There is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution. In simple terms, look at a monkey. Humans and chimps chromosomes are 98.6 percent identical.

This philosophy has been made the very framework of modern education and the underlying premise in all textbooks. It constitutes the present world-view of liberal intellectuals in every field.

Yes, there is a major conspiracy to rid the world of christianity.

This is the philosophy of evolution. Although widely promoted as a scientific fact, evolution has never been proved scientifically.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent.' " --Stephen Jay Gould

"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry." --Theodosius Dobzhansky

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution." --Neil A. Campbell

Some writers still call it the theory of evolution, but even this is too generous. A scientific hypothesis should be capable of being tested in some way, to determine whether or not it is true, but evolution cannot be tested. No laboratory experiment can either confirm or falsify a process which, by its very nature, requires millions of years to accomplish significant results.

No laboratory experiment can, but that doesnt mean anything. There is so much evidence. This includes comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record.

Cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology and archeology all are historical sciences. Unless you want to dismiss them as not being scientific.

Evolution is, therefore, neither fact, theory, nor hypothesis. It is a belief-and nothing more.

It is science, and it is the cornerstone in biology. No matter what religion says. Science says nothing about the existence of a god or not.

When creationists propose, however, that creation be taught in the schools along with evolution, evolutionists commonly react emotionally, rather than scientifically. Their "religion" of naturalism and humanism has been in effect the established religion of the state for a hundred years, and they fear competition.

And I guess history teachers fear competition when they dont let The Journal of Historical Review present their arguments that the holocaust never happened. Also, geology teachers fear competition when they dont let The Flat Earth Society present their arguments that the earth is flat. And, when we start teaching Biblical creationism, then we can start teaching American Indian religions, Greek and Norse "mythology", Islamic creationism, and any other religion that has a creation story. The difference between evolution and those views i just mentioned is evolution is a science, those views are religions.

In the present world, neither evolution nor creation is taking place, so far as can be observed (and science is supposed to be based on observation!). Cats beget cats and fruit-flies beget fruit-flies. Life comes only from life. There is nothing new under the sun.

Doesn't matter that we can't see cats turning into a different species. I suppose angels could have dug holes and stuck dinosaur bones in Jurrasic strata, but that doesn't mean modern geology isn't science and that it needs to be kicked out of school.

Neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins and history, not with presently observable and repeatable events.

Evolution is, creation isn't. It is impossible to prove whether or not a super being created the world and its animals. It is possible to disprove evolution. Evolution is science, creation is religion. Science isn't limited to observable and repeatable events as Henry Morris would like his readers to believe.

There are, therefore, sound scientific and pedagogical reasons why both models should be taught, as objectively as possible, in public classrooms, giving arguments pro and con for each. Some students and their parents believe in creation, some in evolution, and some are undecided.

I'll bet some students and parents believe the holocaust is a myth. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught as fact.

If creationists desire only the creation model to be taught, they should send their children to private schools which do this; if evolutionists want only evolution to be taught, they should provide private schools for that purpose. The public schools should be neutral and either teach both or teach neither.

The public schools should teach what a great majority of leading scientists accept and what falls under the definition of science. Evolution does, creation doesn't. 95 percent of biologists accept the theory of evolution. We cannot have non-biologists deciding on their own personal beliefs what is taught in biology class. (As happened in Kansas in 1999, when a proposal for new state science standards--which included evolution--that was written by over 20 scientists was rejected in favor of state science standards that ignored evolution, which was helped by farmer.)

An abundance of sound scientific literature is available today to document this statement, but few evolutionists have bothered to read any of it.

It isn't sound scientific literature. Unless you consider lies and falsehoods to be sound scientific literature. Just look at Henry Morris's Scientific Creationism. In it, he claims that an upper limit to the Earth's age is set at 9,000 based on nickel deposits in the ocean would have taken that long to form, ignoring that years for other metals to be deposited ranged from 100 to millions. Somebody please explain how that is scientific.

Many of those who have read it have become creationists!

I would like to see his evidence for that. He likely has none, other than he wants people to convert without actually reading his books. There are many scientists who have read creationist books and remain evolutionists. Probably many more considering 95 percent are evolutionists.

(1) Most basic is the necessity for each concerned creationist himself to become informed on the issue and the scientific facts involved. He does not need to be a scientist to do this, but merely to read several of the scholarly creationist books that are now available.

He should probably read some pro-evolution books, as well. Therefore, they would understand what evolution is from evolutionists. Also, it would be good to read some books that take on creationist claims.

He should also study creationist literature that demonstrates the fallacious nature of the various compromising positions (eg., theistic evolution, day-age theory, gap theory, local flood theory, etc.) in order to be on solid ground in his own convictions.

Shouldn't those be taught in school? Where is the fair treatment now?

(2) He should then see that his own children and young people, as well as others for whom he is concerned, have access to similar literature on their own level. He also should be aware of the teachings they are currently receiving in school and help them find answers to the problems they are encountering. He should encourage them always to be gracious and respectful to the teacher, but also to look for opportunities (in speeches, term papers, quizzes, etc.) to show that, although they understand the arguments for evolution,

Most creationists usually don't understand evolution. I doubt Morris does. In fact, few people--most biologists included--have a satisfactory understanding of evolution.

the creationist model can also be held and presented scientifically.

Hopefully, they'll someday show how it can be presented scientifically.

(3) If he learns of teachers who are obviously bigoted and unfair toward students of creationist convictions, it would be well for him to talk with the teacher himself, as graciously as possible, pointing out the true nature of the issue and requesting the teacher to present both points of view to the students. Under some circumstances, this might be followed up by similar talks with the principal and superintendent.

Let's also suggest they quit being bigoted against Norse and Greek "mythology", too. Fair treatment for all! There are more than two views, and it is impossible to teach them all.

(4) Many teachers and administrators are quite willing to present both viewpoints, but have been unaware that there does exist a solid scientific case for creation, and, therefore, they dont know how to do this.

They are unaware that a solid scientific case supports creation because there isn't one.

(6) Discussions can be held with officials at high levels (state education boards, district boards, superintendents, etc.) to acquaint them with the evidences supporting creation and the importance of the issue.

Tell me when you plan on doing that. I'll get the NCSE to bring in some biologists and scientists to tell how creation is not scientific.

complete version of impact #1

email me