Monday, February 09, 2009

Darwin and His Problem

Thank you for the outstanding attendance at the Olympia hearings on gay rights, aka. gay marriage, last Thursday. We are carefully monitoring the bills and will alert you to the appropriate response as quickly as the Legislature begins to move. In the mean time, we are working to persuade undecided lawmakers to vote for traditional marriage and reject these, "Trojan horse" bills.
_______________

Darwin and His Problem

Your school children will hear a great deal about Darwin this week in public school. The secularists are preparing to further elevate him as they celebrate his 200th birthday this Thursday, February 12.

The Seattle PI has already carried a preparation article, extolling and pointing out the significance of his "theory" and how it made fundamentalist-type religious people furious, both then and now.

The PI story points out that Darwin's wife was deeply religious, and because of that he held back the release of his book, "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection" until he and his wife could talk it through.

In the end she said, "Don't change any of your ideas for fear of hurting me."

He didn't.

This week there will be more than 300 celebrations in Britain alone, with month-long festivities in his home town of Shrewshury.

Public schools in America will also take advantage of the opportunity to elevate the man and his theory, which they have already elevated to the level of "science".

I'm writing this today to both alert and hopefully inform you and your school age child.

Bob Bloomfield, a director at London's Museum of Natural History, told Associated Press, "He [Darwin] knew he had to make an absolutely iron-cast case for his theory. He was one of the earliest true scientists where everything he was prepared to write about had to be based on evidence."

Therein is the heart of the big lie.

Darwin had a problem then and his problem is even more obvious and telling today.

Here's his problem. And it will be helpful for kids in public classroom to know this as well. Especially this week.

His problem is lack of Evidence. His entire premise is that he had evidence. In fact, he did not.

George Bernard Shaw was known to have said, a number of times, "No one in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one."

The evidence is overwhelming that Darwin never presented the evidence he claimed to support his theory.

The Darwin revolution was philosophical, not scientific.

For those intent on advancing a completely secular, often atheist worldview, Darwin was an answer to prayer---so to speak.

He remains a great opportunity to undermine biblical creation, while advancing what seems to be an elite, scientific "fact".

Atheists love it and the opportunity has not been lost on the public school system in America.

Darwin's followers, who create your child or grandchild's textbooks on the subject, claim they have "overwhelming evidence" supporting his theory, yet in the 150 years since his idea was published, no one---NO ONE, has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection---much less the origin of new organs and body plans.

There is a world class organization located in Seattle that has created, perhaps the largest body of evidence, exposing Darwinism for what it is. Before you go to the website of the Discovery Institute however, I would strongly recommend you read an article published last week in Forbes titled "The Problem Of Evidence." It is an excellent article that will give you and your child, depending on their age, some wonderful thoughts or talking points if needed.

The article is written by Jonathan Wells, who holds a doctorate in theology from Yale and a doctorate in biology from Berkeley. He is also an author and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

There are several bullet points in the article that can be very helpful.

Darwinism is another example of philosophy driving science rather than allowing facts to lead toward the truth.

God bless you and your family.

______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

21 comments:

  1. Why didn't you quote all of the scientific evidence supporting creationism. You know, the stuff that proves scientifically that God exists and the bible is his word.

    Oh...... there isn't any? Really? None at all?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christianity has never claimed that creationism is science. We have always claimed it to be a theological belief. Darwinism has claimed to be science. That is the big lie.

    Public education has made it their champion because it suits their world view.

    Archeology and other earth sciences have discovered more support for creationism than random selection--Darwinism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous at 1:06 --

    If creationism is not science, then why do you want to teach it in science class? Why not teach it in church?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Creationism is science. I disagree with those who claim it is not.

    As has been pointed out, not a human person was there when it happened so all must speculate. Therefore, the speculation of random chance falls immediately both mathematically and biologically. The numbers are against the possibility and the evidence of transformation has never been observed.

    To assume anything could happen over billions of years that proceeds toward order is simply flying in the face of proven science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really? Gary himself was promoting Creationism (under the name Intelligent Design) as science or is it "science" back when he was promoting Ben Stein's dishonest screed of a "documentary". He even links to and promotes the primary proponents of ID, the Discovery Institute, in this very post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We do teach it in church. We want public education to tell the truth and teach Darwinism as a theory, not as science, because it isn't. If they are teaching ideas or world views, then they can also teach the biblical view.
    Why are they so afraid of biblical teaching. These are the same guys who say we must educate little kids, begining in first and second grade about homosexuality and sexual relations. If six or seven year old kids can handle their kind of sex-ed, they surely could sort out the biblical account of creation for them selves. Are the educators fearful that creationism might make more sense than evolution?
    Please don't give me the church and state thing. Secularism is also a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right....neither are completely free of some scientific facts, nor of religious beliefs. Therefore why not allow both to be taught and allow free questions? Why the silencing of some of the questions in the name of separation of church and state? Why bring the political into the scientific? Science has always been about theories, observation, proofs, and deductions. Since no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened, allow people to continue to questionl.

    If we don't we are being as backward as they were in the first century, AD.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think Gary confuses evidence (for which there is ample supporting Evolution - not "Darwinism") with proof (for which there is more in support of Evolution than there is for Biblical Creationism or ID).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't think Gary is confused. While he may not be a scientist, I am. He gets it. Darwinism, including evolution, is premised on random selection. There is no evidence of that having ever happened. No new species have evolved. Evolution has only occured within a species.Read Wells article again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "George Bernard Shaw was known to have said, a number of times, "No one in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one.""

    Can Gary please cite a source for this quote. I have searched it and I can only find it offered second-hand from one Raul Leguizamon a creationist professor at the University of Guadalajara. I suspect that this is one of those "unconfirmed quotations" favored by dishonest players like pseudo-historian David Barton.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 3:29 PM,

    Do you work at FFN? If so why not identify yourself as such? If not it certainly is "interesting" that my post was reviewed by the censors and posted as was your response all within the space of ten short minutes.

    Oh, and as a Scientist myself, I know that Gary and you are both incorrect and misrepresenting the evidence supporting Evolution as does Wells.

    ReplyDelete
  12. School children shouldn't be intimidated by the philosophies of men just because some of them hold
    great educational degrees.

    Maybe it makes them feel tough.
    I dunno.

    It's OK to think of God when you see a frog that jumps. He made the limbs, the tendons too, and the muscles strong. Patterns of design are seen for the same maker
    is the maker of us all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 3:00PM

    Please, share with us the science you find in creationism. We've been waiting to hear some for a long, long time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well first of all it is a complete waste to share it with someone who is unintelligent. To continually bash those with a different point of view just because of the difference is not worth my time or the folks on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, it's not 'just because of the difference'. It's because you're trying to pass mythology off as science.

    The Native Americans also have some very interesting tales about how things were created. Why not include those in science class?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Currently 'science' is looking, yes straining for signs of life in outer space. Do you even know what they are hoping to 'hear'?

    Go a head. Look it up and report back here what they are hoping to 'hear'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is no surprise that atheists fear creationism being taught anywhere as a viable theory. I would not be surprised if we find that California makes an effort to force evolutionism in religious schools.

    To accept creationism means to accept that man is not god and indeed there is one greater than us.

    Then again, many men have embraced that very same fallacy so as to feel significant.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Doesn't look like our friend is going to bother to look it up. I can understand why, because if he states it then he has lost his argument. The same way that the Pharisees were stumped when Jesus asked them leading and logical questions. :-)

    The 'scientists' who are straining to hear from outer space are looking for any pattern of radio signal that is not RANDOM. In that way, they can conclude that it is coming from intelligence.

    Now, I'm figuring that I'm also going to have to point out the dichotomy here. These same 'scientists' assume that our intelligence has come from randomness.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 8:49 AM

    Creationism is no more viable than any other fairy tale pulled out of thin air. There is no scientific evidence to support it whatsoever. To that point, none has been offered on this blog. None!

    You guys can teach your kids whatever you like. Our schools have an obligation to teach the best available science.

    If you're not comfortable with that, I would recommend private school or moving to an officially Christian nation. You can tell if a nation is officially Christian by reading their constitution. It will clearly define their religion just as ours is clearly secular.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who cares what the truth is? Don't confuse them with the facts? They are too committed to their religion of secularism to even have an open enough mind to see the fallacy in which they preach.

    No one was there stupid! So scientific observation can only occur after the fact. What has been pointed out on this short blog is that your suggestion of 'wise' scientists conclusions can't hold water. What is further pointed out is that creation from an intelligent source DOES carry a solid scientific observation. Through careful observation it is easily concluded that life came from intelligent design. Certainly not your intelligence of course.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.