Evolution: Lying to a Generation

So I usually stick to political issues on this blog, but I ran across an old paper today and thought I’d share it. It is from junior year of high school, so it’s not going to win any writing awards, but I think it’s a valid (though undeveloped) critique of evolution. I have no hesitation in declaring my belief in Intelligent Design, and in the Biblical God, over the god of “science” evolution and atheism has created.

On a side note, I apologize in advance for citing Wikipedia, but this was before it had been completely discredited as a source!
Sooo…. here it is:

On a recent trip to Washington D.C., a friend and I stumbled upon a book of quotations entitled something along the lines of The Stupidest Things Democrats Have Ever Said. I was enjoying the book and its many humorous quotes, until I cam across a particularly intelligent quote that someone must have mistakenly included in this compilation. “All the ills from which America suffers can be traced back to the teaching of evolution. It would be better to destroy every book ever written and save just the first three verses of Genesis.” The quote was from William Jennings Bryan, the famous prosecutor for the legendary Scopes Trial in 1925. The fact that this particular quote was included in this book, and labeled as “stupid” shows exactly the depth at which the creationism vs. evolutionism battle really wages. This battle crosses more than merely political and educational boundaries; it threatens the very foundation upon which this nation was founded. Both are accepted by faith, and cannot be scientifically proven, and neither one can survive as fact until the other one is no longer in the memory of man. It is my opinion that the theory of evolution is a shaky one at best, and can be disproved easily using Biblical knowledge and common sense.

The History of Evolution

            Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 180919 April 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting but undeserved fame by convincing the scientific community of the occurrence of evolution and proposing the theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection.

Darwin developed an interest in natural history while studying medicine, and then theology. Darwin’s five-year voyage on the Beagle, and subsequent writings about his voyage and the varied animal life he encountered on the Galapagos Islands brought him eminence as a geologist, and fame as a popular author. His biological observations led him to study the transmutation of species and to develop his theory of natural selection in 1838 (Wikipedia).

Darwin popularized the theory of evolution when he published The Origin of Species in 1859.   In his book, Darwin proposed that all life forms on earth, including man, evolved, or came into being by a sequence of mutations caused by natural processes.

According to some theories, a “big bang” occurred.  For this to be true, then it must be as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati explained in his book Refuting Evolution, “non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave to rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligence and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, and man’s yearning gave rise to religions” (47).

An incredulous thought at the least, the proposal of a big bang goes against a number of established scientific laws, including the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of matter.  So why is such a completely unbelievable theory acknowledged?  According to Professor D.M.S. Watson, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation is clearly incredible” (qtd. in Sarfati 16).

The Real Deal

“In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  How much more simple than that can you get? It’s all there: God created the earth, God created the plants, God created the moon and the stars, God created the animals, and God created humans. The Bible has repeatedly been found to reveal scientific truths before humans even consider the possibility of their existence, and the Bible has in no way been contradicted by proven science, or recorded history.  The only reasoning that is keeping science from accepting the Bible is their unfaltering evolutionary preconception (Ham 8).

Evolutionary Contradictions

Many scientists believe that the carbon-14 method of dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history (Creation Evidence Museum Staff).  The problem with this however, is that the ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere has not always been constant.  The ratio was higher before the beginning of the industrial era, when the massive amounts of fossil fuels burned, released tons of carbon dioxide that was depleted in the C14 (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland).  Other potential factors, such as the heavily debated presence of a water canopy in Biblical times, might have significantly lowered the quantity of C14 in the pre-flood world, causing fossils from that time period to test older than they truly are (CEM Staff).  The strength of the earth’s magnetic field could also alter the ratio, because it affects the amount of cosmic rays allowed through the earth’s atmosphere.  The more cosmic rays allowed the more C14 in the atmosphere.  In recent years the earth’s magnetic field has greatly weakened, causing more C14 to be the atmosphere now than in the past.  This can cause some fossils to appear older than they truly are (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland).  Even recent times the faultiness of carbon-14 dating methods have been shown, such as when the shells of living snails were dated to show that the snails had died 27,000 years ago (CME Staff).  Scientists have used carbon dating to illustrate fossils to be millions of years old, in order to prove their theory of an old, slowly evolving earth.  But in reality, C14 has a half life of 5,730 years.  According to that data, any organism over about 50,000 years old should have no detectable C14 left, thus disproving the “old, slowly evolving earth” theory, due to the fact that all organisms, living or dead currently on record contain C14 The carbon-14 theory actually supports the Biblical notion of a young earth, rather than the evolutionary viewpoint (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland).

If everything evolutionists say is true, many fossils of birds with fins, mammals with wings and fish with arms and legs, would be found on a regular basis, representing the transitional organisms in-between evolutionary stages. But have never been found, despite evolutionary supporters many attempts to manufacture counterfeit “links” out of ordinary fossils.

One example of such a “link” is the Archaeopteryx, an alleged “feathery reptile” that lived approximately 150 million years ago. But Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disproves that claim stating that, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird” (qtd. in Sarfati 58).

Other than missing “links”, there is still the problem of many species that are still around, despite the fact that according to the theory of natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”, they should have died out as the evolutionary process of man progressed. If evolution was true, wouldn’t it stand to reason, that as new species evolved, the species it from, would die out due to the “survival of the fittest” rule? The newly evolved creature would seize control of the environment, forcing the older creatures into extinction. If this did not take place, then evolution would be meaningless.

Another kink in the tangled chain of evolution is spontaneous generation, or the belief that something can come from nothing. This is yet one more example of the preposterous fallacies evolutionist support. According to the laws of the conservation of matter, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nevertheless, matter exists. But how can that be possible, save the existence of a supreme being, such as God, having brought the said matter into existence? This belief also goes against the laws of thermodynamics, which states that the natural tendency of all things is towards disorder. To put it in a bit more straightforward terminology, it means that everything in the universe is getting worse as time progresses. New matter is not being created, and the matter we have at the present is getting older by the second. This is a direct contradiction to every evolutionary theory, particularly those theories which show evolution as organisms altering themselves through mutations as times progress for the better.

The Educational Battlefield

In a poll of American voters, 55% believe that God created man just as we are now, while only 13% believe that God had nothing to do with our creation (CBS News). Yet for years, people have fought to keep evolution in schools. In his media-evangelism seminar, Dr. Kent Hovind reads an excerpt from a first grade science book that refers to evolution on earth. If we are teaching our children such fallacy at such an early and impressible age, and we then continue to reinforce it throughout their lives as fact, what other alternative do they have but to acknowledge it as such? According to CBS News, the support for evolution is much more highly concentrated among those Americans with the most education. This is  not altogether a surprising piece of information, taking into consideration that evolution is all we teach students in our current school system. It is not difficult to comprehend then, that the more education one receives, the more evolutionary ideas have a chance to reinforced.

Creationism was forced out of the classroom so that it would not impose religion on any person who did not have the inclination to believe that God created the earth and everything in it. Evolution however, is centered on the same basic thought pattern as creation, belief. As Kent Hovind puts it, “You have to believe there is no God.” So if believing there is a God makes you religious, should it not as well be considered religious to not believe in a God? After all, both stances necessitate that you believe something (Ham 21).

If we take that line of thought even further, it is not incredibly difficult to wonder why if creationism cannot be taught in our schools, for fear that it may be offensive to someone who does not believe in God, then how is it that evolutionism can still be taught, regardless of that fact that it directly offends all those who do believe in God. For this predicament to be solved, one of two things must take place.

The first option is that evolution ought to be dropped from every public school curriculum due to the fact that is of a religious and extremely offensive nature. It should be removed from all science books and teachers ought to be reprimanded for even mentioning it in their classrooms, just as they are when it comes to creation.

The second option is that teachers ought to be required to teach students both evolution and creationism together. They ought to present the arguments for each side in a clear manner, give all the evidentiary support for both sides, therefore allowing the students to arrive at their own informed conclusions pertaining to what it is they chose to accept as true about their origins.

Either one of the previous options is preferable to our existing method, which is the teaching of an unproved, inadequate, imperfect, anti-Christian theory, that today’s educators present to our young people as factual information. In fact, the same poll mentioned earlier shows results that state 65% of Americans think that creationism should be taught alongside evolutionism in our public school system, and that 37% of Americans think that creation, and only creation should be taught in schools (CBS).

On the whole, I tend agree with William Jennings Bryan in his belief that the moral foundation of America has been destroyed by the teaching of evolution. If one believes in evolution, then as a consequence, one cannot believe in God. Without God to judge man, there would be no accountability. Without accountability to God, man is free to do whatever it is he wishes whether that be thieving, murder, rape, racial discrimination, genocide, infidelity, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, or drugs (Ham 83-89). Without God, the moral fabric of society will completely unravel. Unfortunately, this unraveling has already begun thanks to teachers planting seeds of ungodliness in the hearts of impressionable first graders who will believe anything you tell them (Hovind).

In the end, if you truly believe in God, then there is only one conclusion you can possibly come to, and that is that evolution has far too many contradictions and imperfections to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, much less to be taught to children and young people as truth, and should be dismissed.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their  wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:15).

Works Cited

Creation Evidence Museum Staff. Carbon Dating. May 11, 2006 <http://www.creation

evidence.org/scientific_evid/carbon/se_carbon.html>.

Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1987

Ham, Sarfati and Wieland. What about Carbon Dating?  May 11, 2006.  <http://www.

answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp>

Hovind, Kent. Creationism vs. Evolutionism. In Windows Media format.

Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution.  Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999

“Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.” Cbsnews.com.  November 22, 2004. CBS News Service. May 11, 2006 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/

polls/main657083.shtml>.

The Holy Bible, KJV.  Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1979.

Wikipedia Staff. Charles Darwin. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin&gt;.

Advertisements

Here Come The Czars

Deanna Candler

Deanna Candler

[Click to enlarge]

Sarah Palin wasn’t kidding when she said she could see Russia from her house. You can too. Just turn on the news and listen to the talking heads chatter about the “czars.”

Historically, the “czar” was the supreme ruler of Russia. The word was derived from the Latin term “Caesar.” The literal translation is “one with great power or authority.”

In American politics the term has come to represent a high ranking presidential appointee who does not always have to face Senate confirmation. Despite this, they still have an important impact on White House policy.

Reagan started this trend with the “Drug Czar,” and since then it has ballooned under Obama to consist somewhere between 24- 34 czars. Everything has a czar, from the “AIDs Czar” to the “WMD Czar.”

Since many of these czars do not have to be confirmed by the Senate, several radical left-wingers have made it onto the government payroll.

Take “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, who is a self-avowed Communist with ties to the Weather Underground, a known domestic terrorism organization. Jones also signed a petition calling for investigations into government involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. After FOX News commentator Glenn Beck brought his past to light, Jones resigned.

“Science Czar” John Holdren coauthored a textbook that suggested compulsory abortion would be permissible under the United States Constitution. Holdren also has lobbied for global taxes on green house gasses, including human emitted carbon dioxide.

And what about “Regulation Czar” Cass Sunstien, who has called for animals to be allowed the right to sue humans? Hunting is a way of life in the South, but not if Sunstien has his way. He has called for an end to all hunting. He also said in a 1993 book that the government should pay for abortions, even though many taxpayers have moral problems with the practice.

Finally, we get to the “Federal Communications Commission Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd. Aside from praising dictator Hugo Chavez, Lloyd supported government run news and regulations and taxes on private companies that would help fund their competition, for “fairness” of course. He has also stated that white radio executives should be forced to step down in favor of minorities, such as “blacks and gays.”

So have the czars gone too far? Are these the people who you want making policies that will govern your news, jobs, textbooks and life in general?

These radical liberals should be ridiculed for their ignorance of the Constitution, not offered powerful government positions with little or no oversight.

The Russians had 18 Czars over 300 years. We’ve had more czars than that in the past nine months, but history repeats itself.

A revolution freed the Russian citizens from tyranny.

I only hope we don’t have to wait 300 years. 2010 sounds good to me.

Science & God

In anticipation of the movie’s release on Friday, I decided to read Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons again the other night. While reading it, I was once again struck with the idea that God is in everything, and it takes a truly blind person to not see HIM in every person, plant, animal, and atom on Earth. A passage from the book makes this abundantly clear, and I wanted to share it:

To the Illuminati, and to those of science, let me say this. You have won the war.

The wheels have been in motion for a long time. Your victory has been inevitable. Never before has it been as obvious as it is at this moment. Science is the new god.
Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation… these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede.
But science’s victory has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply.
Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but is has left us in a world with out wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident. Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God’s world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning… and all it finds is more questions.
The ancient war between science and religion as over. You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. WE see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests — all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.
Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species… moving down a path of destruction.
Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea.
To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be you sign posts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points the fallacy of that reasoning.
And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. But who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? This church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God! You ask what does God look like. I say, where does that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in you science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God’s hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?
Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith… all faiths… are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable… With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. If the outside world could see this church as I do… looking beyond the ritual of these walls… they would see a modern miracle… a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.
Are we obsolete? Are these men dinosaurs? Am I? Does the world really need a voice for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the unborn child? Do we really need souls like these who, though imperfect, spend their lives imploring each of us to read the signposts of morality and not lose our way?
Tonight we are perched on a precipice. None of us can afford to be apathetic. Whether you see this evil as Satan, corruption, or immorality, the dark force is alive and growing every day. Do not ignore it. The force, though mighty, is not invincible. Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss.

Science is Beautiful

So I was sitting in Biology an hour ago, watching a video about cell mitosis and meiosis… and suddenly it hit me: science is beautiful! Furthermore, I truly saw the hand of God in the division of human cells.

For the first time in my life, I realized that science is not my enemy as a Christian. If anything the miracles of science prove there must be a higher being. Honestly, what are the chances of our near-perfect human bodies (perfect other than diseases) forming at random? It is only through hundreds of millions of infinitesimal, complex processes that we have come about- how could that happen without Intelligent Design?

Just thinking about the intricacies of the human body and all its systems gives me chill bumps now. The miraculous movement of my fingers moving across the keyboard fills me with wonder. Never before have I been SO undeniably sure that God exists.

Go look in the mirror, touch your face, look at your eyes, your ears, think about your immune system, digestive system, reproductive system- imagine all of those complex things that we take for granted just magically appearing one day with no outside guidance.. that seems more like a fairytale to me than the idea of a Creator. The world around us is God’s grandest miracle. I see God in the sunset, the stars, and even the rain. Our planet is so beautiful and full of life; life that could only have come from God.