I'll regret it, but here goes.
This guy's basic argument is broken on so many points that it hurts to read, but I'll address them all.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains
an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
[/b]
Well, I'm with him so far. Point 3 seems to be mostly opinion, but being a human, I'm willing to buy into it.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
[/b]
See, I'm with him on the possibilities until he gets his science utterly wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation, or development of the universe. Time for a trip back to "On the Origin of Species". The creation and development of the universe is the subject of cosmology. some people might refer to the development of the universe over time as 'evolution' but that's strictly a misnomer.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing
the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
[/b]
WRONG. The theory of evolution does not state or imply anything about the creation of the universe.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least
nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred
to as cosmic evolution.)
[/b]
WRONG. The theory of evolution does not state or imply anything about the accretion of galactic, solar or planetary systems.
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets
from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
[/b]
WRONG. The theory of evolution does not state or imply anything about the origins of life. Though some people may think it does, they need to go back and read "On the Origin of Species". Darwin makes no claims as to the origin of life in his theory.
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in
reproducing themselves.
[/b]
I'd have to say that by the strict tenets of the principle of survival of the fittest (in a species context), only organisms that felt the urge to reproduce and then did so would have offspring. The ones that don't reproduce, naturally have no offspring. Basically, as the old saying goes, "life is a(n) (a)sexually transmitted disease."
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different
forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth
today (biological evolution).
[/b]
There's an assumption here that I find rather interesting: that there was a 'first' life form. I can see no logical reason why there can't have been many 'first' life form. If there can be many 'first' life-forms (IE sources for branching diversity), then diversity and complexity are built into the system from the beginning.
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While
beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the
students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at
taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious
worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion,
or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering
philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a
clear violation of the First Amendment.
Evolution is not a 'belief'. It is a theory and as such, could be wrong. It
does explain, quite nicely, why human embryos develop and lose gills during
gestation, why they develop and lose tails. It also explains why the basic
skeletal system of all vertebrates are so very similar. At no point, however,
does this theory ever purport to be anything other than a theory.
In the end he makes a very important mistake. He declares evolution to be a "religious
worldview that is not supported by science". The problem here, is that evolution IS
supported by science. It is a theory based on known data, presents a hypothesis to
explain the data, and makes certain predictions that can be tested (albeit in a very
long time frame). That makes it science, and good science at that. No, evolution is
not supported by Scripture. Scripture has the problem of being political, not
scientific. Because the body of Scripture as we know it today is the product of several
editorial rewrites (notably the Dueteronomists) and retranslations (such as the dubious
translation of the word 'maiden' into the greek word for 'virgin') and political
choices (notably the decision in the third century AD to include the Gospel of John
as Canon, but to actively hide the Gospel of Thomas), we can hardly trust its Word.
Popular opinion matters not at all in scientific matters. Popular opinion was once that
the Earth was the center of the Universe. That did not make it so.
"Common sense" is hardly ever "common". Common (european) sense once said that the
Earth was flat, while common (chinese) sense held it to be round before Christ was born.
If ever an alternative, fact-based, scientifically reasoned theory that explained
the origin of life on this planet was created, I'm sure it would be given equal time
with evolution in our tax-supported schools, museums, etc (probably not parks, since
I know of know park dedicated to evolution). Evolution is, again, a theory, not a fact.
The First Amendment does not even come into play on the discussion of evolution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.
By teaching evolution as a scientific theory, schools are not establishing a religion,
abridging free speech, the free press, free assembly or redress of greivances.
Really now, folks, hasn't this been done to death? Let it rest. Its just a theory,
in the strictest scientific sense of the word.
