 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
 Darwin's Theory on Trial
by Nic Samojluk
The teaching of the theory of evolution is constantly evolving. When I was in high school, half a century ago, it was understood by everybody that the concept of evolution was an unproved and unverified theory, an alternative explanation to the creation story taught by the church. As the decades moved on, the teaching of evolution became looked upon as fact, while the Biblical story of creation acquired the category of a myth in the minds of science teachers and an increasing number of students as well.
More recently, though, a reaction has been growing in certain states with people demanding that the story of creation be taught alongside with the theory of evolution. This attempt failed, but conservatives decided to use another approach. In Cobb County, Georgia, for example, public school officials inserted a disclaimer in school textbooks that read as follows:
This textbook contains material about evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
This kind of disclaimer would have been redundant a few decades ago, since the general conensus was that evolution was a theory. Not anymore, and the disclaimer inserted inside the school textbooks have created a political storm with the consequence that a trial is under way to determine if the school has violated the separation between church and state. Evidently, for many scientist oriented individuals, evolution is a sacred cow that they have a religious duty to protect.
To access the "Evolution On Trial" story, click on the link listed below:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/10141875.htm?1c
The Amazing Metamorphosis
of a Mere Theory
by Nic Samojluk
When I was young, everybody seemed to agree that evolution was a theory. The theory evidently must have evolved quite a bit, because now those who believe in evolution are convinced that Darwin's discovery is a well established fact. When the public school officials at Cobb County, Georgia printed warning stickers to go with science books warning that evolution was merely "a theory, not a fact," a group of parents decided to sue the school, and argued that the warning represented a violation of the strict separation between church and state.
The idea is based on the notion that the state's duty is to teach science, devoid of any religious content. My question is: Since when does a warning clarifying that evolution is a theory represent an infringement of the separation between church and state? If evolution through natural selection is the correct answer to the origin and development of life, then why doesn't science conduct an experiment replicating the appearance of life from non-living matter? Do you think that science can do this? They can count with thousands of scientists in the world who are adamant in calling evolution a fact, yet in over a century they haven't been able to demonstrate the validity of their basic claim. Evolution has failed to replicate the origin of life from non-living matter in the laboratory.
Now back to the warning stickers. If scientists provide no way their theory can be falsified, and can't give other scientists any help with replicating the origin of life from non-living matter, then on what basis can they claim that evolution is a fact, and that warning students about this undeniable fact is an infringement of the separation between church and state? Of course, if origin of life cannot be proved scientifically in the laboratory, then students may consider the logical alternative: Life might have been the result of purposeful design, and design requires a designer.
There is more to this: Suppose scientists take up my challenge, and somehow manage to produce life from non-living matter. Would that prove that life was the product of chance aided by natural selection? I don't think so. It would still point to a designer: a human designer in this case. And the scientist that was lucky enough to pull this trick would prove the argument of anti-evolutionists. This means that actually what we need is for scientists to do an experiment whereby life happened to jump de novo from non-living matter, without the intervention of intelligent design.
Next, the writer of the article referenced below, uses the following example to ridicule anti-evolutionists:
| Quote: |
In the mid-eighteenth century, a popularly held religious belief was that lightning was God’s retribution for our sins. Then Benjamin Franklin and his son conducted a simple yet courageous experiment involving flying a kite in a thunderstorm. Their experiment showed that lightning forming in the clouds behaves just like electrical discharges from a Leyden jar in a laboratory. Then Franklin earned a fairly good income from selling lightning rods for Philadelphia houses and selling fire insurance to the homeowners.
Church leaders vigorously condemned lightning rods and Franklin’s electrical theory as blasphemy. But as more people and businesses bought lightning rods (soon churches also had them), religious fundamentalists moved on. Today in America, fundamentalist Christians no longer rail against the lightning rod. They’ve shifted their attention to condemning Charles Darwin’s historic 19th century writings. |
This argument looks very potent at first sight; nevertheless, we can detect its flaw at closer inspection. There is a huge chasm between what the Intelligent Design Movement is trying to prove and what Benjamin Frandlin did. Franklin conducted a verifiable, testable, replicable, and theoretically disprovable experiment. Scientist defending the theory of evolution have falied to do likewise. They have failed to demonstrate that life can spontaneously appear from non-living matter, and they have also failed to demonstrate how complex life forms can evolve from less complex organism. Therefore, I believe that this case is closed until they can show us where the beef is.
Read more: Evolution Vs Creationism
This news item was submitted by WyJoz U2.
Evolution Debate Stirs Up
Ga. Lawmakers
by Nic Samojluk
| Quote: |
ATLANTA - A state lawmaker Thursday introduced legislation designed to prevent the theory of evolution from being taught in Georgia's classrooms.
The bill by Republican Rep. Ben Bridges requires only "scientific fact" be taught in public schools — in his mind ruling out the theory of evolution.
"It's in the book that it's a theory, but these teachers teach it like it's a fact," he said. "Let's teach them the truth or don't teach them anything" ...
|
Evolution is based on the false premise that life in the universe is the result of spontaneous generation, which has never been proved in the laboratory. Do you think that the day will come when scientists will be able to replicate the generation of living organisms from non-living matter? I do not think they will! Nevertheless, if they were able to replicate the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, it would only prove that life is the result of design. The theory of evolution is not fact, but rather science fiction.
Evolution Debate Stirs Up Ga. Lawmakers
Should Creationism be Taught
in Public Schools?
Submitted by an Anonymous SDA Forum Reader
| Quote: |
| The debate raging in Georgia – and beginning to spread its wings across the nation – over whether to teach evolution or creationism or both in the public classroom reminds us that free speech, free inquiry and freedom of religion are finally beginning to fight back against a centrist, fiercely intolerant, protectionist modern educational establishment that is run by a combination of agnostics, atheists, socialists, politically correct cowards (sadly, many of them ‘Christians') and a host of men and women who have been taught what to think rather than how to think ... |
Evolution vs. Creationism
Afraid to Discuss Evolution
by Nic Samojluk
| Quote: |
The fights in scattered school districts over whether to teach creationism or its rival, called intelligent design, as alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution may be obscuring a deeper problem: the tendency of many districts to duck controversy by avoiding or soft-pedaling any teaching of evolution at all. Nobody knows the extent of the problem, but an article by Cornelia Dean in Science Times on Tuesday cites ample evidence that even when evolution is theoretically part of the curriculum, it is often ignored or played down in the classroom.
Some teachers duck the subject, lest they get into trouble with school administrators or fundamentalist parents. Others assign a chapter on evolution for reading but avoid any discussion in the classroom. Still others discuss evolutionary concepts without ever mentioning "the E word" to avoid arousing controversy ...
|
Why should teachers teach a philosophical concept that defies common sense? There is no way that life could have originated by the random fluctuation of atoms from non-living, inert matter, yet evolutionists have tried for over a century to force this crazy notion on students!
Most Americans believe that life is the result or intelligent design. America is suppossed to be a democracy, yet a few liberal judges consistently twart the will of the majority. This has got to stop!
Source of the above-quoted statement: Afraid to Discuss Evolution
Afraid for no Good Reason!
by Wyjoz
Afraid to Discuss Evolution? We should not be:
| Quote: |
| According to the Book of Genesis, God created man in his own image. According to Darwin, the evolution of intelligent life has been a glorious accident..... and; that we live in a participatory universe and that reality is a continual process of creation. |
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=956
Afraid to Teach Evolution?
by Wyjoz
Bush persisted by asserting his own preference: “Children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started.” Then just before he occupied the White House, Bush elaborated, “On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth [emphasis added].
|
Quote:
|
|
Now that Creationists are in the White House, many public school teachers are afraid to discuss the science of evolution in their classrooms.
|
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1002
Evolutionists' Indoctrination
has Failed!
by Nic Samojluk
For over a century, the defenders of the theory of evolution have had a monopoly over the public education curriculum, yet evidence shows that in spite of the persistent indoctrination in this area of education, they have failed miserably to convince the majority of Americans that life is the result of chance and natural selection. Consider the result of the survey described below:
| Quote: |
| ... In a poll conducted after November's elections, CBS News found that 55 percent of Americans believed the standard creationist idea that "God created humans in present form." Only 13 percent believed humans evolved without the help of an all-powerful creator. Of those who voted to re-elect Bush, 67 percent believed in special creation by God--and half of the Bush backers surveyed said they'd support replacing the teaching of evolution with creationism in public-school curriculums ... |
Evolution Revolution
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
by Nic Samojluk
| Quote: |
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it ...
|
I wiould humbly suggest that if and when science can replicate the common descent theory in the laboratory and the spontaneous generation of life, then it would be OK to teach evolution only in our American public schools. If the majority of Americans are taxed for the support of public education, they have a right that their views be reflected in the teaching of origins.
Full story: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
