WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from a “guest column” titled Creationism vs. evolution — It always comes down to a choice, which appears in the News Journal of Mansfield, Ohio.
The author is Carole A. Pore, described as a retired family and consumer sciences teacher. We don’t know what “consumer science” is, but after reading this column we have no desire to find out. We’ll give you a few of the more peculiar portions of her column, with bold font supplied by us. Here we go:
Scientists are proud to recognize 2009 as the 200th birthday of the “theory” of evolution’s Charles Darwin, and the 150th celebration of his book “On the Origin of Species.”
Like that business of putting the word “theory” in quotes? Is the author trying to tell us something? Let’s read on:
But before we blow out the candles and cut the cake, perhaps we should listen to scientists on the other side of this hypothesis — some located at the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas.
Ah yes, the Institute for Creation Research. It was good of the author to let us know right up front where her information comes from. Oh, did you notice that now the author refers to evolution as an hypothesis, without quote marks? It’s probably some kind of creationist in-joke, so let’s not bother with it.
Evolution is a belief that is espoused by many intellectuals worldwide, even though there is no real scientific evidence to prove it, a number of scientists now counter.
No evidence! Now don’t you feel foolish believing in such a “theory”? Here’s more:
The simple case against evolution is that no one has ever seen it happen. Neither Darwin nor anyone else in the 100-plus years of costly research has ever been able to cite one single example of a new species originating. Of the billions of fossils researchers have seen, not one has shown transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Wow! We’ve got nothing! This is very embarrassing. Moving along:
Dr. Patricia L. Nason, chairwoman of the Department of Science Education at the Institute, believes it stems from a battle between two opposing worldviews.
Who is Nason? She’s listed on the “faculty” of ICR’s “graduate school.” (Two can play the quotes game.) And what are Nason’s two opposing worldviews — sane and insane? Let’s see:
“Just as creation is the foundation for Christianity, evolution is the foundation for the philosophy of humanism. Both are religions and both have basic assumptions on which their belief systems are founded. Creation and evolution are not science,” Nason said. “They are theories about the origin of man. … Secular humanism is the politically accepted religion of the day and its foundations lie in the theory of evolution.”
That was quite a load. You can’t find a bigger heap of it unless you follow behind a well-fed Tyrannosaurus Rex. If you can’t find one of those, a creation “scientist” will do just as well. (Like the quote-marks?)
We can’t take much more of this material, so we’ll wrap it up with one last excerpt:
In the end — after all the party hoopla life has to offer is over — it all comes down to a choice. You can either cut a piece of cake from the hollow end that offers nothing but crumbs, or you can choose the fullness of an eternal life that has been planned for you by a just and loving God. The choice is yours, and so are the consequences.
After that, as is appropriate for a column promoting creationism, the article ends with a scriptural reference. Hey, at least the author is honest about the source of her “information.” (We couldn’t resist another cutesy usage of quote-marks.)
If the gang in Seattle were to follow her example, we could respect them — at least in that sense.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.