UPDATED: 3/5/07 – Atheist reader writes… Scroll for updates.
This nonsense about creationism being a religion and therefore not possible to be taught along side, if not in lieu of, is an easy out for evolutionists . Here’s the reverse analogy: schools can’t teach evolution because it’s not science.
Science requires evidence: Something evolutionists have never had.
Dennis Peacocke exposes the hypocrisy of evolution:
The fact is, virtually every science book and every Ph.D. calls evolution a “theory.” However, those who say and teach this also, with scant exceptions, demand that it be taught and believed in as an absolute fact. This absurd hypocrisy or “contradiction” takes place through highly educated and intelligent people, so why can’t they see it? I’ll tell you why: When spiritual rebellion is present and active, its “victims” lose at least fifty IQ points. “Deception” is another word for blindness. Unfortunately, I have never heard the evolution theorists held accountable for the hypocrisy of presenting this theory as fact.
They quietly and confidently respond, “Intelligent design is religion, not science.” There goes the loss of fifty IQ points once again. “Science” demands conclusive evidence. They are missing two “scientific” absolutes here.
Number One: the missing link that bridges species. Evolutionists even call it the “missing link.” You guys have been searching now for more than 150 years. Where is it? Because you can’t find it, you, by your own standards, are therefore forced to call evolution a “theory” because it is not absolutely conclusive. Deal with it! We all believe in adaptation within species, but where is your “bridge” between them? It simply isn’t there.
Number Two: Without proof of this supposed missing link, your “evolution” is a faith, just like the faith of Judeo-Christianity. It is “provable” to you in the same way our intelligent design is provable to us. And we have as many ugly scientific questions for your evolutionary theories and “facts” as you have of us. To say our position is not “science” is worse than arrogant. It’s unintelligent and dictatorial.
So let’s compete and not be afraid of one another’s arguments. We’re certainly not afraid of yours.
Refusing to play by your own rules doesn’t help you either.
Meanwhile, creationists are gaining ground in the proof department.
“If God spoke everything into existence as the Genesis record proposes, then we should be able to scientifically prove that the construction of everything in the universe begins with a) the Holy Spirit (magnetic field); b) Light (an electric field); and c) that Light can be created by a sonic influence or sound,” Samuel J. Hunt writes on his website.
“There are several documented and currently taught laboratory experiments that accurately portray the events in Genesis in sequential order, the most important being that of sonoluminescence,” he wrote.
“Either you experience a universe of chaos or a universe of order and processes that produce immediate and calculable results,” he wrote. “The results of my research support and prove that everything that exists was spoken into existence from waves to matter to mind.”
A rough draft version of Hunt’s work is here.
But the list of “gaps in the theory” of evolution continues to grow and remain unconnected. As Ann Coulter points out, these top seven are still being taught and/or are recognized as fact by evolutionists:
Gap 1: The entire fossil record. It shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we should see, but don’t.
Gap 2: The Cambrian explosion. All the animal phyla appears suddenly with no ancestors.
Gap 3: The Galapagos finch population. It hasn’t changed at all since Darwin first observed them more than 170 years ago.
Gap 4: The peppered moth experiment. It was staged (NYT Aug 25, 2002).
Gap 5: Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings. They were doctored (Anatomy & Embryology Aug 1997) and Stephen Jay Gould (Natural History Mar 2000).
Gap 6: The Miller-Urey experiment of 1953. It was based on premises that are no longer accepted about the atmosphere.
Gap 7: The evolution of the eye. There are no computer simulation that prove the eye evolved.
Evolutionists keep attempting to fill in the gaps by saying, “Assume a miracle,” and intelligent design scientists are responding, “Hey, it’s the same miracle.”
Another Ann Coulter quote that sums up evolutionists’ hyprcitical argument:
To say intelligent design scientists are merely “filling in the gaps” with God is like saying Sir Isaac Newton “filled in the gaps” with the theory of gravity. He saw stuff dropping to the ground and tried to explain it. If only the Darwiniacs had been around, they could have told Newton, I don’t see anything dropping! It’s just an accident! Do you believe in God or something?
The most fanatical proponents of evolution are not palentologists, biologists, scientists, or college professors. They are cretinous high school biology teachers and liberal loud-mouth’s who haven’t been updated on current evolution opinions by the aforementioned because why would they risk their cushy, tenured jobs and subject themselves to the gauntlet of “peer-reviewed” publishing when they can remain hush about it?
Stephen Jay Gould was the only evolutionist who ever tried to answer questions about evolution. And he found himself constantly conceding key points. And full circle we come, as we arrive back at the “fundamentalist” argument that evolutionists make today. “Creationism is a religion, not science” is all that’s left in the argument ammo box. And, as we now see, that’s running extremely low.
UPDATED: 3/5/07 – Finally, a reader emails that tackles the issue of creationism being taught in school, albeit signed, an anonymous atheist:
If you want to think that the world is made in 7 days because your religion tells you so then go ahead and believe it. Dont try to push your religion to the children of this free country. Free from being forced to hear your religious tripe. Science is a total of experiments and doctors ideas as to identify the world around us. The planet is millions of years old and has taken a lot of time to get where it is. It
will take time to understand it. We arent looking for a quick answer why its here. A quick cheap answer. We’ll leave those for your kind of haters. Its not that the evidence is not there to fill the gaps its that we havent found it yet.
This is what I am trying to get at, that no one can refute. But you gotta love the anonymous emailer – too chicken to have a blog, too chicken to sign my own name, too chicken sign someone else’s name.
For argument’s sake, let’s assume for a moment we have two worldviews, each beginning with it’s own presuppositions about life on earth. One side, we’ll call evolutionists, believe life forms evolved to what we have today. The other side, creationists, believe life was created by God. Short definitions, but you get point. Oh, and there is no middle ground. You take a side, whether or not you realize it.
Both sides study the same fossils, materials, books, etc. But since each side begins at different points, it’s pretty obvious that the outcome will be different too. The common denominator is that neither side can prove to the other they are right without first changing the presuppositions. The result is that both views require a “faith” or “miracle” in order to make up for the missing parts.
Evolutionists say, “We’re still looking, just wait, we’ll find it.”
Creationists say, “We started with it, now let’s study what happened.”
Since both sides require an element of “faith,” though not in the same area, it’s completely reasonable to label evolution a religion if creation is to be assigned such a label. The alternative would be to see both as different scientific points of view and permit both to be taught in schools. That is, unless the “disciples of evolution” lack the confidence to pit an opposing view against their own.
Looking at the humanist control of the school system and even the comment section on this post, that theory could be said to be proven.
So, Mr/Ms Atheist emailer/commenter, you don’t want my religion forced on your offspring? Neither do I. So cowboy up, that is if you have a horse to climb on and not some mutation that “evolved” from the horse after he fell into the ocean.
I do find it amusing that evolutionists like this chimp use a post to attack me and be so completely off base with it. As in the past, he’ll probably post a follow-up piece saying I made a futile attempt to respond and didn’t answer any of his points. Well, jeepers Wally, maybe if you’d answer some of mine, since you did feel the need to respond first, we might could get somewhere. Instead, so far, we’ve just got a bunch of chicken bloggers and emailers that want to scream, “Fool!” “Idiot!” “Nutcase!” at any opposition to evolution.