CSTNews

http://www.cstnews.com/bm/science-and-health-issues-common-sense-for-today/evolution-intelligent-design-darwin-and-common-sense/why-wont-usa-today-and-abc-news-deal-honestly-with.shtml

Why Won't USA Today and ABC News Deal Honestly With Evolution?

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that isn’t there! So sad.  No student is educated if he doesn’t know both sides of the issue.

By

Well,  bigoted evolutionists are making fools of themselves as their knees jerk (left ones of course) since the Kansas School Board decided to require balance in the teaching of origins, and permit children to inquire into the various theories of origins.  I am shocked, shocked that liberal groups have come down on the side of bigotry and intolerance!

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their web site on the evolution controversy because of the Kansas school board decision.  I wrote the article, and then rewrote it to conform to their space guidelines, but it never showed up on their web site. I was told that it was too militant, and the readers couldn’t comprehend it!  Isn’t that interesting? I pointed out that famous evolutionists have called creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” “stupid,” “liars,” “not to be trusted in any way,” “ignorant,” “insane,” and a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” Yet, I’m too militant!

Yes, I consider this a war, but the problem is that I put the evolutionists on the spot! And, of course, the media elite are for the most part, evolutionists so I am attacking them when I attack evolution. They don’t have answers so they suck their thumbs and whine about creationists being militant and unfair! Their accusing a creationist of being unfair is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath!

About the same time I had my differences with ABC, a letter from John Allen, Ph.D. was published in USA Today that had to be dealt with in the interest of fairness, reasonableness, and balance.  But the “nation’s newspaper” was not interested in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. They refused to publish my reply. Surprise, surprise, surprise! It is interesting that USA Today paid me for eight years to write columns for them on various subjects but they refused to publish this pro-creation, anti-evolution letter for free!

Creationists are also called, “Bible-thumpers” but I seldom thump my Bible. Well, now and then a few thumps, but not hard ones. What ABC and USA Today don’t want is to put the evolutionists on the spot. The paper did publish an excellent column by Bev LaHaye, but it did not deal with the scientific reasons to reject evolution. She could not do so in less than 500 words, but they can say, “Hey, we published a rebuttal to evolutionists.”  That is devious, deceptive, and dishonest but standing operating procedure for the secular media.

I pointed out that ABC News could have asked me to “tone it down” a bit since they don’t like militancy (unless it is from screaming feminists, radical Blacks or homosexual activists). The fact is, as I told my ABC contact, the network is guilty of censorship! Bigotry! Intolerance! (Gasp! Is it possible for ABC to be guilty of such atrocious sins?)

Professor Allen’s letter in USA Today seemed to reveal that he has not read anything on the subject of creation/evolution in the last 25 years! The average layman is not expected to be aware of the scientific literature, but it is outrageous for a college professor (who takes it upon himself to speak to the issue) to be so uninformed.

Why should creation be taught in schools? Because that’s the way man arrived on the planet! Creationists believe a sovereign God created everything out of nothing, while most evolutionists and atheists believe nothing created everything out of nothing! Or, nothing became something and something became everything! I choose to believe, “In the beginning, God created….” I choose to believe that because  Scripture and science support that fact.

The professor falls back on hyperbole to convince the uninformed that his philosophy/religion (not science since it doesn’t meet the definition of science) of evolution is a fact. He compares evolution to gravity, which shows his desperation. Then he said that evolution is not controversial among mainstream scientists and “among most of the general population.”  John must be living in a cave!


Some facts: An AP-NBC poll showed that about 86% of Americans support equal treatment of creation  and evolution in public schools, and other polls show that most Americans believe in creation.

According to USA Today, scientist Eugenie Scott is appalled that some of our presidential candidates also believe in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. I have debated Eugenie at least twice and on Pat Buchanan’s radio show she admitted that God could have created the universe.

Well, that is a huge concession for an avid evolutionist, and most evolutionists will not willingly go to the origins issue. They have to be pushed there. They want to jump over “billions of years” to Darwin’s mythical “warm, little pond.” Well, I’m ready to go to that pond (of which there is not a shred of evidence) but I first want to know where the pond came from! Where did the earth come from? What about the universe?  Evolutionists stampede away from that issue like their hair is on fire! But I demand some answers before we get to the “pond.”

However, there are only four possibilities as to how the universe got here: First, it created itself, but surely no sane person believes that. Think that possibility through. How could something that doesn’t exist, create itself? A  person who takes that position has not drunk long from the well of learning. In fact, he hasn’t even gargled!  One main reason this first suggestion is not true is because it conflicts with the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law says that there is no new material or energy being created. It can be redirected but nothing can be added to the existing supply, so the first possibility is an impossibility!

The second possibility how the universe got here is, it has always been here! How about that? With that suggestion, the evolutionists have wiggled around the many problems of the first suggestion. The universe was not created by God or by itself. It has always been here!  This second possibility is not possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law, which no evolutionist argues with, says that everything is running down. The Second Law screams disease, decay, degeneration, and death.  So if the universe has always been here, it would repeal the Second Law.   

The third possibility is that the universe is not here! Everything is an illusion! This possibility was suggested by ancient Greeks as they sat around their saunas. (Those guys spent too much time in steam rooms and it boiled their brains.) They suggested, “Hey, maybe we are wasting our time discussing how the universe got here. Maybe it isn’t here! We only think it’s here. We only think we’re here.” Of course, that possibility is contrary to the Law of Common Sense.

The fourth and last possibility as to the origin of the universe is, God did it! That’s it. Search out the great thinkers of the present and past and you will not arrive at any other possibility as to the origin of the universe. When sane people reject the first three “possibilities,” they are left with the fourth one: God created it! And if God created the universe, He could have (and did) create man. Evolutionists scream like a stuck pig when we bring God into the discussion, but if that’s how it happened, that’s how it happened. Sorry about that guys, but you are stuck with it.

In every talk show I’ve done on the subject, evolutionists have asserted “creationism is religion and evolution is science.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost. Both evolution and creation are based on faith as informed, honest scientists admit, so students should be exposed to both. It’s incredible that Christian parents are taxed to promote a scientific teaching that is contrary to science and their religion!

Doesn’t Professor Allen know that many famous evolutionists don’t believe Darwin’s gradualism as taught in schools? And most evolutionists get apoplexy when we remind them of that fact! I’ll remind them since I like to see evolutionists sweat and squirm, and they don’t sweat and squirm with grace.

Dr. Soren Lovetrup, scientist from Sweden, said, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He added that evolution is “anti-science,” and is “false.” Scientists, who don’t know Lovetrup, should be driving trucks, not defending the farce, fakery, foolishness, and fraud of evolution.

Astronomer, Fred Hoyle, said, “The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong,” The most respected French scientist, Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution, “a pseudo-science.” A. E., Wilder-Smith, with three earned doctorates in science, said evolution is “impossible.” (Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creationists.)

Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, admitted, “I think…the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further added, “To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all.”

Fossil expert, Stephen Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.”  Darwin even agreed with that! No informed evolutionist appeals to the fossil record to support his philosophy of origins. When he does so, he places himself in the category of flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers, and snake handlers.

After evolutionists admit  they made fools of themselves with the fossil record, they should admit they cannot explain: the answers to the beginning of life; the Cambrian explosion;  Design of the universe; the absence of transitional fossils;  the anomalies in the geologic column; why evolution suddenly stopped; how males and females evolved at the same location and time in history; where the scientific laws came from (how does a “law” evolve?) and did they come before or after the “big bang”? Furthermore, what was the catalyst for the big bang? And where did the cosmic egg (that allegedly exploded) come from? Maybe the cosmic chicken laid it?

After those answers we’ll discuss how evolution can be true, being in conflict with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and various other scientific laws. We’ll also discuss frauds perpetrated by scientists to prop up their cockamamie theory. Maybe ABC would like to sponsor a television debate with top evolutionists and creationists!

It is a fact that Chuck Darwin (not a trained scientist, but an apostate preacher!) fired a blank when he fired a shot heard around the world, and evolutionists are still cocking and firing that same gun.                   

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that isn’t there! So sad.  No student is educated if he doesn’t know both sides of the issue.

Tags: ,