libraries and evolution teaching

[Daniel L Robinson]

Hi All,
I am D. L. Robinson, husband of Martha W. Robinson, a regular reader.  I
haven't 
posted here before, but as Doug wrote recently:

> As much as I hate these threads, there are limits to how long 
> I'll ignore them.

Jim Kruse wrote:

> Mark, you assume that science and religion are in competition.  I no
more
> see creationism as a competing scientific theory than I see evolution
as a
> religion.

Actually, historically, that is exactly what evolution is.  

When a group of the European upper crust was offended by the simple fact 
that to be an educated man in the Western Civilized world required one to
be 
a Christian,  they decided to invent some other way to explain things. 
They 
tried the teachings of Lamark, but they fell down pitifully.  Anyone
could test 
the claim that acquired changes in individuals accumulated racially, and
it was
obvious to all that they didn't.

Darwinism, on the other hand, held two advantages.  It was evidently less
easily 
falsifiable, and it worships death as the tool in the creation of the
higher life forms,
rather than seeing it as the result of sin, and requiring the work of the
Savior.

That this is not science is perfectly clear when we realize that the
standard model,
the only model, explaining the source of solar energy for the first
hundred years after
Darwin was Newton's theory of gravitational collapse.  As the gaseous
matter of
the sun collapsed gravitationally, it would heat the matter, causing it
to radiate out 
the energy.  This could not be reasonably continued, by Newton's
calculations, for 
much more than about twenty thousand years.  Obviously, that was not
enough 
time for Darwinian evolution, but in an act of faith, the evolutionists
were willing to 
simply ignore the problem, hoping against hope that it would go away.

At this point, every evolutionist in the room cheers and feels
vindicated, because  
of course we know today that the sun runs on nuclear fusion, and that
this is a
sufficient source of energy to explain all of the hundreds of millions of
years that
they feel that they need.  Of course, that is actually smoke and mirrors,
first of all
because it simply begs the question of whether any such process could
occur at 
all, even if we were to allot tens of trillions of years to it, and
secondly because we
have known for a couple of decades that the number of solar nutrinos that
we observe
demonstrate that only about a third of the energy from the sun is from
nuclear fusion.

Are there no models or theories that bail-out the poor evolutionists? 
Well, or course,
since there are many physicists that feel just as ill-at-ease with having
to answer for 
their lives as any biologist, but only by doing *real* violence to the
standard models,
that is to say, by looking at the phenomena and attempting to explain it
away by 
modifying the models, models that were working just fine, as long as we
confine ourselves 
to physics, and with no other justification than to provide the time
needed for darwinian
evolution to occur.  Just what some of you have been decrying in what you
caricature 
as being creationism.

This line of argument could be carried on, but 
	"He who is convinced against his will,
	  is of the same opinion still."

I realize that it is a million-to-one against anyone being convinced by
this posting, 
or by anything that I could conceivably say, but I had to at least let my
voice be heard.
There are many thousands of us, physicists, mathematicians, engineers,
biologists, 
just as intelligent, just as qualified, and just as honest as any
evolutionist, and we are
creationists.   Much good science has been and continues to be done,
using models
based on creationist assumptions, and it bears considerable fruit, but
cannot get a 
hearing, due to the carefully guarded doors to the peer-reviewed press.

It has been suggested in this list that creationists should have to "
fight it out the same 
way as everyone else - in the marketplace of ideas in science".  That is
just the point,
that isn't what "everyone else" is doing.  At the first suggestion that a
grad student is a
creationist, he is jettisonned.  If a teacher in high school were to
(shudder) *have* a Bible,
let alone be caught reading it on his free time, he is "in violation of
the Separation of 
Church and State!"  There is a concerted attempt to suppress the careers
of anyone that
happens to disagree with the stadt religion, nay even who doesn't appear
to be fervent
enough in its service.  History must be revised to expunge contributions
from heretics that
did not believe in The Holy Random Process and the Sacred Natural
Selection.  Where the 
contributions are over arching, the attempt is made to down play the
beliefs of the individuals,
and certainly to minimize the part that those beliefs had in their
stellar achievements.  When
all else fails, invent history out of thin air -- as with Galileo.  Make
any claims you wish, since
the education monopoly will always back you up.  The possibility of the
shoe being put on the 
other foot, as in Kansas, is indeed the very thing that is causing this
uproar.  Oh, and please
notice how the good governor of the state is urging the evolutionists to
simply work harder to 
gain support for their ideas in the free market place of ideas.

I understand that strictly speaking this is a misuse of the Leplist, as
were all the previous 
postings on this thread, and I apologize for the intrusion.  If anyone
would like to pursue any 
point that I have brought up, I would suggest a side discussion, to spare
the group.  Unless
I am publicly addressed, I will return to my laconic perch, reading over
my wife's shoulder,
and speaking only when spoken to.

	-- D. L. Robinson