Creation

Evolutionism

by Karl C. Priest October 18, 1998

While you read this article public school students are involuntarily being indoctrinated with a dogma of a major religion. The belief system of certain special interest groups is being pressed upon unsuspecting students with great fervor. Even more alarming, tax money is being used to promote these sectarian beliefs. I am referring to the evolutionism brainwashing that is forced upon impressionable students.

Evolutionism is beyond the wildest fairy tales ever told. It is imagination mixed with science and the result is shoddy science. Recent news releases have revealed the woefully low science scores of American students. Some evolutionists claim that this serious problem is due to supposed fear science teachers have about teaching evolution. The fact is that we walked on the moon before evolutionism was mandated as the sole origins model to be taught in the public schools. Evolutionism did not take us to the moon--real science did.

Polls show a majority of Americans believe in--I apologize, but I must use the dreaded “C” word--some form of creation. (You may substitute “design” for “creation” if you fear the ACLU thought watchdogs.) That is why the National Academy of Sciences has issued a special guidebook advising public school teachers how to teach evolutionism. Also, the National Association of Biology Teachers has revised its statement about teaching evolutionism in order to mask its obvious atheistic position. These two organizations have become the Little Red Engine of evolutionism constantly huffing, “It must be true. It must be true. It must be true.”

It is actually simple to explain the fears of the aforementioned evolutionism crusading organizations. The theory of evolution is ridiculous. Every morning I drive past the Capitol and admire the state shaped garden at the Greenbrier Street exit. I have watched it develop over the months, but have never seen any humans (or, aliens) working on it. You may as well tell me the wind stacked the stones and blew in the seed that grew the scrub that marks Charleston on the garden map as to expect me to believe that life, which is infinitely more complex than the exit garden, evolved from matter, time, and chance.

Here is a challenge: undertake a detailed study of vision. Just the specificity and interdependence of the neurons involved is beyond the capacity of adjectives to describe. Hearing, blood-clotting, kidney function, and just the operation of a single cell are mind boggling. To expect a rational person to accept the hocus-pocus explanations of evolutionistism is nothing but a boondoggle.

Evolutionism claims mutations caused reptiles to develop feathers. Well, SHA-ZAM!, you’ve got a feathered lizard! How about the necessary coinciding details of turning limbs into wings and rewiring the nervous system for flight? Only “just so” stories provide an explanation.

Evolutionists attack the metaphysical beliefs of anyone opposed to them and overlook their faith in a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas (hydrogen) that, being given enough time, becomes your neighbor, Gus!

Evolutionists slam creation scientists by claiming the creation scientists are not doing “real science”, yet it was not creation scientists who perpetuated the fossil frauds such as Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man was an intentional hoax that was unquestionably used in college science textbooks until the 1950s. Nebraska Man was a single tooth that was used by graphic artists to portray the whole “man” and his “woman”, including their fur. Eventually it was discovered the tooth was actually from an extinct pig!

Speaking of real scientists, I attended a conference recently that had dozens of creationists with legitimate academic credentials. There were graduate degrees from, to mention a few, physics (University of California), astronomy (Indiana University), biochemical taxonomy (Rutgers University), biology (San Francisco State University), atmospheric science (Colorado State University), and paleontology (Harvard University).

Evolutionists are waiting on a signal from space (the SETI program) to indicate intelligent life is out there. The supposition is that this signal will have some kind of logic (probably mathematical) connected to it. Blindly ignored is the tremendous logic and mathematical harmony of our DNA code.

Straw men are conveniently set up by evolutionists so they can knock them over. For example, they charge creationists with wanting to force their particular brand of religion into the public schools. Conveniently overlooked is the obvious: religion is how you worship the creator. Just to acknowledge the evidence points to an architect having designed the building you are sitting in is not the same as endorsing the architect’s firm. By the way evolutionism is a main tenet of atheism. Somehow, the insertion of atheist dogma into the public schools is acceptable.

Misdirection is another common tool of evolutionists. Observable science confirms species really do change and may even go so far as loosing the ability to interbreed. Creationists accept this as and call it “variation within kind”. The speciation of fruit flies only yields altered fruit flies, never falcons. Hold on to your seats; creationists also accept natural selection. They view it as a design feature with limits (no fish to Trish is possible). After all, natural selection was written about by a creationist, Edward Bythe, long before Darwin penned it and Darwin was well aware of Bythe’s studies.

A couple of summers ago the Gazette displayed bold headlines about the Mars meteorite. The insinuation was that another nail had been driven into the creationist coffin. Since then many scientists have disavowed this evolutionism gem. All of a sudden, its “good science” to criticize the Mars rock--although the media has not revealed that news with nearly the degree of original pomp. To do so would require pointing out the ignorance, biases, and prejudices of the evolutionism community.

There are many non-creationists (some are even anti-creation) that are writing books attacking evolutionism. The most recent is The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities by William A. Dembski. Other authors have recently pointed out the pseudoscience of evolutionism. Three other books are Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge of Evolution by Michael Behe, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Dentorn, and Darwin’s Creation Myth: What It Is. How It Has Proved “Unfit”. Why It Survives by Michael J. Oard.

To maintain the integrity of science, evolutionism needs to be subjected to critical examination that points out its deficiencies. Kanawha County Schools is preparing to adopt a new science curriculum. I propose a variation of the following statements be used as a basis for a policy on how to handle the creation-evolutionism issue.

“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one... I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality...for thus only can the load of prejudice by which the subject is overwhelmed be removed. A grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened, on the causes and laws of variation, on correlation, on the effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external conditions and so forth. ...weigh the evidence on both sides.”

This scientist also said, “The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion.” Why cannot the words quoted above be developed into a position statement for science text selection? Perhaps a book by the gentleman can be placed on the approved list. His religious beliefs need not be considered.

Let’s end the censorship of all thought that is opposed to evolutionism. The people of Kanawha County should demand an end to the one-sided inoculation of their kids with evolutionism. Eventually evolutionism will fall from its own folly. In the meantime let the students have the privilege of studying both sides and using their ggcritical thinking skills to decide what they want to believe.

Submitted to the Charleston Gazette. Not published.

Censorship of this article generated a debate with a Charleston, WV Gazette editor.

See another example of Gazette censor hip in CENSORED AGAIN!.