Microbes-to-man evolution is taught with uncritical authority in our public schools. In the name of being secular (which they erroneously suppose precludes bias or favortism), our students are taught an all-natural history of the universe… and are then told not to question it! As I explained to Zack Kopplin, a student who has fought to insulate evolution from critical inquiry in public schools:
“Geocentrism was widely accepted by scientists in Galileo’s day but skepticism and critical analysis caused it to go the way of phlogiston! By attempting to insulate the theory of microbes-to-man evolution from critical inquiry, you’re actually leaving science and even education far behind. When you insist on presenting fish-to-philosopher evolution in schools in an uncritical, rosy, and one-sided manner, you’re engaging in indoctrination, not education. Instead of teaching science, you’re relating dogma.”
Learn more about Question Evolution Day at http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/01/vidoe-question-evolution-day.html
Defending Genesis 
how dare they teach our childern science!
http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/why-evolution-is-not-foundational-to-science/
How rib to woman theory? I’m still waiting on a explanation of how that happened. If you’re learning rib to woman theory you’re actually leaving science and even education far behind.
No, I would be leaving pure naturalism behind. Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, admitted that given a deity, he had no trouble conceiving that the universe and everything in it sprang into existence over six days at the will of that deity. The fact that Eve was formed of Adam’s rib requires no sceintific theory of hypothesis to explain it, so much as an honest admission of the limits of scientific inquiry. Science has chained ityself to pure naturalism and cannot rule out the supernatural any more than it can detect it. All it can do is come up with all-natural answers which may or may nor be true and are certainly false where supernatural agency is involved. If the Bible is true, its supernatural revealtion trumps the all-natural speculations of fallible men.
While you are correct about geocentrism, you are overlooking a simple fact. Scientific theories are based on finding the most accurate and likely possibilitys and building a concept based off of it. The theory of evolution, while not perfect, uses many different confirmed facts to base itself off of. Creationism cannot claim the same. If you disagree, please tell me why, I have no issue with a construcive debate.
Actually, science only considers all-natural possibilities, sir.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that evolution has evidence and creationism has none. We have the same facts, sir – the same rocks, fossils, planets, animals, the same universe. The same facts. Facts are not self-interpretive. Facts must be interpreted and we all interpret facts in a manner consistent with our presuppositions. The evolutionist interprets the facts in a manner consistent with naturalism, uniformitarian geology and evolutionary theory itself, whereas the creationist interprest the selfsame facts in a manner consistent with Biblical revelation.
There seem to be all kinds of facts that Creatonists ignore or sweep under the table, so it seems ingenuous to say that we have the same facts. How many of the 15,000 species of trilobites have Creationists study, and how do they explain their distribution through the geological record, with the various species occurring only in certain strata? How do they explain the formation of the Hawaiian Islands? How do they explain ring-species? How do they explain why men have nipples? How do they explain the fact that the fossils I find around where I live are the kinds that are predicted by the theory of the geological column? Why do I find no dinosaur fossils or humanid fossils?
Nice bout of elephant hurling, sir. What kills me is that every major creationist website has answers to those questions…. Have you researched this at all? Or are you content to disagree strongly with that which you understand so poorly?
“What kills me is that every major creationist website has answers to those questions…. Have you researched this at all? Or are you content to disagree strongly with that which you understand so poorly?”
A specific reference or two would be helpful.
I have searched creationist sites. When I ask these questions, I am told basically what you are saying here: we have lots of evidence, but we won’t tell you what it is, so you will have to find it for yourself. One sometimes gets the impression that they want to keep me ignorant so they can continue to feel superior.
I’m having a hard time taking that response seriously, sir. These questions are among the most basic you can ask. Sounds like you’re not trying very hard. Do you seriously weant me to google this for you?
I’m sorry.
I didn’t realize that asking for a claim to be backed by evidence was considered so insulting in your circles.
You insult our intelligence not by asking for a claim to be backed by evidence but by pretending as if there is not ample evidence for these claims because you have been too INTELLECTUALLY LAZY to honestly investigate the matter by at least a half-hearted stab at googling the answers [which would provide you with more than enough evidence to back the simple things you gape at]
Do your homework before you return, Lindberg.
Is this honest questioning where you actually want to learn what evolution is and clear any misunderstandings you may (and likely) have, all while accepting that you could be mistaken about the whole thing and evolution was right all along despite propaganda against it?
Or is it the kind of questioning where you think “if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” is a good statement and you are just trying to prove evolution wrong without ever admitting it could be right?
You offer a false dilemma, sir.
This is the kind of questioning where we accept the possibility that microbes-to-man evolution may in fact be hubris in light of the fact that a dog is still a dog and recognizeably so, be it a wolf, teacup poodle or an Australian shepherd, in light of the fact that the fossil record shows sudden appearance and stasis, and in light of the fact that pure naturalism must inevitably affirm that nature can do miraculous things: that everything can come from nothing [or unobservable comic book multiverses], information can come without intelligence, life can spring from nonlife and a frog really can become a prince… eventually.
Evolution could only be right if there is no Creator God.
Of course a dog is still a dog. If it were otherwise, you would have proof that the theory of evolution is false!
Evolution’s claim is that a dog was once something else and that it will become something else. The latter is purely speculation and the former is contradicted by present biological observation and a fossil record evidencing only stasis and sudden appearance. We have no evidence that evolution is true, only credulity
Science, properly understood, offers no contradiction to the Christian worldview, properly understood.
Both the creationist and the evolutionist make the statement you’ve made, but only one is correct. If the statement is reformulated to reflect the true state of affairs [eg. “science chained to pure naturalism”], it is apparent that only the creationist may make this statement without being contradictory, for science chained to pure naturalism does in fact contradict the a tarditional Christian worldview that affirms a supernatural Creator.
“Both the creationist and the evolutionist make the statement you’ve made, but only one is correct. If the statement is reformulated to reflect the true state of affairs [eg. “science chained to pure naturalism”], it is apparent that only the creationist may make this statement without being contradictory, for science chained to pure naturalism does in fact contradict the a tarditional Christian worldview that affirms a supernatural Creator.”
Of course. This is what I have been trying to say. What I see as a problem is the habit of using the word “evolutionist” to mean “atheist,” and as a consequence adopting the atheistic precept that evidence of a natural explanation for something is evidence against God. From what I read from a variety of sources, it appears that the majority of those who accept evolution ARE Christians, and a majority of those who reject evolution are NOT Christian (Hindu fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, First Nations people [you probably call them Native Americans] who believe that their ancestors did not come from Asia but were created in the places where they now live, etc., etc. I visited a temple in Japan which, they assured me, was 66 million years old, so they obviously do not accept evolution), so it is misleading to frame this as an evolution versus Christianity issue.
Lindberg, evolution is an atheist theory; it is part of an all-natural [anti-supernatural] history of the universe.
It is misleading to try to say this is not an issue of an all-natural history of the universe versus the only viable, noncontradictiry, nonarbitrary supernatural creation record.
Are you saying that the Pope is an atheist? Or the Archbishop of Canterbury? Or the leaders of all the other major Christian denominations? Or the vast majority of Christian theologians? Or Billy Graham?
They may be wrong in accepting evolution as science, and you may be right, but does that make them all atheists?
Lindberg,
You know full well I’m not accusing these folks of being atheists, though it is a fact that some so-called clergy who affirm evolution are in fact atheists in the pulpit. Many authentic Christians affirm millions of years and/or microbes-to-man evolution, but they do so arbitrarily and inconsistently. For example, they accept the all-natural conclusions of scientists when they say the universe is old and that organisms developed from a single ancestor rather than being created after their kind, but they reject the all-natural conclusions of scientists who deny that men rise froim the dead, that virgins can conceive, etc, because these claims would deny core Christian doctrines.
Try not to put words in my mouth next time.
I’m not sure that I see how it’s inconsistent to listen to scientists with respect to science, but ignore scientists with respect to what is not science.
I listen to my mechanic’s advice when I have trouble with my car, but I pay less attention when it comes to problems with my cholesterol levels.
This seems to me to be a rational thing to do.
Please explain where I am irrational.
Let me ask you two questions:
1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose physically and literally from the dead?
2. Do you believe that scientists would affirm that human beings can rise from the dead after being three days dead?
The doctrines of sin and salvation and our future resurrection depend on an affirmative answer to the first question. If we are consistent in bowing to the greater authority science-chained-to-pure-naturalism, as we do when we affirm millions of years and/or microbes-to-man evolution, we will necessarily deny that Jesus could have rose physically and bodily from the dead, which means according to Romans 10:9 we aren’t saved and according to I Corinthians 15, we are still in our sins and are lying about God. Christianity does not make doctrinal claims in a vacuum. You are committing the fallacy of the fact/value distinction when you suppose you can compartmentalize religion and science where the Bible makes claims about physical reality.
My remarks are ending up below comments other than those they were meant for. Is there any way to make the corrections?
Not to my knowledge. My apologies
You must have gone to a public school far different from any that I have been to, or anyone I know. When I was in high school teachers avoided the issue, since discussing it was not a wise career move. A young high school student told me that it was the same in his school a couple of years ago. Even among those who did get some instruction on evolution in high school, I have never met anyone who said that they were told not to question it. Questioning things is part of science.
Telling lies about it is another thing altogether.
Actually, I was told by a biology teacher that the only reason I questioned veolution was because my parents had taught me to believe otherwise and that my parents were wrong. Wanting to “think for myself,” I ended up parroting his views for most of a decade.
If you’re accusing me of telling lies, consider this: All science chained to pure naturalism can do is to come up with all-natural answers which may or may not be true and are certainly false where supernatural agency was involved. Since the supernatural is not allowed as an answer [a priori], they have no way to determine whether supernatural agency was involved. if in fact God exists and he did anything, as the Bible claims, science chained to naturalism will inevitably end up telling all-natural just-so stories [lies] in place of the true supernatural event.
Of course, science is an attempt to find natural answers to natural questions. It does not, cannot, attempt to deal with the question of the existence or otherwise of God. To pretend that it does is to be sucked in by atheist propaganda that I am surprised someone who calls himself a Christian would be so eager to support.
The rules of baseball are also “chained to pure naturalism” in exactly the same way. Does that mean that baseball denies the existence of God?
Nice non sequitur: Baseball makes no claims concerning history or origins in the unobservable past and therefore offers no contradiction to the Christian [or even the naturalistic] worldview. You’ve no dog in the fight with that analogy.
“Evolution’s claim is that a dog was once something else and that it will become something else.”
Evolution’s thesis is that things change, but they do not become something completely different. The claim is that the dog’s earliest ancestors gradually became eukaryotes, then animals, chordates, mammals, carnivores, canidae, and wolves. They are still eukaryotes, animals, chordates, mammals, carnivores, canidae, and wolves, and we can confidently predict that their descendents will remain eukaryotes, animals, chordates, mammals, carnivores, canidae, and wolves. Species split into two, but they do NOT become something completely different. Absurdities like dogs giving birth to cats or “crocoducks” are anti-science propaganda. If they were discovered, evolution would be immediately disproved.
You’re trying to insult our intelligence. Running that play backwards doesn’t make it go away: evolution claims that invertebrates [something] became vertebrates [something else]; that something that was not a mammal became a mammal, that something that was not canine became canine, etc.
By the way, it was Goldman [an evolutionist] that proposed the hopeful monster theory [the idea that a reptile egg might hatch a bird], and it was proposed in all seriousness, meaning its not just creationist propaganda. As for crocoduck, what would you propose one of Darwin’s promised transitional forms would look like? And are yous eriously trying to say that discovering a transitional form would disprove rather than prove evolution?
That would depend on the transitional form. Just as stepping off a high building and falling any way but down would disprove the theory of gravity, a transitional form that contradicts the theory’s predictions would of course disprove this theory. Ones that do not are the series between fish and tetrapods that includes Tiktaalik, the series between land mammals and whales, a fossil seal with long legs recently found in northern Canada, and all those humanid skulls, where creationists can’t agree among themselves which ones are human and which one are apes. (See the chart here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html)
As for the dinosaur egg – bird business, the name was Schindewolf, it was a mere speculation that no one accepted, and it was more than 60 years ago. That’s one of the ways that science works: speculate and test your speculations – brainstorming as it were. When you do that, you’re going to be wrong much of the time, which is why, unlike creationists, scientists test their ideas, and continue retesting and retesting them. Thousands of palaeontologists are out in the field right now looking for new fossils that will be new tests for the theory. If they find a crocoduck, they will know that they have been wrong.
Strange that anti-evolutionists aren’t out there looking for crocoducks if they want to prove that Darwin was wrong!
An aside: I’m aware of Schindewolf, but I was referring moe to Richard Goldschmidt who first coined the phrase. Soren Lovtrup had a similar theory.
So now you’re admitting that the theory implies transitional forms and common ancestry: that one kind of animal eventually becomes another. I thought you might inadvertantly admit the obvious if I gave you enough leash.
As for crocoduck, this is an argumentum ad absurdum used to show how ridiculous the idea of transitional forms really is. We’ve never seen one. Dods remain dogs, despite amazig variation. They never become anything else. “Transitional fossils” are simply fossils to which imaginative speculation has been applied; creationists have pointed out the inconsistencies and proposed alternative interpretations ad infinitum.
On the other hand, Little Jack Horner hopes to make a dinosaur from a chicken!
Such credulity you evidence toward evolutionary claims!