Re: POLITICS - Evolution | was marriage symbolic of Christ and the

February 26, 2004

In a message dated 2/25/04 11:31:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

lyn122@... writes:

> >That's because it's false.

>

> -----> yeah...I knew that. I was just curious about where this info

> was coming from this time. We get into the evolution debate here in

> the south every year. I've learned to phrase things in a

> noncontroversial way esp. over this issue.

I suspect her source was deliberate conflating a philisophical materialist

view of evolution with evolution itself, in which case only 55% of " scientists "

support the view. In actuality, 95% of " scientists " believe in evolution, and

only 5% believe in creationism.

But who cares what a computer scientist thinks on the subject, for example?

The relevant scientists who have any basis for judgment are earth and life

scientists, of whom 99.86% believe in evolution, and of whom only 0.14% believe

in creationism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Chris

February 26, 2004

In a message dated 2/26/04 5:19:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, myers_45@...

writes:

> Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--

> 1. The universe was created by God.

> 2. The universe always existed.

> 3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known

> as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

This man is such a liar I find it absolutely revolting. This is either

deliberate, or the man is brain-dead, but in any case he's conflating evolution

with philosophical materialism. The " universe " is not a biological entity, and

is not part of the theory of biological evolution. Neither, for that matter,

is the theory of how the first cell developed. Evolution assumes a cell and

only deals with the proliferation of life thereafter.

This guy uses disgusting rhetorical tricks to try to make religious people

who either lack critical thinking skills, have strong psychological tendencies

that bestow upon them high aptitude for cult-membership, or who have no basic

familiarity with science and no intent to acquire one, believe that evolution,

a scientific theory, and philosophical materialism/atheism, a philosophical

theory, are the same, and that they are collectively opposed to a belief in God.

This isn't just wrong, it's trickery, dishonesty, and it's nauseating.

Chris

February 26, 2004

>But who cares what a computer scientist thinks on the subject, for example?

I do! I think computer scientists are the smartest people in

the world <G>

>The relevant scientists who have any basis for judgment are earth and life

>scientists, of whom 99.86% believe in evolution, and of whom only 0.14% believe

>in creationism.

>

><http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm>http://www.religioustolerance.o\

rg/ev_publi.htm

That is a great site. So 5% of scientists are creationists, but 44% of the

general population? But only in the US? Interesting ...

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British

survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant

ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.

80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Makes you wonder ... are Protestant teachings that different in Britain?

-- Heidi Jean

February 26, 2004

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical

evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that

the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

by Dr. Kent Hovind (dr.dino.com)

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that--

1. A highly ordered universe exists.

2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of

life forms.

3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--

1. The universe was created by God.

2. The universe always existed.

3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as

evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the

observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets

around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)

3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving

matter (chemical evolution).

4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing

themselves.

5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms

of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological

evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are

certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public

school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers' expense. It is my

contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by

science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of

this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks,

museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above,

under " known options " ) is the only possible way the observed phenomena could

have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing

to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time

for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer

review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair

and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence

presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that

you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general

theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of

evolution having happened as it is being taught).

2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different

kind of animal.

3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.

4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe

in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They

should call evolution their " faith " or " religion, " and stop including it in

books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust

the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your

Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming

judgment on man's sin.

* NOTE:

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found

in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general

theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without

God:

1.. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2.. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3.. Matter created life by itself.

4.. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5.. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish

changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to

birds or mammals).

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer

Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We

are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should

not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of

science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word

" evolution " as used in science textbooks.

1.. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang

2.. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3.. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.

4.. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

5.. Macroevolution Origin of major kinds.

6.. Microevolution Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed,

the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is

no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith

of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious

propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer's expense.

Re: POLITICS - Evolution | was marriage symbolic of Christ and

the

>But who cares what a computer scientist thinks on the subject, for example?

I do! I think computer scientists are the smartest people in

the world <G>

>The relevant scientists who have any basis for judgment are earth and life

>scientists, of whom 99.86% believe in evolution, and of whom only 0.14%

believe

>in creationism.

>

><http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm>http://www.religioustolerance.o\

rg/ev_publi.htm

That is a great site. So 5% of scientists are creationists, but 44% of the

general population? But only in the US? Interesting ...

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British

survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant

ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.

80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Makes you wonder ... are Protestant teachings that different in Britain?

-- Heidi Jean

February 26, 2004

" As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we

not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in

confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined

species? " -* Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p.

139

" It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood

(such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found

between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone. " -L. Merson Davies

[british scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

" Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem

of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many

facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today,

every one of his theories is contradicted by facts. " -*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of

Evolution, p. 194.

" In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival

and not one of origin . .

" It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be

checked by observation are not really saying anything-or at least they are not

science. " -* G. Simpson, " The Nonprevalence of Humanoids, " in Science, 143

(1964) p. 770.

" In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that

science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct

or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus

approved. " -*L.H. s, " Introduction, " Origin of Species, Darwin

(1971 edition).

Re: POLITICS - Evolution | was marriage symbolic of Christ and

the

>But who cares what a computer scientist thinks on the subject, for example?

I do! I think computer scientists are the smartest people in

the world <G>

>The relevant scientists who have any basis for judgment are earth and life

>scientists, of whom 99.86% believe in evolution, and of whom only 0.14%

believe

>in creationism.

>

><http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm>http://www.religioustolerance.o\

rg/ev_publi.htm

That is a great site. So 5% of scientists are creationists, but 44% of the

general population? But only in the US? Interesting ...

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British

survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant

ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.

80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Makes you wonder ... are Protestant teachings that different in Britain?

-- Heidi Jean

February 26, 2004

>> The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as

evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed. <<

Let's just start with the fact that this is a complete misrepresentation of what

evolution is, and that furthermore there is no conflict between number one and

number two on this list.

Why go further when the basic premises are already demonstrating they lack even

internal logic?

Christie

February 26, 2004

>> Let's just start with the fact that this is a complete misrepresentation of

what evolution is, and that furthermore there is no conflict between number one

and number two on this list. <<

That should have been number one and number THREE. Sorry.

Christie

February 27, 2004

Ok, here is my was-Christian, am-British *entirely personal* take on what

you have said (Chris).

> Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon.

From a UK perspective, yes, definitely, the whole thing is amazing. The

status of religion(s) in the States is absolutely incredible. It actually

takes a lot of doing for a Brit like myself to get any perspective on it.

We get a few tv programmes on it and it's still hard to fathom (I won't go

into those here). However, he US seems to be exporting creationism and the

more active kinds of christianity . If I remember rightly, two schools in

the north of Britain now teach creationism as a respectable alternative to

biology. This caused some minor disturbances (see below). Even in our

sunday school, or our religious education classes at school, we never learnt

about creationism!!! It was just seen as a myth.

> A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, > Anglican bishops and

Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

>

> 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.

> 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

>

> Makes you wonder ... are Protestant teachings that different in Britain?

Judge for yourself: the connotations for the word " Protestant " here are

more or less: hard-working, devout, follower of conscience, possibly

community-orientated (may not apply to Ireland...). In fact, that's more

or less a synonym for our prototypical " Christian " given that we're mainly a

protestant country.....

Basically, because the Anglican church had a monopoly, being protestant was

the norm and not only did we not think about it, it didn't mean anything.

Repeat: it didn't mean anything (see below). It's only now that Christians

are really beginning to be associated with

evangelising/charismatics/born-againness, or any " strong " approach. I first

met someone who believed in Hell when I was 22 (they told me I would visit

it) when I first came across a non- " normal " church, which was the chapel at

my University. By then, if you still believed by the time you reached

maturity, it had to have really grabbed you, so as now University chapels

were places of strong faith.

I was brought up a protestant, which meant going to Church or sunday school

once a week. The vicar basically got you to think about things, to listen

to your own conscience, to question your actions, and to feel the peace or

the spirit of God. Christianity was seen as **entirely** compatible with

evolution, the bible was seen as a document, rather than the word of god,

and as such, open to debate and interpretation.

I honestly don't think there has been much change here, except that now

there *are* movements and new, evangelical/charismatic churches (plus a lot

of mormons). The Anglican church itself has women priests and openly gay

priests in publicly gay relationships (though of course this is

controversal). A few years ago, there was even a bishop who admitted

didn't believe in the virgin birth. (Does anyone know what happened to

him??) In fact, one might wonder whether many of the anglican clergy were,

in fact, secular christians. This kind of live-and-let-live attitude

certainly made for a peaceful life.

Unfortunately, now the churches are empty. Guess they should have stuck

with the rods of thunder and lists of rules, rather than all that freedom to

think. (On the other hand, it does mean that if you *are* a Christian as a

young adult, you are probably born-again/very devout, and the popular

churches are much more vibrant.)

Please note that this was my perspective as a child of the seventies in a

rural community. Other Brits, feel free to dispute the above. As I'm now

an atheist, I can't comment on how things have changed, but judging from the

CofE christenings I've attended, they haven't much except now they have

electric pianos instead of organs and people are told to clap to songs

rather than sing hymns, both of which are still done in a slightly

embarassed and self-conscious fashion. Send over your gospel revolution.

Helen

February 27, 2004

Unfortunately, Helen, God is not British.

Belief in God is an act of faith, but it is not a blind faith. Evidence,

concrete evidence, proves our present world was created, much more than it has

evolved. Evolution is a blind faith. We can freely use our mind to think,

reason and examine evidence. God is not intimidated. The idea that God started

the process and evolution took over after that is also a fallacy and cannot be

proven.

April.