|
|
Evolution while being conceivable, has not been confirmed and never will be. But most evolutionists are not interested in testing the gradualism of Darwin but rather in protecting their dubious hypothesis (guess). You can imagine the academic chaos if every honest scholar admitted that evolution never took place!
What would it do to every secular college science faculty if scientific creationism were accepted and evolution proved a fraud? They would finally be considered uneducated, unscholarly, and unnecessary. And maybe they would become unemployed! They would fall into the same category as flat-earthers, astrologers, new age gurus, and snake handlers! (That is exactly my attitude toward the soothsayers of science.)
Bigoted judges who have ruled in favor of the myth-tellers would feel the sting of public embarrassment and join the ranks of the unemployed.Scientists would no longer seek to confirm the theory of evolution (now presumed to be a fact before beginning an investigation!) and they could get on with the business of true science. Scientists would no longer see only what is "respectable and acceptable," and would look at the evidence, making judgments based on that evidence even if it contradicts popular theory. They would decide that truth is more important than denigrating, denying and denouncing creationists.
I can see an assortment of prestigious scientists, clergymen, professors, publishers, film makers, media personalities, and others holding a televised news conference where they apologize profusely to the youth of the world for teaching fraud, falsehood, fakery, and foolishness while calling it "science." Now, a word of advice: Don't hold your breath for that news conference to take place. It won't, because many evolutionists are vain, venal and venomous people. They are especially venomous when dealing with or discussing creationists.
Evolutionists, not being very bright and living in a permanent fog, have not understood that creationism has not been disproved, only disbelieved. Evidently they can't make that distinction. Many of them think that making a statement makes it a fact, and by denouncing creationism, they discredit it! Of course, they only discredit themselves in the eyes of informed, honest people.
Evolutionists have been discrediting themselves for many years, but especially in recent years. And it often takes place in formal public debates with creationists.
We should always try and be careful to stick to scientific arguments, especially using the fossil record to show that macro-evolution has not occurred in the past. The evolutionists, however, more often than not, do not stick to scientific arguments. They will attack the Bible, show that creationists have religious motivations, argue that one can be religious and still believe in evolution, contend that creationism is not scientific, or attack our personal character or credentials.
"But one thing they will not do is give any real scientific evidence for macro-evolution. This is because there isn't any real evidence for macro-evolution! This is why creationists almost always win the debates. We win, not because we are better debaters, but because creation is true, evolution is false, and real science confirms this."
Evolutionists have learned that creationists are not simply "bible thumpers." They expected creationists to quote a few Bible verses then sit down, but evolutionists have discovered that it doesn't work that way. The creationist deals with geology, biology, paleontology, and other branches of science – and they ask questions that evolutionists cannot answer. The creationists also provide a model that proves to be far more acceptable to thinking people than the claptrap of evolution. Dr. Henry Morris, a Christian creationist, was scheduled to debate a professor at the University of Houston, but a university official canceled the debate at the last minute because he did not want scientific creationism discussed on his campus! Now, wait a minute! I thought a university was a place for various ideas to be disseminated, debated and discussed by inquiring minds. Surely it is not a place for propaganda ... or is it? Could it be that only what is politically correct is permitted at the University of Houston? At the National Academy of Sciences all but one person agreed that debating with creationists should be avoided! Well, wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be the truth? If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists claim, they should be eager to engage creationists in scientific debate. Maybe, just maybe, the evolutionists are not so sure of the correctness of their cause and are embarrassed to face creationists in formal debates. Maybe that is one reason many evolutionists get mean-spirited when they discuss creationism. They don't have the answers, so they attack.
Evolutionists show their mean-spirited nature when they debate creationists, usually at a state university. One of the best known evolutionists, Niles Eldredge, refers to these debates in his book, 'Monkey Business':
"Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the already converted and the faithful."
He continued:
"And scientists, until recently, have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology. Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence." (Emphasis added.)
Well, that is some admission from a leading evolutionist! But note that he tried to remove some of the sting by charging creationists with loading the audience with our own people. That is simply not true. In fact, the opposite is true. I know of no debate where the audience has been loaded with creationists. I have debated university professors on affirmative action, homosexuality, sexual permissiveness, etc., and have never had more than three or four people in large audiences who agreed with my position (to my knowledge).
We creationists do not "load" the audience (not that I'm above such a thing). It's only that it is very difficult or impossible to do in a secular university. No, Eldredge was wrong. They lose the debates because they have taken the wrong side of the argument!
The unfair, unreasonable, unacceptable, unblushing, unbecoming, uncivil, unconscionable and ungentlemanly tactics of evolutionists are obvious to all who have seen them in debates or read their books and articles. (Leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould calls creationists, "kooky," "yahoos" and "latter-day antediluvians" and he characterizes scientific creationism as "the nonsense term of the century.") However, Steve refuses to make those charges in public debate where informed creationists can make him look like a "yahoo." He recently declared, "Creationist-bashing is a noble and necessary pursuit these days." Steve seems to hate creationists because he obviously hates our God.
Isaac Asimov showed his hatred and bigotry (hatred and bigotry on the left?) when he wrote that creationists "...are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way."
Richard Dawkins calls us feeble-minded, pathetic and intellectual cavemen in his book, 'The Blind Watchmaker'. He also wrote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Then in a November 1983 article, published in the 'Times Literary Supplement', Dawkins calls us a "gang of ignorant crackpots." See what I mean when I say that many evolutionists are as mean as a junk-yard dog? Like Gould, Asimov, Dawkins, et al., H. L. Mencken was a writer with bile problems and a hatred toward creationists. He used the 'Scopes Trial' as a showcase for his vindictive, vicious and vitriolic journalism. He gave "thanksgiving" that creationist William Jennings Bryan had not been elected President of the United States, although he was not thrilled with Coolidge. After ridiculing Coolidge, he referred to the 'Scopes Trial' and ridiculed Bryan and Christians everywhere. He suggested that we believe the Earth is square (we don't, but some of us believe his head was), witches should be put to death and Jonah swallowed the whale! Mencken was a hater of God and of creationists and he was a better word-smith than he was a thinker!
Evolutionists hate creationists and anyone who believes that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. They are as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when we talk of personal accountability to a Sovereign God. They are bigots and haters with a few exceptions. Please remember that they are the ones who believe incredibly silly things without any scientific data to support their philosophy and religion. They are often arrogant, asinine and audacious.
Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel summed it up very well:
"Meanwhile, their unproven [evolutionists] theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a fanatic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
Now, with the above evidence proving that evolutionists are not the loving, kind, gracious, thoughtful, and amiable people they profess to be, I am said to be "too militant" in my approach to this issue. We are in a war, and evolutionists are the enemy. They are after another generation of children, and your tax dollars are funding their nonsense and their non-science.
Evolutionists are mean-spirited because they hate us and our Savior. Let the battle continue without quarter.
You don't think evolutionists are mean? Talk to professors in various universities who have "come out of the closet" opposing Darwin's gradualism and have been scorned, ridiculed, and even fired for exercising their academic freedom. Talk to those who have been refused a Ph.D. because they rejected evolution. Those same university officials speak of pluralism, fairness, and diversity; and it's a wonder they don't gag on their words.
Dr. John Patterson of Iowa State University delivered a speech before the Iowa Academy of Sciences in which he suggested that creationists should lose their faculty contracts and even their degrees! What a bigot, but then bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.
Is it any wonder that some scientists are fearful of questioning Darwin when bigots such as Patterson are in positions of power?
Another example is found in 'Nature', written by A. T. J. Hayward:
"There are more anti-Darwinists in British universities than you seem to realize. Among them is a friend of mine who holds a chair in a department of pure science....If his friends ask why he keeps quiet about his unorthodox views, he replies in words like those used recently in another connection by Professor Ian Roxburgh: '...There is a powerful establishment and a belief system. There are power seekers and career men, and if someone challenges the establishment he should not expect a sympathetic hearing.'...The majority of biologists accept the prevailing view uncritically-just as a great many competent Russian biologists were once brainwashed into accepting Lysenko's quackery. Others have thought for themselves and came to realize the flaws in contemporary Darwinism. But for them to speak out would be to invite ridicule and would probably ruin their careers."
There is an example of prejudice so strong that truth and scholarship are the victims, but none dare call it censorship.
Dr. Henry Morris knew of the mistreatment of creationists at Virginia Tech:
"I have known students who have failed courses, and some who have been denied admission to graduate school or have been hindered from obtaining their degrees, largely for this very reason. When I was on the faculty of Virginia Tech, a professor who was on the graduate faculty there in the Biology Department told me that he would never approve a Ph.D. degree for any student known to be a creationist in his department, even if that student made straight A's in all his courses, turned in an outstanding research dissertation for his Ph.D., and was thoroughly familiar with all the evidence for evolution."
A good example of the above took place at the University of Arizona where Clifford Burdick, a creationist, was doing doctoral research, and some of his discoveries conflicted with the religion of evolution. When his work came to the attention of the Powers-That-Be at the university, he was refused his doctor's degree. Wonder what happened to academic freedom? Forget it if you are a creationist. The unwritten university law is, you can research how evolution happened but not whether it happened!
Do you wonder why evolutionists are so bitter, mean and cruel toward creationists? They hate our God. They know we are a challenge to their fairy tale (and their jobs), and they know creationism has better answers to the questions of where life came from and how it got here, than does evolution. They prefer to ignore us rather than to look at the evidence because they are afraid of what they might see. Their minds are as closed as a miser's wallet.
One honest evolutionist, Dr. W. Scot Morrow, alluded to this attitude when he wrote the foreword for Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert Gentry:
"If I were to follow the unwritten, but commonly understood guidelines laid down by my fellow evolutionists, many of whom are agnostics like myself, when presented with a book written by a fundamentalist Christian on the topic of 'creation,' I would ignore the work. Of course, I might kick over the traces a bit, skim through the thing quickly-one MUST be fair, you know-and then give the document a decent quiet burial in the nearest wastebasket. After all, those among us who have brains in our head instead of rocks...know that (1) science and religion are immiscible, (2) true scientists cannot be creationists, (3) creationists cannot be scientific, let alone scientists, (4) the last factor is doubled and redoubled-in spades-for fundamentalists."
Morrow takes a deft swat at his bigoted colleagues with a not-too-subtle use of sarcasm. He is telling us what most evolutionists would do with a book written by a creationist. They would not treat it seriously or fairly or honestly. It sounds as if he is saying that they are biased, bogus and bigoted. But surely not.
Gentry built a case for a younger Earth (than demanded by evolutionists) in Creation's Tiny Mystery which resulted in the loss of his research grants and his job thanks to the bigots and champions of academic freedom!
Evolutionists are mean because they, like everyone are born in sin and need a Savior. They put their positions before principle, and attack anyone who challenges their philosophy-religion of evolution. But then we know that they attack us rather than answer us because they don't have the answers. No wonder they are mean-spirited.
Copyright, 2000, Don Boys, Ph.D (Permission is granted for this article to be used by anyone, anywhere as long as no changes are made, including this tag. We suggest that pastors and others duplicate it and give to members, publish in newspapers, use on radio and television broadcasts, web sites, etc. (Maybe USA Today and ABC News should receive a few thousand copies of this article. Send to your local evolutionist, etc.)
Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 11 books, frequent quest on radio and television talk shows such as the Sally Jessy Raphael Show (2); the Jerry Springer Show (3); Crossfire; NBC Nightly News; CBS Morning News; etc. He and his wife Ellen live in Ringgold, GA and travel the nation, Australia and Europe doing family conferences, creation conferences, revival meetings, etc. His address is P.O. Box 944, Ringgold, GA 30736
|
