Evolutionism and creationism

by andrewlohr


From: Andrew Lohr
Sent: Sun 4/10/2011 11:03 PM
To: Letters to the Editors
Subject: evolution controversy

Evolution is the theory that it’s OK to eat evolutionists, so the 17 UTC
faculty who signed a letter (Chattanooga Times April 8 A.D. 2011) saying “biological evolution is not
controversial in any sense within the scientific community” have no grounds in
evolution to complain if creationists eat them or collect taxes from them.  Of
course they don’t want to be eaten, but nature red in tooth and claw won’t
defend them.  They need love:  “God shows His love for us in that while we were
yet sinners the Anointed King died for us” (Romans 5:8).  They need faithful,
Trinitarian love:  “The Father loves the Son.”  They need “Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you.”

The 17 in 500-odd words neither argued for evolution nor said where such
argument can be found.  Evolutionists need to show that breeding has no limits;
but  breeding horses with donkeys produces sterile mules.  Breeding does have
limits:  this is an observed fact, not a theory.  Evolutionists need to produce
actual living things from nonliving chemicals.  Evolutionists need to show that
nothing can produce something, or to combine eternal matter with the big bang,
and/or to combine eternal matter with the tendency of things to get messy like
my socks  rather than organize themselves.

Why no controversy?  Because evolutionists suppress dissent and doubt,  as Ben
Stein’s movie “Expelled” showed–showed as an observed fact, not  just a
theory.  Marxism wasn’t controversial in the USSR.    Evolutionists debating
creationists sometimes lost.   Some creationists have solid scientific
credentials, and an old survey  found the average rank-and-file creationist knew
more details about  evolutionary theory than the average evolutionist.

Free speech,  please.

Advertisements