Charles Darwin ?It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank clothed of many plants of many kinds, with birds singing in the bushes, and various
insects flitting about, and worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each
other, and yet dependent on each other in so complex a manner have all been produced by laws acting around us thus, from the war of nature, from
famine and death, the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals directly follows.? The first thought
Creation is taught in several schools in America. It is taught in secondary classes that teach religion to students who wish to learn about religion
through an educative mean. But the creationists have also been getting creation taught in science classes. Several schools in Georgia teach creation
as a science, not religion. This of course is wrong, for there is no scientific proof of creation. Creation is based on religion, not science.
A creationist has led a war on science for over 30 years, his name is Dwayne Gish. He has gotten creation taught as science in Georgia after losing in
Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, and Arkansas. Russell Brock led the war in Georgia. He believes it is right to teach that the earth is 6,000 years old,
created in six days, flood happened explaining the Grand Canyon (more on this later) and that Evolution is as scientific as turning lead into gold.
This of course is wrong, Evolution is a science. Yes it is the Theory of Evolution, but one must take note that Theory in science does not mean guess,
shot in the dark, acid trip gone bad, or anything else creationists make it seem to be. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a
scientific theory. This was also discredited in the bible. Theory in science means a Hypothesis leading to tests, discussions, and debate.
There is nothing wrong with religion being taught at home or at church or even as a secondary class, but to teach it in a science class as fact, well,
in the USA we pay taxes to fund things like schools. Now, the schools have to be run by a certain set of laws, also known as the constitution. Now in
the constitution, it says that there shall be freedom of religion for state. Meaning, that something that is funded by the people through taxes shall
not teach religion. Now this deal we made means we don?t have religion in school, church doesn?t have magic tricks during service.
Now Evolution has not been proven 100%. It has, but the creationists came up with a new arguement. "Ok, so Microevolution is correct, but not the
rest." Why is that? They are shown prrof they are wrong so they twist the facts to "prove" they are right. It is a science. Science will prove
something or other, but it takes time. How many centuries did it take for the Theory of Round Earth to be proved? The theory of sun in center to be
proven? It took many years, was discredited by the bible, but we know those theories are correct for studies were done, tests done, discussion,
debate, so forth. Of course, even if it is proven there will still be tests, experiments, and more debates. Gravity is a known fact. But they still
study the effects of gravity on certain objects. Anti gravity tests, how strong it can be (black holes ring a bell?) and many other tests are done
with gravity. All the laws and effects of gravity have not been proven or tested or realized. But does this mean gravity does not exist? One can not
prove all of it 100%, and with the creationists argument, it would mean Gravity does not exist.
Creationists want Evolution to be proven, and until then they want creation to be taught in schools either with evolution or without it. In areas that
creation is taught the biology books have little intros in the front of the book saying ?Evolution is a theory, not fact. And should be critically
considered.? They don?t include an intro stating the fact that intelligent design isn?t validated by any science, we just made it up. They throw out
all the science behind it because it has not been proven 100%. They claim that the bible is an accurate historical book and that anyone with
historical background believes this. This of course is not true. The main argument is that it defies all logic and probability that there was not a
master plan. They have no proof of this, but this is one of the statements they make. They try to convince people that creation is a science, which it
isn?t. So they repackage the name and change it to ?intelligent design? to make it sound scientific. Well god isn?t a science. ?I choose to use the
term intelligent design because it takes out the philosophical and religious setting.? Creationist. They try to pass religion as science by creating a
scientific sounding name. ?Isn?t it a great idea to teach both and let the children decide? Let them and the parents consider both options and let
them choose what they want to believe. Wouldn?t that be a wonderful thing?? Russell Brock. What this leaves out is the fact school is for teaching,
Thankfully, reason has come through in some areas of Georgia. In one county a man has gotten the ACLU in a lawsuit to try to keep religion out of
public schools. Now the ACLU isn?t the best choice for this, I sure as hell wouldn?t have picked them. But for once in the past 10 years the ACLU are
doing something right in my opinion. Religion is not allowed in public schools, and any attempts to allow it in should be fought. They are still in
court last I heard. ?To deny that this whole argument is not about religion is ludicrous to me. It is spin, when someone says intelligent design is
science and is based on god, that?s religion.? Sellman, guy who brought the ACLU into the fight.
Now one can vote on whether or not intelligent design is science or religion. But it isn?t science no matter what you vote. We can all take a vote on
whether or not Drew Carey is human or not. If the majority vote he is a mongoose, does it mean he is? No, just like voting intelligent design is a
science, it doesn?t truly mean it is a science.
Now, back to the leader of the modern creation movement, Dwayne Gish. He is the senior vice president of the Institute of Creation Research. He
believes? ?To have all the scientific evidence that evolutionists believe that can prove evolution, have that presented to our students. Then take all
the evidence creation scientist have that prove, that DEMANDS creation is fact, and let them decide.? Dwayne Gish. Gee, sounds like someone isn?t bias
at all, does it? He has been fighting for creation and against evolution for almost as long as it has been around. But during this time we have founda
million pieces of biological evidence including genetics. We have found millions of astronomical evidence that gives us the age of the Earth and the
universe. Millions of pieces of geological evidence like transitional fossils and ?missing link? fossils of past animals and animals of today, like
dogs, cats, horses, bears, and so forth. Dwayne heads ICR, Institute of Creation Research, a California conservative religious group with a strict
focus to prove what they believe with whatever amount of double talk and twisted evidence they can create. They state that Evolution is not science
and neither is creation. ?Neither creation or evolution are scientific. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and creation is no more
religious than evolution.? Dwayne Gish. Only one little problem, evolution comes from science, creation comes from god, and god is not a science. Dr.
Eugene Scott of the National Center for Science Education ? It would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute among scientists about
evolution took place for it isn?t. You see school districts all over this country wrestling with the problem of what to teach. Evolution, creation,
both, or neither. It seems to come up when peoples religious views need to take the bible literally are offended when evolution is taught in the
classroom.? Dwayne Gish explains that him and his people do not want to bring religion into the classroom but evidence that proves a theistic
supernatural origin to humans, life, and the planet. One little problem, supernatural, like god, is not a science.
Creationists will try to sound scientific, but they fail. They will go through the journals and books and notes and nit-pick every single last detail.
If they found one word in anything about evolution is misspelled or wrong, they say throw out everything. There is a problem with this. Unlike
religion, science is always, shall we say, evolving. Science once believed the Earth was flat. But then they found evidence leaning towards a non-flat
Earth. So they did tests, changed views, changed ideas, and after a few hundred years of research and being killed by the church, proved that the
Earth was round. The same is true with Evolution. Creation was believed to be correct. Then scientists started seeing things wrong with it. For those
who think Darwin was the first to think of evolution you are wrong. Greeks came up with the conclusion that some land animals and sea animals are
related. They came up with a theory that had animals such as horses, lions, bears, rodents, so forth, as coming from species that lived in the water.
In fact, the horse created a new legend of the Greek gods with the creation of the horse being that of Posident.
The theology of religion is that if one thing is wrong in the bible you have to throw the whole thing out. (Explains why several books are left out of
the bible) But science does not work that way. If one little piece of the evolution puzzle doesn?t fit then throw the whole thing out. But science, as
said, does not work like this. Dr. Ron Mattsen, Professor of Biology at Kenenthshaw State, Kennethshaw, Georgia ?Science is a way of knowing about the
natural world. We have to start with ideas that can to be tested. And there is always the possibility that conclusions we draw could be wrong. That is
not the case with creation. They are saying that they are right and we are wrong but have no data to back this up.?
Bob Carroll, Professor of Philosophy, Sacramento City College. ?Creation science is an Oxymoron. The real question is why are they trying to pretend
they are a science when they aren?t. The real reason is they have a different agenda and that is to destroy science. They know they can?t do that from
without but must do so from within. Basically terrorize it.? But Dwayne Gish says he has scientific evidence, the Grand Canyon. ?The Grand Canyon is a
very interesting geological object. Now if that canyon, possibly, was cut by the release of enormous amount of water from lakes to the north that were
dammed and then broke through and cut the canyon in a matter of a few days.? We all know that is bs, but that is what he says is fact and wants
taught, is being taught, in some schools and the public. But what he is referring to is the big flood of Noah that made him make a boat and get 2 of
every animal on it. As anyone who knows about genetics will tell you that is impossible! Inbreeding would have killed off the population after about
the 3rd-4th generation. Also, no boat built could hold two of every animal. It would also need aquariums to save all the fish, dolphins, and whales.
Why? Well, if all the water mixed then saltwater would become too fresh and freshwater would become to salty meaning every fish/mammal that lives in
fresh or salt water would be killed. But there are millions of fish and mammals in the waters to prove that they weren?t all killed off by a sudden
mix of fresh and salt water. So no flood, no Noah, no proof. Gish believes a single flood made the Grand Canyon and a single boat saved every damn
animal on Earth.
Back to Dr. Eugene Scott. ?Scientists hear this and just go wow. This is just amazing! Nobody thinks these people could possibly hold these ideas
seriously. The Grand Canyon is granite, shale, and really hard rock, about 5,000 feet of it. You won?t cut this very hard rock with just a single
flood.? Another claim by creationists is that the depth of fossils is only deep enough to have existed for thousands of years. They say that if
evolution is correct, then there should be evidence of older fossils in the rock. Also, if there was all this evolution, then were are the
transitional fossils? There are none. But there are! Homo Erectus ring a bell? Or Lucy? Gish just doesn?t look at the facts that we have. Dwayne lives
in the margin of science, but he keeps the margins as wide as possible. Dr. Eugene Scott again. ?What we do in science is find an explanation that
work. The idea that we had common ancestors works. That is why scientists accept evolution. Creationists will say evolution is about chance, and how
can anything have happened due to chance. But evolution is farthest from chance possible. Evolution is the survival of the fittest and that means not
chance, but survival ratio, is how evolution works.? Brock admits he doesn?t know what?s going on. ?Let?s just make one thing clear, I?m not a
scientist.? He also tries to quote Isaac Newton and that Isaac Newton said there had to be a god, but he lived in the days of tyranny by the church
where if you said something against the bible, you were killed. I?d say there has to be a god if the opposite meant death by torture. Brock also says
that Darwin in his later years said that evolution was wrong, he was wrong. There has been no proof, no reason, and no facts sustaining this myth.
This myth is right up there with the exploding toilet and duck quack has no echo. Darwin was a very serious scientist. He was convinced that evolution
had happened and that his theory explained it. Remember that the fact that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun is theories.
Why does Dwayne hate science? Him and his people believe science has brought on materialistic atheism. Dwayne Gish. ?The kids are in the classrooms
sitting before these PHD professors and are told that everything began with some hypothetical big bang and out of that everything has evolved. Now,
they say Well, who needs god? He doesn?t exist and if there is no god then there is no one to whom I am responsible.? In other words, if someone
thinks that the christian god doesn?t exist they will go out killing and raping and stealing and just doing whatever they want because they don?t fear
the all mighty powerful people in the clouds. This of course is false, many people don?t believe in the christian god. They are called Jews, Moslems,
Hindus, Buddhist, Wiccans, Druids, and atheists. Except for the fundamentalist Moslems, no killing, raping, stealing, doing whatever they feel like
because they don?t worry about punishment. ?We would like to reverse the situation of today. Today there is legalized porn, legalized abortion,
legalized gambling, tremendous drug problem, and much more.? Dwayne Gish. I know, no christian has ever looked at porn, gambled, or did a drug, it is
all those heathens out there that do them. NOT!
Now, why is religion taught in schools? Why do people believe in creation? Why do people believe in something with no facts or proof? Why do you
Just one last thing. Here is how evolution compares to creation. This is a good way to tell the difference between good science and non-science. Good
science changes, it begins with observation, as we learn more we can come up with Hypothesis, then move on to tests which eventually lead to
discussion and debate. Creation is rigid, it begins with fiction that proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and sometimes torturing
those who disagree. Whether or not creation or ?intelligent design? sounds good doesn?t matter, it just isn?t science! Know what?s funny? There is a
group that believes the exact same thing that Dwayne and Russell do, just one small twist, their higher being is an alien, not god. They are called
Raelians. The creationists say the Raelians are nuts, but they believe the exact same thing.
So, your opinion on anything brought up here. Religion in school, creation a science or not, evolution, flood of Noah creating the Grand Canyon, age
of the Earth.
Here is a link to Dwayne's site. www.icr.org...