Your Voice
Nov 12, 2009 | 2185 views | 7 7 comments | 12 12 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Evolution not the answer

EDITOR,

First, let’s take a look at the meaning of “whimsical,” the word used to describe columnist Scott McKinley’s “look at life, philosophy, religion and politics.” Whimsical: 1) full of, actuated by, or exhibiting whims; 2a) resulting from or characterized by whim or caprice; lightly fanciful; b) subject to erratic behavior or unpredictable change. Please take note of the last definition, which puts his opinions in perspective.

Despite its influence, evolution in our culture is in a state of collapse. There are many influential scientists who support intelligent design and back their beliefs with scientific fact, and the number is growing.

Still, evolution remains the theory in power whose impact is meant to move society away from moral boundaries. For those who only hear one side of the debate — that is, most public high school students — it is a compelling, seductive and often liberating feeling that helps to justify immoral, illegal and sexual tendencies.

Sir Julian Huxley — grandson of Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his support of evolution — was asked why evolution caught on so quickly.

His response was: “I suppose the reason we all jumped at ‘Origin of Species’ was because God interfered with our sexual morals.”

What an honest and accurate answer to support the true reason the evolution theory is popular among certain age and cultural groups. Grim social consequences have followed since having embraced the evolution theory.

It is ludicrous to believe that man is nothing but an advanced form of life. All of Mr. McKinley’s claims can be refuted. The fossil record offers no support for Darwin’s claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. Intermediate fossils that show the transitions from one life form to another are not to be found.

Evidence from the heavens, the earth, life and man all point to Genesis 1:1 — “In the beginning. God created the heavens and the earth.” What we all observe every day all around us speaks plainly and boldly of a design and a designer. And that is no whimsical theory!

Diane Griego, Patterson Disappointed in criticism

EDITOR,

I would like to start by saying I was very disappointed in the Marin Millard’s opinion on the Fall Family Festival.

As one who has volunteered for many years at most events here in Patterson, it is very difficult to please everyone. I know from personal experience that the handful of volunteers are overworked and underappreciated by the general public. If everyone would help for at least one event, then they would know what it takes to put an event on.

Kristin Kinnear and the parks and recreation staff did a wonderful job with what little resources they had available. The city lacks funding, as well as volunteers. All the events Kristin and her staff have put on have been well-attended, and people have expressed what a great time they’ve had.

I am tired of people with their “ideas” who are not there to help. Please come to a meeting or call the people in charge and help put your ideas to work. The few of us just can’t do it all, and we are very proud of the events we do manage to pull off. So please come out and volunteer!

Karen Willard, Patterson
Comments
(7)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
dgriego
|
November 25, 2009
As I regurgitate more please note current facts from a segment of the attached article:

"Pro-Darwin Consensus Doesn't Rule Out Intelligent Iesign" By Stephen C. Meyer, Special to CNN November 23, 2009 11:10 p.m. EST:

Contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal "a biological big bang" near the beginning of the Cambrian period (520 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or "phyla" (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors.

Fossil finds repeatedly have confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms, not the gradual "branching-tree" pattern implied by Darwin's common ancestry thesis.

There are also reasons to doubt the creative power of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. While many scientists accept that natural selection can produce small-scale "micro-evolutionary" variations, many biologists now doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes necessary to produce fundamentally new structures and forms of life.

For this reason more than 800 scientists, including professors from institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and Rice universities and members of various national (U.S., Russian, Czech, Polish) academies of science have signed a statement questioning the creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism.

Video: Actor blasts evolution Increasingly, there are reasons to doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely "appear" to be designed. Instead, living systems display telltale signs of actual or "intelligent" design such as the presence of complex circuits, miniature motors and digital information in living cells.

Consider the implications, for example, of one of modern biology's most important discoveries. In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code, similar to a computer code.

This discovery highlights a scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed: how did the first life on earth arise? To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell.

Instead, the digital code and information processing systems that run the show in living cells point decisively toward prior intelligent design. Indeed, we know from our repeated experience -- the basis of all scientific reasoning -- that systems possessing these features always arise from an intelligent source -- from minds, not material processes. Darwin's "revolutionary" legacy on display

DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers. Information -- whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal -- always arises from a designing intelligence. So the discovery of digital code in DNA provides a strong scientific reason for concluding that the information in DNA also had an intelligent source.

Despite the consensus view that Darwin showed that "design could arise without a designer" there is now compelling scientific evidence of actual intelligent design in even the simplest living cells.

Diane Griego

Patterson

Paul Burnett
|
November 16, 2009
"isearch98@yahoo.com" continues to insist "that the theory of evolution, then and now, is and was mere pseudoscience."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University Professors, the American Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Psychological Association, the American Society of Agronomy, and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology disagree with you (and that's just part of the "A" list). In their learned opinion, evolution is actual science and intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience.

Other than your own unsupported private personal opinion, "isearch98@yahoo.com," what national scholarly associations or professional societies support your absurd contention that evolution is pseudoscience?
isearch98@yahoo.com
|
November 15, 2009
Paul Burnett pops up the straw man of creationism without answerng the central premise of my comment, i.e., that the theory of evolution, then and now, is and was mere pseudoscience.

And as I said, the descendants of the (his words) "Military-Industrial Complex of the 1860s" are alive and well and pushing the same agenda.

Obviously it's time for Paul to get beyond the evolution vs creationism debate and start cutting through the matrix . . .
Paul Burnett
|
November 15, 2009
"isearch98@yahoo.com" tries to muddy the water with a proposal that the Hindu myths of Dasavatharam bear a faint resemblence to the sequence of life evolving from the oceans to the land, which was proposed long before Darwin. So what? And blaming Origin's acceptance on the Military-Industrial Complex of the 1860s is even stranger...I thought we were talking about creationism here.
isearch98@yahoo.com
|
November 15, 2009
Darwin’s 1859 attempt at a treatise - “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” - is derivative of Hindu mythology and merely an attempt at pseudoscientific justification of the British empire’s subjugation and destruction of other cultures.

So why is this being celebrated? you ask; simple - mass media and academia, both owned by the descendants of the elitists behind Darwin, are pushing it on an unsuspecting public with the same religious fervor as that other cesspit of religious junk science - CO2 caused climate change.

The success of both these flights of fancy shows how much can be done when money is no

object and the apathetic majority choose to remain asleep to the facts.

Meanwhile, the Copenhagen signings will soon concretise their tyranny ...
wadechar
|
November 12, 2009
Re: "Evolution, Not the Answer"

Evolution is the only scientific answer to explain the diversity of biology. Consult any Biologist at any university. Check any paper published in any scientific journal. Definitely do not "google" evolution and then use quotes that are false (Julian Huxley never said anything remotely resembling the quote attributed to him by Diane Griego). Please use evidence with appropriate sources cited.
Paul Burnett
|
November 12, 2009
Diane Griego regurgitates a common creationist lie: "There are many influential scientists who support intelligent design and back their beliefs with scientific fact, and the number is growing."

The few scientists who support intelligent design creationism are hardly "influential" - and they are far less than one per cent of all scientists. The few scientists who do support intelligent design creationism do so out of religious conviction, not actual scientific fact - as there is no actual scientific research supporting intelligent design creationism.

But I would like to thank Diane for her statement: "Evidence from the heavens, the earth, life and man all point to Genesis 1:1..." - that's just one more nail in the coffin that makes it clear that all the support for intelligent design creationism comes from religious conviction - not science.

The Dishonesty Institute in Seattle, the mothership of intelligent design creationism, relies on the scientifically illiterate and the the gullible to promote their pseudoscience. If you want to see what's really going on here, read Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals," available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf - you might not like it, but you will see why every actual science organization in the country agrees that intelligent design creationism is not science.


We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at news@pattersonirrigator.com.