“The Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ Revisited” - An invitation to examine both sides of the origins debate

Nikōn

Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
571
I found something I wrote years ago...

“Earlier this century the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial proved to be a turning point in science education. The State of Tennessee brought John Thomas Scopes to trial for teaching evolution in a public school, in opposition to the Butler Act.

This act declared that no theory in conflict with the biblical story of creation, as laid down in the first chapters of Genesis should be taught. Although Scopes was found guilty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and freedom of scientific enquiry finally triumphed.

This decision opened the way for scientific findings to be presented in educational establishments, regardless of their implications for religious faith or cherished beliefs. Evolution was quickly embraced by the educationalists of the day, and so certain did the theory seem to its exponents that many were led to state that it was a fact.

Two years after the trial, Prof. George Gaylord Simpson wrote that "Darwin finally and definitely established evolution as fact". In England the same year, Sir Arthur Keith wrote in his 'Concerning Man's On'gin, (1927) "Will Darwin's victory endure for all time? So strong has his position become that I am convinced it will never be shaken".

However, half a century later many scientists were not so sure. Dr Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, addressed over fifty classification specialists at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 with the question "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution any one thing, any one thing that is true?" After a long silence, one listener volunteered: "I know it should not be taught as fact in schools".

The probability that evolution could have produced life in the first place has been questioned by many scientists. Sir Fred Hoyle wrote (Evolution from Space, 1981): "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero".

Professor H.J.Lipson (A Physicist looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 1980) sums up the thinking of a growing number of scientists when he writes: "I think, however, that we must go further and admit that 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 we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it".

Despite a growing number of scientists who are abandoning evolutionary ideas, when it comes to what should be taught in schools, evolution is presented as the accepted theory of origins. It is commonly contended that “Evolution is science”, whereas “Creation is religion”.

The philosopher Karl Popper has argued that for any hypothesis to be within the realm of scientific theory, it must be phenomenon that may be tested by human observers and be repeatable. It is only then subject to the scientific method.

Creation has not been observed by human witnesses and since creation would involve unique, unrepeatable historical events, it is not subject to the scientific method. As a theory it is non-falsifiable as it is impossible to conceive of an experiment that could disprove it. Though creation does not fulfil the criteria of a scientific theory, that in itself does not invalidate it.

Evolution likewise sufferers from this problem. World-famous evolutionist Dr T. Dobzhansky stated the problem lucidly (American Scientist, Dec. 1957) "These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted". Dr L. Merson Davies (The Bible and Modem Science, 1953) [a founding father of CSM Ed.] wrote: "It is Darwin's habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted, to my mind, the most unforgivable offence against science".

It follows that the dogmatic claims that “evolution is a fact", made by early evolutionist writers as well as contemporary ones like Prof R.Dawkins, are ill-founded. So is the tired claim that "Evolution is science but Creation is religion".

In his book "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", Gillespie points out that in Darwin’s day, creationists frequently pleaded ignorance of the means of creation yet always affirmed the fact of creation. Patterson perceptively noted that the boot was now on the other foot. Evolutionists are now pleading ignorance of the means of evolution while always affirming the fact of evolution. On this point he states that it is hard to distinguish creationist attitudes of the past from evolutionists today!

In this climate of scientific debate, and the lack of clear difference in the scientific nature of these theories, surely no-one interested in academic freedom would seriously oppose the presentation in the classroom of scientific facts from both sides of the debate.

Would it not be better for the cause of scientific enquiry (and teach students more about the areas of experimental and investigative science), to allow the diversity of scientific view on origins to be honestly presented in schools? If both views were presented, allowing the main points of scientific evidence to be aired, surely this would not be detrimental to the cause of true science?

This situation would not be a 'Trojan Horse for religious fundamentalism infiltrating the world of science teaching, but rather, provide some much needed scientific objectivity to the question.

Where does all this leave the cause of science education? Does the teaching of origins in schools reflect open minded scientific questioning, or do we stand again in that hot Tennessee courtroom and and hear religious evolutionists trying a school teacher for inferring that the scientific evidence may not favour evolution?“
One thing I think that is essential to note is the way that Evolution or the teaching of the concept thereof, is almost always tied to particular philosophical and political views, instead of merely just the science (problematic or not) itself.
That extends to the way it is systemically utilized as an alternative metaphysics.
 

Bubbajay

Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
834
“Micro” and “Macro” Evolution are definitions that evolutionist seem to hate but they are worth exploring.

Both creationists and evolutionists believe in natural selection and even speciation. Through a process of differentiation and isolation over time, creatures may become incompatible with other branches of the same tree and therefore unable to produce viable offspring. Some people call this “evolution” but I think it is rightly defined as “micro-evolution”. The jump in differences between one group of birds breeding in March and a separate group with common ancestry breeding in June might lead to the technical definition of a new species.

The elephant in the room is that some changes or jumps are larger than others...

The way I have come to understand it is that a man might, with a run up be able to jump over a stream, but logic doesn’t then indicate that the same man, with enough attempts they could leap over a lake.

The obstacle of irreducible complex structures means that certain steps in evolutionary progress require our man to jump lakes on a regular basis. Each one of these jumps may require the appearance of novel, fully formed structures which are passed on to the next generation. This problem is one the world of evolutionary science has wrestled with for years without any answer, because there is none. It is a fundamental and invalidating flaw in the theory.
Yep. They believe micro evolution is proof of macro evolution even though one is observable, and one isnt.

The idea of evolution has always been an occult idea, that's what alchemy is all about. Its interesting that Darwin used the word "transmutation" to describe his theory, then later changed it to evolution. The alchemists turning lead to gold was always about changing man from a beast into a god, this applies to the single person, and also on a societal scale. If you sit and think about evolution, then the obvious outcome is always man eventually evolving into a higher form of man, or a entity higher on the evolutionary scale.

Theosophy emerged at the same time as evolution. The theosophical scale from lowest life form to highest is mineral, plant, animal, man, then finally superman. It falls in line with Nietzsche and his Ubermensch. In reality this is what real Satanism is. Its man trying to obtain apotheosis or godhood, it was the big lie Satan told Eve in the garden if they ate the apple, they'd "be as gods". Its the very reason Satan was thrown out of heaven, for trying to place himself above the thrown of God.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
One thing I think that is essential to note is the way that Evolution or the teaching of the concept thereof, is almost always tied to particular philosophical and political views, instead of merely just the science (problematic or not) itself.
That extends to the way it is systemically utilized as an alternative metaphysics.
I agree - I think it is good to critique evolution on both levels. There is clearly the “evolution as science” claim that can be addressed by scientific cross examination and there is also the “evolution as explanatory narrative / spirituality” which is clearly built on the claimed science foundation but extends outwards from it…
 

Bubbajay

Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
834
"if there is no God, then all things are permitted". That's basically what it boils down to. Its all about a spiritual devolution. Its the first step of alchemy, its the " negredo"stage, it also means blackening, putrifaction, and decomposition. The thought is to eventually reach apotheosis man has to shake off what they think of as all his superstitions, the first being religion of coarse. the end result is the loss of ego and individuality. The new man will be amoral they say, above "good and evil". In reality its just objectivism there is no right and wrong.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
"if there is no God, then all things are permitted". That's basically what it boils down to. Its all about a spiritual devolution. Its the first step of alchemy, its the " negredo"stage, it also means blackening, putrifaction, and decomposition. The thought is to eventually reach apotheosis man has to shake off what they think of as all his superstitions, the first being religion of coarse. the end result is the loss of ego and individuality. The new man will be amoral they say, above "good and evil". In reality its just objectivism there is no right and wrong.
What you said here reminds me of one of my favourite exchanges C.S. Lewis ever wrote, the conversation between the soulless reductionist Frost and the young Mark Studdock:-


Meanwhile, in the Objective Room, something like a crisis had developed between Mark and Professor Frost. As soon as they arrived there Mark saw that the table had been drawn back. On the floor lay a large crucifix, almost life size, a work of art in the Spanish tradition, ghastly and realistic. “We have half an hour to pursue our exercises,” said Frost looking at his watch. Then he instructed Mark to trample on it and insult it in other ways.​
Now whereas Jane had abandoned Christianity in early childhood, along with her belief in fairies and Santa Claus, Mark had never believed in it at all. At this moment, therefore, it crossed his mind for the very first time that there might conceivably be something in it. Frost who was watching him carefully knew perfectly well that this might be the result of the present experiment. He knew it for the very good reason that his own training by the Macrobes had, at one point, suggested the same odd idea to himself. But he had no choice. Whether he wished it or not this sort of thing was part of the initiation.​
“But, look here," said Mark.​
“What is it?" said Frost. “Pray be quick. We have only a limited time at our disposal.”​
“This,” said Mark, pointing with an undefined reluctance to the horrible white figure on the cross. “This is all surely a pure superstition.”​
“Well?”​
“Well, if so, what is there objective about stamping on the face? Isn’t is just as subjective to spit on a thing like this as to worship it? I mean—damn it all—if it’s only a bit of wood, why do anything about it?”​
“That is superficial. If you had been brought up in a non-Christian society, you would not be asked to do this. Of course, it is a superstition; but it is that particular superstition which has pressed upon our society for a great many centuries. It can be experimentally shown that is still forms a dominant system in the subconscious of many individuals whose conscious thought appears to be wholly liberated. An explicit action in the reverse direction is therefore a necessary step towards complete objectivity. It is not a question for a prioridiscussion. We find it in practice that it cannot be dispensed with.”​
Mark himself was surprised at the emotions he was undergoing. He did not regard the image with anything at all like a religious feeling. Most emphatically it did not belong to that idea of the Straight or Normal or Wholesome which had, for the last few days, been his support against what he now knew of the innermost circle at Belbury. The horrible vigour of its realism was, indeed, in its own way as remote from that Idea as anything else in the room. That was one source of his reluctance. To insult even a carved image of such agony seemed an abominable act. But it was not the only source. With the introduction of this Christian symbol the whole situation had somehow altered. The thing was becoming incalculable. His simple antithesis of the Normal and the Diseased had obviously failed to take something into account. Why was the Crucifix there? Why were more than half of the poison-pictures religious? He had the sense of new parties to the conflict—potential allies and enemies which he had not suspected before. “If I take a step in any direction,” he thought, “I may step over a precipice.” A donkey like determination to plant hoofs and stay still at all costs arose in his mind.​
“Pray make haste,” said Frost.​
The quiet urgency of the voice, and the fact that he had so often obeyed it before, almost conquered him. He was on the verge of obeying, and getting the whole silly business over, when the defenselessness of the figure deterred him. the feeling was a very illogical one. Not because its hands were nailed and helpless, but because they were only made of wood and therefore even more helpless, because the thing, for all its realism, was inanimate and could not in any way hit back, he paused. The unretaliating face of a doll—one of Myrtle’s dolls—which he had pulled to pieces in boyhood had affected him in the same way and the memory, even now, was tender to the touch.​
“What are you waiting for, Mr. Studdock?” said Frost.​
Mark was well aware of the rising danger. Obviously, if he disobeyed, his last chance of getting out of Belbury alive might be gone. Even of getting out of this room. The smothering sensation once again attacked him. He was himself, he felt, as helpless as the wooden Christ. As he thought this, he found himself looking at the crucifix in a new way—neither as a piece of wood nor a monument of superstition but as a bit of history. Christianity was nonsense, but one did not doubt that the man had lived and had been executed thus by the Belbury of those days. And that, as he suddenly saw, explained why this image,though not itself an image of the Straight or Normal, was yet in opposition to the crooked Belbury. It was a picture of what happened when the Straight met the Crooked, a picture of what the Crooked did to the Straight—what it would do to him if he remained straight. It was, in a more emphatic sense than he had yet understood, a cross.​
“Do you intend to go on with the training or not?” said Frost. His eye was on the time. . . .​
“Do you not hear what I am saying?” he asked Mark again.​
Mark made no reply. He was thinking, and thinking hard because he knew, that if he stopped even for a moment, mere terror of death would take the decision out of his hands. Christianity was a fable. It would be ridiculous to die for a religion one did not believe. This Man himself, on that very cross, had discovered it to be a fable, and had died complaining that the God in whom he trusted had forsaken him—had, in fact, found the universe a cheat. But this raised a question that Mark had never thought of before. Was that the moment at which to turn against the Man? If the universe was a cheat, was that a good reason for joining its side? Supposing the Straight was utterly powerless, always and everywhere certain to be mocked, tortured, and finally killed by the Crooked, what then? Why not go down with the ship? He began to be frightened by the very fact that his fears seemed to have momentarily vanished. They had been a safeguard . . . they had prevented him, all his life, from making mad decisions like that which he was now making as he turned to Frost and said,​
“It’s all bloody nonsense, and I’m damned if I do any such thing.”​
When he said this he had no idea what might happen next.​
—C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, pp. 334-337​
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
**Video has graphic language**

If you ever wondered about the rumors about Evolution having a part in the Columbine shootings. Then you need to watch this unedited version documentary. They only get graphic in the language. Because they are showing just how those 2 boys were. So you'll hear the F word a few times.

The shooter wore shirts that expressed things. One said Natural Selection. They believed they were speeding up human evolution by killing other kids. This documentary was made in another country so what they said and actually did was not edited out like the versions made here in the US were.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
The latest update from Barry Setterfield discussing the changing speed of light and its implications for the light/time issue of distant starlight and the apparent great ages yielded by radiometric dating.

If you ever thought that those who believe in “deep time” have greater scientific weight, think again

 

recure

Established
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
380
Darwinianism basically legitimizes scientific racism as this, and accompanying anthropological models like the Out of Africa theory, teaches that Europeans descended from lower forms of man which evolved from monkeys. Darwin and Haeckel disagreed on whether man evolved from African or SE Asian apes but the signification is the same.

The cover of a 2010 National Geographic magazine just so happens to show the skull of the “oldest hominid skeleton” held by a black person.

natgeo72010.jpg
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
6DE8766C-C3D4-4A7F-BD0C-91E7FF6A5496.jpeg

Polonium Halos, Creation's tiny mysteries

Doctor Robert Gentry, who worked as a research scientists in the state of Tennessee, was assigned to the disposal of nuclear waste.

During his tenure, Dr. Gentry stumbled upon evidence that showed that granite rocks never were hot molten rocks and that they had have been created instantaneously due to polonium Halos being found throughout the granite rocks. Polonium Halos have a short life and weren't supposed to be in the rock if the rocks were originally molten.

Dr. Gentry's research was so devastating to the evolutionary worldview and the very old earth paradigm until he was harassed constantly by his secular co- workers.

Reference

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
“As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.”

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
Why was there no rain before the Flood? Because the barometric pressures were so high, clouds could not form. The second image is bubbles caught in amber. This is a snapshot of the atmosphere back then. When they test the bubbles for content it's always twice as much barometric pressure aka why clouds could not form. And twice as much oxygen aka why the people lived so long back then aka 900 plus years.

E61F5EC8-BF9A-4569-810E-842867601B5D.jpeg00735EBE-1110-4CDB-BE33-DC49EE2787A6.jpeg

If all of that sounds far-fetched, consider this modern experiment…


In 1960, David Latimer planted a tiny garden inside of a large glass bottle and sealed it shut. He opened the bottle 12 years later in 1972 to add some water and then sealed it for good. The self contained ecosystem has flourished for nearly 60 years.

For those who are wondering how this is even possible: the garden is a perfectly balanced and self-sufficient ecosystem. The bacteria in the compost eats the dead plants and breaks down the oxygen that is released by the plants, turning it into carbon dioxide, which is needed for photosynthesis. The bottle is essentially a microcosm of earth.

B5A77A73-1A0C-495A-A080-FAD83CCCFAAA.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
The Ashley Phosphate Beds of South Carolina

South Carolina's phosphate beds have been mined since the 1870s as a rich source of fertilizer for crops. Those beds also held plenty of fossils, and many of those fossils buried together were "out of place" according to the geologic dating system of today.

Professor F.S. Holmes (paleontologist and curator of the College of Charleston’s Natural History Museum) knew of a variety of creatures found in the phosphate beds of Ashley, SC. On page 31 of his 1870 book The Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina, Holmes describes the history of the beds, saying, "It was in this Post-Pleiocene age, the period when the American Elephant, or Mammoth, the Mastodon, Rhinoceros, Megathereum, Hadrosaurus, and other gigantic quadrupeds roamed the Carolina forests..."

It's noteworthy that Holmes lists the hadrosaurus in the mix. As if to avoid any confusion about what he meant, inside the cover of his book, (directly across from the UCLA Library label in the online copy) Holmes has a picture of the creature in question. The drawing is labeled "Hadrosaurus Foulki. - Leidy. Skeleton of a Fossil Lizard eighteen feet in Length".

The Hadrosaurus foulkii should not be in Holmes' list. Hadrosaurs - duck-billed dinosaurs - are considered to have lived 70 to 100 million years ago during the Cretaceous, while mammoths, giant sloths et al, allegedly lived during the Pleistocene epoch just thousands to a few million years ago. In fact, Hadrosaurus foulkii holds a special place in the world of dinosaur digging. It was a discovery that impressed on the world that dinosaurs had actually existed, and is honored as the state dinosaur of New Jersey.

Not only did the hadrosaur show up in the Ashley beds, though. Apparently, so did humans.

In his book How Shall We Escape, French Oliver describes the fossils of Ashley, saying on page 177, "Major E. Willis of Charleston, S.C., sent me a cordial invitation to visit the Charleston Exposition and see the 'finest collection of fossils in the world.' He sent me a list of fossils and phosphate specimens, also a number of the fossilized bones... The fossils of Ashley, S.C., are remarkable in their vast scope of species. Ranging from the common periwinkle to the mammoth, mastodon and megatherium. And the mystery of man's longevity clears as we find his bones among the number. The individuality of the species is absolute..."

John Allen Watson, in his book Man, Dinosaurs, and Mammals Together (2001), notes that Willis' catalog of animals from the phosphate beds included dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, whales, sharks, rhinos, horses, mastodons, mammoths, porpoises, elephants, deer, pigs, dogs, and sheep.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
Evolution is the reason human zoos existed. They displayed all dark-skinned peoples as animals because evolution taught this. Some were even put into cages with monkeys to show how ape like they were. The term Naked Ape came from this basically imply that black people were hairless apes.

1850C7C7-09EF-4473-8DB6-84D8113AC24B.jpeg
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,132
An interesting post I read on a Facebook group…

“It states in the book of Genesis that God spoke and saw certain things. Another synonym for the word “saw” would be “observe”. The Observation Problem in Quantum Mechanics dictates that the outcome of an experiment is dictated by the conscious act of an observer. i.e. when subatomic particles are in a ‘superstate’, they are in more than 1 location at the same time. We know that time doesn’t move in a linear fashion as we perceive it. Time is actually quantized at 10(-43) cm(2) and matter is 10(-33).

I find it interesting that the odds given to a single cell are astronomical. Anything 10^50:1 is a mathematical nightmare as it is believed that there are 10^82 number of atoms in the entire universe. The odds given to the cell are 10^39,970:1 in other words, you have better odds of playing and winning the Powerball for 10,000 years every day, not missing once, and also you must have the DNA strand configured properly but in order to have the DNA strand, you must have the protein enzymes. In order to have the protein, you must have the DNA strand. All without genetic mutations of course… “
 
Last edited:
Top