EVOLUTIONISTS GOING APE OVER INTELLIGENT DESIGN
For weeks King Kong has been playing at theaters, entertaining audiences and raking in the money, with its amazing special effects and powerhouse rendition of the greatest of Apes. I finally had a chance to see this frightful beast in person, and was amazed at the humanity skillfully and artistically presented from Kong. After all as evolutionists proclaim, Kong and humans share a �common ancestor.� Little did I know that the biggest monkey show in town was playing in a courtroom in Dover, PA. As many already know, Judge John E. Jones III somehow read the first amendment to disallow any mention of intelligent design purporting it to be a violation of the establishment clause.
While sitting in my well �designed� movie theater seat, I marveled at the creativity of the directors, and the amount of thought they had put into the movie to �create� this action packed blockbuster. The three and a half hour movie gave me ample time to reflect on similarities between King Kong, and the recent behavior of proponents of Darwinian evolution. Proponents of evolutionary theory have been advancing their cause much the way King Kong woos the beautiful movie screen starlet, through brute force and intimidation. By using lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, personal attacks, misinformation, and half-truths proponents of Darwinian evolutionary �dogma.� advance their crusade against all things supernatural. With religious zeal and fervor the guardians of �science� have attempted to squelch any academic dissent to Darwin�s theories.
Let me first qualify what I mean by evolutionary theory. There is a difference between microevolution (intra-specific, which Creationists agree with) and macroevolution (particles to people, inter-specific changes). Creationists understand that genetic variation exists and animals undergo small changes (adaptations) in response to the environment. However, macroevolution asserts that a once distinct fully formed species given enough time (billions of years) could evolve into more complex species. Essentially, that particles can become people given enough time and the right circumstances (quite a leap of faith).
After the Dover decision, Darwinian proselytizers stood and began to pound their chests. Calling Dover �Scopes II�, they claimed a jubilant victory over this thorn in the evolutionary side called ID.
Ohio has now been put in the crosshairs of evolutionary activists. As reported by the Columbus Dispatch Jan 12th ed., on Jan. 10th, the Ohio School board met and issued a 9-8 ruling favoring the continuing of Ohio�s high school biology standards. �Martha W. Wise, a board member from Avon, sought the resolution, arguing that Ohio�s 10th grade science standards are flawed and could subject the state to costly litigation.� Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a plaintiff in the Dover lawsuit, is reviewing records from the state Department of education for possible litigation in Ohio.
Currently, Ohio standards do not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design, and describe how �scientists today continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.�
The pattern is clear. Since evolutionary activists can�t debate the merits of Darwin�s theory fairly, critically, and objectively with public science discourse; they will perpetuate their biased rationalistic, materialistic, and uniformitarian philosophy through judicial fiat. A prime example elucidating how the evolutionary activists have been going bananas over Intelligent Design is that of evolutionist Tom Baillieul dressing up as a Panda and standing outside the Ohio state school board meeting on Monday, a play off the ID design book �Of Pandas and People.�
In addition to dressing up in Panda suits or threatening lawsuits, evolutionists often resort to character assassination to discredit the �scientific ability� of the person supporting ID. Interestingly, 52 scientists from Ohio came out in support of the Ohio standards of academic freedom allowing critical analysis of Biological origins and Darwinian Theory. They were scientists with Ph D�s in chemistry, nuclear physics, Biology, engineering and many other diverse physical and life sciences. This stands in stark contrast to how evolutionary biologists portray those who disagree with them.
They assert that anyone that even hints at a possible Creator or Intelligent Designer (emasculated Creator) would bring us back to the Dark Ages, is a Neanderthal (to use an evolutionary term), or still believes the earth is flat. One letter to the editor in Ohio compared proponents of ID to the Holocaust revisionists.
Bryan Leonard, a candidate for a Ph.D. in Science Education at The Ohio State University knows this well. Earlier this year, Brian�s dissertation defense was postponed through the efforts of evolutionary proponents at OSU. Brian�s offense was to dare to investigate the impact of teaching critical analysis of �macroevolution.� His dissertation attempted to answer the following questions:
�When students are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they maintain or change their beliefs over time? And what empirical, cognitive and/or social factors influence students' beliefs?�
It was interesting that the faculty attempting to derail Brian�s scholastic efforts alleged that he was unethical in choosing the faculty hearing his dissertation. He had a biochemist and an entomologist, but not an evolutionary biologist. Now he has an evolutionary biologist serving as the �gatekeeper� preventing him from receiving his Ph. D. It raises the question as to how the evolutionary biologists can even determine what is ethical or unethical for if there is no Creator, then who determines what is ethical or not, popular opinion, or the latest gallop poll?
The advocates of evolutionary thought and theory would attempt to frame the debate as being between science and religion; that Darwinian evolution is �scientific� and that ID is �religious.� He who frames the debate wins.
The real battle is a war of worldviews between God�s authority and man�s autonomous reason. If man becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth, and is able to discern moral truth apart from God�s revelation, then man has become a law unto himself. This is lawlessness. Everyone is religious they either worship the creation (evolutionary proponents) or the Creator. (Romans 1:25)
The Bible teaches that man has enough evidence in Creation and within his own conscience, and they will have to give an account when they die. �For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse.� (Romans 1:18-20)
Evolutionists have suppressed the knowledge of God in unrighteousness. For now evolutionists look like King Kong standing on a large tower of Babel. They are beating their chests in fury, and raising their fists in defiance against God, but they know that Darwinian evolution is failing as a theory, and they are desperate. Soon the King Kong of Darwinian evolution will plummet to the ground and Darwin will be but an interesting footnote in history. And then, what will be their excuse?
� 2006 Nicholas Jackson
- All Rights Reserved
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Nick Jackson is a physical therapist from Ohio who assists pro-life and pro-family ministries in the Central Ohio area. He is executive director of Reform America, a Christian Activist organization based in Columbus. For more information on Reform America go to www.reformamerica.com
Evolutionists have suppressed the knowledge of God in unrighteousness. For now evolutionists look like King Kong standing on a large tower of Babel. They are beating their chests in fury, and raising their fists in defiance against God...