideas it comes up with apart from any other influence. Such thinking led to the Holocaust, communism and a host of other evils conjured up by the deceitful and wicked mind of uncontrolled Man.
There are only two models for the origin of humans: evolution and creation. If creation occurred, it did so just once and there will be no "second acts." If evolution occurs, it does so too slowly to be observed. Both theories are accepted on faith by those who believe in them. Neither theory can be tested scientifically because neither model can be observed or repeated.
Why are believers in one model -- evolution -- seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It's because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.
The parallel views should be taught in Cobb County, Ga., and everywhere else, and let the most persuasive evidence win.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.