Wednesday, February 02, 2005

The Flyover People Are At It Again

Ecclesiastes 12:1-5 (King James Version)

Ecclesiastes 12
“1Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
5Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets”


In the “Metropolitan” section of today’s Kansas City Star the feature piece was all about the creation/evolution debate that’s been raging here in Kansas for years now. The parties supporting each side of the debate met last night to discuss “revisions to the Kansas science standards.”

While it appears that the two parties may be finding some common ground, appearances can be deceiving.

Donna Gillett of Leavenworth, speaking to the proponents of Darwinism, put the creation science point of view this way:

“Students deserve to learn the whole truth about the origin of the universe.”

“Our students are not being taught to think. Why do you feel so threatened when asked to teach all the scientific evidence?”

Jeremy Mohn, speaking for the evolutionists, answered:

“Intelligent design has no place in the classroom, because its explanations are not testable using accepted methods of science.”

“Changing our definition of science to include them would be counter to our widely accepted definitions of science.”

The Darwinists proposed a compromise:

“They are proposing that students study evolution more carefully to become aware of the questions that they say it does not answer.”

Well how magnanimous of them! I can almost hear the science and biology teachers now. “Be careful, kids. Darwinism is a fact and you’ll see it if you examine the evidence we give you. We’re the scientists; the other guys are just a bunch of flat earthers and fly over people. Don’t let these uneducated rubes upset you. Trust us!”

I am not going to pretend to be able to settle the debate, but I can say this is classic bait and switch, the type of thing that the Darwinists have been doing for decades now.

In the past few years I’ve sparred with Patrick Kelley at our local rag about the issue. He says that the religious thought shouldn’t be introduced into this debate.

I’d like to agree with him, but I have to take exception right from the start. It wasn’t the creation scientists who introduced religion into the debate, it was the Darwinists.

In two letters I put the case succinctly to him. The Darwinists are attempting to drive God out of the equation and place themselves on the throne. It’s as simple as that. A couple of quotes from the letters I sent to Mr. Kelley follow to illustrate my point.

The first was sent to the Gazette in April of 2002:

“In 1959, on the centennial celebration of the publication of The Origin Species, keynote speaker Julian Huxley said “Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours – the period when the process of evolution in the process of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself.” He went on to say, “In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural (my emphasis added). The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including or human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.”

The second was sent in August of the same year:

“Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure whom he himself has created, nor escape from the responsibility of making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of Divine Authority, nor absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning for the future by relying on the will of an omniscient, but unfortunately inscrutable, Providence.

Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of a new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.” (my emphasis added)

Now we fly over people know that the issue won’t be settled any time soon, but we do know one thing – that this debate is really important. The Darwinists are saying that they want us to trust their science and jettison our faith. We don’t get warm fuzzies when we hear them say that. We don’t trust their science because there is too much stolen and misappropriated faith in their arguments. It was Nietzsche who said, “Now it is our preference that decides against Christianity, not arguments.”

We fly over folks want to debate the issue. The Darwinists are ducking us like the wanna’ be’s ducked Muhammad Ali.

If they have their way they’ll create a new religion for us. Their signature prayer will sound like this:

“Our nada, who art in nada, nada be they name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.”

I think I prefer the debate to the alternative these blind guides are offering. We’ve seen the peace offering for what it is, a shell game that is to be played by their rules. Well, we may look like rubes, but we’ve been to a carnival or two and know when we’re being hustled. So, to the Darwinists we say, “Keep your shells and peas and we’ll keep fightin.”

6 comments:

Anvilcloud said...

It strikes me that if scientists believe in evolution then that is precisely what they should teach. How can they teach anything other, for then it would not be science? It's not a class in Truth but a class in science, and science believes in evolution.

James Fletcher Baxter said...

One of my favorite teachers, Dr. Henry Margeneau of Yale, stated very succinctly, "True science knows no final answers -- only on-going questions."

No true scientist will say evolution (or homosexuality) are final answers of a 'theory.' (Junk-yard?) There is no evidence or repeatable tests that can prove either of the above. In fact, there is more evidence of causal design in creationism or heterosexual behavior than the mere opinions of biased ego-centered humanist pretenders. They greatly fear a scientific and critical pursuit of evidence or its lack. (They do a beauty on the ginger-bread man!)

As a group, they constantly dodge the issue of First Cause in a flurry of eternal universe-sized causes. They remind me of the pick-pocket's routine: "Look at the sky" while they pick your (mental) pocket.

The next county is looking for a dog-catcher. Any PhD's interested?

Jeremy said...

Jeremy Mohn, speaking for the evolutionists, answered:

“Intelligent design has no place in the classroom, because its explanations are not testable using accepted methods of science.”

“Changing our definition of science to include them would be counter to our widely accepted definitions of science.”

Phil-

You haven't done a very good job of quoting me from the KC Star. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I would appreciate it if you would read the article again. The implication that I was "speaking for the evolutionists" is somewhat misleading. I was speaking for myself, a Biology teacher who also happens to be a Christian.

Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologist said...

Mr.Mohn

I re-read the article. The debate was framed as being between eight people who wanted to include some curicculum changes that would be in line with intelligent design. Which side of the debate were you supporting when you said "Intelligent design has no place in the classroom?????"

Based on what I read, and what the Star seemed to be reporting. I think any casual reading of the piece would reveal that the Star is the agency you have a beef with.

If your position is different I'd be glad to hear more about it.

Jeremy said...

My problem with your presentation of my viewpoint was that you apparently changed the wording of the article to fit your preconceived notions. The wording you created fits with your portrayal of me as part of a group of "Darwinists" who are "attempting to drive God out of the equation and place themselves on the throne."

Your post attributed these words to me:

"Intelligent design has no place in the classroom, because its explanations are not testable using accepted methods of science."

"Changing our definition of science to include them would be counter to our widely accepted definitions of science."

The article actually said:

Jeremy Mohn, a biology teacher at Blue Valley Northwest, said intelligent design has no place in a science classroom, because it would allow for non-natural, or supernatural, explanations for what is observed in the world. Science, by its nature, allows only natural explanations, he said.

Changing the definition of science to include non-natural explanations "would be counter to all widely accepted definitions of science," he said.

If you want to paraphrase the reporter's summary of my comments, that's fine. Just don't put it in quotes as though it represents my actual words. For instance, even though the article implies it, I specifically did not address Intelligent Design (ID) in my public comments because the proposed revisions to the science standards do not specifically mention ID.

Part of what motivated me to comment about the proposed revisions is that they intentionally describe evolution as an "unguided" natural process. There are many religious people, myself included, who accept evolution as a scientific explanation but also believe that God can undetectably "guide" the natural evolutionary process. The intentional depiction of evolution as an "unguided" process directly contradicts such a viewpoint. Ironically, this philosophically biased depiction of evolution comes from a group that claims to be against viewpoint discrimination!

I hope you now understand my objections. It is inappropriate to categorize all evolutionists as anti-Christian. That kind of generalization tends to make us Christians seem uninformed.

If you're interested, you can read my actual public comments on my blog:

http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/weblog.htm

Bill Burns said...

Mr. Mohn, I was reading this now very old blog because, once again, the issue is re-flaring up again here in Flyover Country(tm) and I was poking around on the Net and found your comments to Phil's retort. All I have to say to your response of exception to Phil's characterization is, that the reason the science standards describe evolution as an "unguided" process is because that's the way Darwin himself, as well as such widely-read proponents as Richard Dawkins describe it, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else, as Theistic Evolutionists see God behind it. The new standards, in describing the theory as such, are not inaccurate.