Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
Home Fan Mail Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom
Menu
Skeptic Forums
Skeptic Summary
The Kil Report
Skeptillaneous
Creation/Evolution
About Skepticism
Fan Mail
Skepticality
Rationally Speaking
Claims List
Skeptic Links
Book Reviews
Gift Shop
Staff


Server Time: 04:03:41
Your Local Time:



Fan Mail
skeptic,fan mail,letters to editor,correspondence
Printer Friendly Printer Friendly Version of this Article... Bookmark Bookmark This Article...

Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom

By John Schroeder
Posted on: 4/24/2006

All correspondence received by Skeptic Friends Network or its staff becomes the property of Skeptic Friends Network, and may be printed without the consent of the author.

An author makes an unsolicited attempt to spread the glory of God


To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 24, 2006

Subject book is a good one. Christian Moments is featuring it in
February. Christian Parents has given it a five-star rating.
(Wheatmark, Sept '05) ISBN 1587365316. Amazon.com, $11.53. Can you
give it a plug? If so, it will be greatly appreciated.

Email received from Pastor friend:

John...the E-Card was beautiful and very thoughtful. Thank you for it. While sitting at the hospital with Dad I have almost finished reading your book word for word. It is a great book. I wish every pastor would read this and every school teacher too. When things settle down to where I do not have to drive to Anderson every day I want us to have lunch and discuss how I can help sell this great book. Thanks again for your prayers, e-card and encouragement. Randy


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 25, 2006
And you are sending this info to me, why?



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 25, 2006

Keeps you on your Darwinist toes. Steps on 'em a little, too.


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 25, 2006
Well, ummmm, not really.

Whatever floats your boat though…



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 24, 2006

In truth, David,

It was because Jesus wanted you to know He loves you, and He sometimes
gets His message to the right place by employing the wrong messenger.


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 25, 2006
In truth, evolution has nothing to do with Jesus. It says nothing about God. It just happens. In truth, you can believe in Jesus and understand that evolution happens. It isn’t a contest. It is sad that there are people who think that it is…



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 26, 2006

"It says nothing about God." And therein, David, lies the problem.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. - Col 1:16,17
"evolution has nothing to do with Jesus." It certainly does... in the sense that it takes credit for what He did.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." - John 1:1-3
In truth, nothing "just happens." All things are caused. Show me one effect that is demonstrably uncaused and I will give you one million of the billion dollars I collect for that great discovery. "It isn't a contest." Absolutely, positively correct. Evolution was a loser before the fact. Creation ex nihilo didn't even break a sweat. David, some good advice from an old sinner saved by grace: when man's opinions clash with God's truths, man loses. But that doesn't make Him love His creatures any less. He loves you whether you're a skeptic or a believer.
"God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 26, 2006
Thanks for responding to my email replies back to you. It now appears that we are going to have a conversation. So I might as well start calling you by name. :-)
“It says nothing about God.” And therein, David, lies the problem.
Religion and evolution do not contradict, nor does it seek to contradict the words of Colossians. It is you who have built conflict where none should exist. No scientist in his right mind would argue that what we observe in the evidence for evolution is not a part of a greater plan. That science restricts itself to the study of the natural world and does not consider supernatural forces that cannot be studied within the necessary confines of the scientific method (the realm of what can be falsified) does not mean that those forces and a creator do not exist, perhaps driving the very mechanisms that are being observed.

Your faith in God and how you choose to express that faith should not be dependent on the accumulation of knowledge about the natural world. There are people of faith, scientists who find evidence for God and his wonders in the knowledge of how our world works. Unfortunately, there are those who feel that some knowledge seeks to diminish God’s role in creation. There is a history of that and again, I think it’s a sad history.
“evolution has nothing to do with Jesus.” It certainly does… in the sense that it takes credit for what He did.
Evolutionary biology (and science in general) does not take credit for what God does. Science does not consider God because it can’t. That, my friend, is up to you. Science can only go where it can go. There are limits to what science can do. Some people see the hand of God in the design of man, the world, and the universe. But since there is no way to test for that it must remain outside of the realm of what science can tell us. Simply put, you falsely assign to science a claim to ability that science itself does not claim. And in doing so, you have set up a false dichotomy.
In truth, nothing “just happens.”
What I meant by “just happens” is that we acknowledge that evolution happens, based on evidence supported by many scientific disciplines. I did not mean to imply that it is without causation.
“It isn’t a contest.” Absolutely, positively correct. Evolution was a loser before the fact. Creation ex nihilo didn’t even break a sweat.
Again, you present a false dichotomy. And one that certain kinds of creationists seem to cling to. I don’t have the ability to make you see that this isn’t an either/or proposition. But again, there is a history of the kind of thinking that you demonstrate with your words. Even though the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, even though the Earth is not the center of the universe, and even though the Earth is not flat, most peoples’ faith in God remains undiminished. Historically, eventually, your kind comes around. It is your own arrogance that you think you know the mind of God and how God does his work. And while your faith in God may remain undiminished, your lack of faith in your fellow man’s ability to gain knowledge of the natural world without losing sight of God, in my view, shows the true weakness of your way of thinking.

David, some good advice from an old sinner saved by grace: when man’s opinions clash with God’s truths, man loses. But that doesn’t make Him love His creatures any less. He loves you whether you’re a skeptic or a believer.
Perhaps. But it seems to me that the most harm has come from those who think they actually know God’s truths with absolute certainty. It is they who strap bombs onto themselves, lead us into war, and defend ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence that supports a particular knowledge that threatens their singular view of the Truth that they think they have cornered. There is an arrogance to religious (and really any) fundamentalist belief that scares me. And I think there is plenty of evidence both now and in history to support that fear. If there are lessons to be learned from the Bible, and I’m sure that there are, one of those lessons is to not presume to know the mind of God.

I am not a Christian, nor do I pretend to any faith of a religious kind. I am heartened, however, that I do have many friends of faith who do not take the narrow view. And while we may not agree on what my ultimate fate may be, what we do agree on is that the world is filled with wonders and mysteries just begging to be discovered.



To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 26, 2006
I made a statement in my last reply to you that I feel needs some clarification and correction, after reading it over.

I said:
No scientist in his right mind would argue that what we observe in the evidence for evolution is not a part of a greater plan.
Actually, in terms of the way evolution happens, while cause is part of the equation, a plan isn’t necessary for evolution to work. That said, I should have said that no scientist in his right mind would argue that what we observe in the evidence for evolution is an argument against the existence of God and how God does his work.

I will add that it does say something about a literal take on the creation story as it is presented in the opening pages of Genesis.



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 26, 2006

Okey-Dokey, David.

If that's what you believe, that's what you believe. Jesus loves us
enough to let us choose freely who and what we believe. I'm sorry you
believe the way you do, because there aren't, and there won't ever be,
skeptics in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
However, no one ever is abandoned. There is hope 'til the last breath is drawn.
"whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." - Acts 2:21
I pray one day you will remember that and do it.


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 26, 2006
So, I take it where it comes to creationism, you prefer preaching to the choir…

Probably a good choice.



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 27, 2006

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Note that God didn't waste words trying to convince us that He exists.
We either believe that He exists or we don't. We either believe that
the Bible is His word of revelation to us or we don't. We either
believe that the Lord Jesus died for our sins or we don't. We either
believe that the empty tomb is proof of His Godly existence or we
don't. Preaching creation to one of your admitted persuasion would be
as fruitful as sowing grass seed on a salt flat. Agreed?


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 27, 2006
Well, John, here is how I see it. You are correct in your assumption that I would likely not become a Christian based on any conversation between us regarding creationism. And if your only motivation for writing books about evolution is to correct the flaws you see in the science of evolution is your chosen method for bringing people into the fold, and not subject to any critical analysis, then again, you are correct. In other words, if the science in your books and the assumption that you are making, by apparently holding to the position that any defense of how you view evolution and how it applies to Christianity are above criticism, then any discussion would be of little value.

I have to level with you, John. It is intellectually dishonest to make statements about science and how it applies to religion without being prepared to defend your position. And that also goes for scientists, theologians, or anyone else who puts a pen to paper to write a book on this, or really, any other non-fiction subject.

I have had conversations with creationists before, and it has been my experience that they are loath to get into any written debate with their critics. Leveling the playing field does not seem to interest them. It is not all that difficult to surmise why that might be, and I would welcome the chance to be proven wrong about that.

I have absolutely no investment in changing your religious beliefs. My only interest is in correcting the misrepresentation of facts and beliefs that have been directed at science and at those who have examined the evidence that supports evolution and have concluded that evolution best explains the diversity of life on this planet from a natural perspective. (Again, and again, the natural perspective does not say anything about God’s role in all of this because it can’t. Believing that there is an intelligent driving force behind nature is not inconsistent with the study of nature itself. It just can’t be tested.)

Anyhow, that may be that.



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 27, 2006

Let me correct what may well be a misconception. I am all for science.
What I am against is fiction masquerading as science. In our "debate"
to date you have followed perfectly the Darwinist party line. You have
employed a great deal of verbiage about the alleged established status
of evolution without presenting a single proof that molecule-to-man
evolution has taken place. Then you have accused me of doing the same
thing with regard to creation. The pot called the kettle black.

As for a level playing field, you should be ashamed to mention it.
Evolution's monopoly of this nation's education system makes for
anything but a level playing field. When evolutionists deliberately
block any and all efforts to teach kids the scientific objections
to evolution they are displaying the fairness of a dictatorship.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." - 1 Tim 6:20
Biology is science. Evolution is a hoax. Send me twenty verifiable proofs that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor. Include proofs of how the universe and its contents originated, and when, how and in what form organic life arose on Earth. Then, David, I will send you the scientific proofs for creation. Okay?


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 30, 2006
Thanks for responding. Now, if I may, I will comment on your response.
The pot called the kettle black.
You’re kidding, right? So far, I have made no argument in defense of evolution. What I have been suggesting is that a belief in God and understanding how nature, and in this case how evolution works, are not an either/or proposition. I have absolutely not “followed perfectly the Darwinist party line” (whatever that means), beyond acknowledging that the scientific mainstream accepts evolution. And you know that as well as I do, whether you like it or not. I have not brought up any particulars of evolution because, at least from my end, I have not been debating the merits of evolution.

You may not have noticed, but I don’t end all of my letters to you with a quote from Darwin. And frankly, while I acknowledge Darwin’s insights and his description of at least one mechanism that drives evolution, there has been almost 150 years of science since Darwin supporting evolution and suggesting other mechanisms that may also play a role in how we view evolution today.

And really, I don’t expect you to accept any of it. I don’t see how you can. You have put the cart before the horse in terms of science and it is that which I am questioning. You have set up an either/or, God-or-evolution, false dichotomy; a fallacy of logic that is not consistent with the scientific method. Furthermore, so far in these letters you have not addressed that criticism no matter how many times I have brought it up. There can be no debate about science or evolution unless you understand how science works.

So forget about evolution for now. The intellectual dishonesty I speak of is not about the facts you think you have that prove evolution is wrong, or worse, a hoax. The dishonesty is you will only regard evidence for what you already know to be true.

Let me tell you something you may not know: the person who brings down evolution (and I wouldn’t hold my breath for that to happen) will do it using accepted scientific methods. That means collecting evidence in support of whatever the new hypothesis is, and presenting that evidence for peer review. And after such review, if it is found that the new evidence supports a hypothesis that is a better explanation for the rise and the diversity of life on this planet than evolution, it will become the new best theory.

“God did it” is not a scientific hypothesis because it can’t be tested and it makes no predictions. And God may have done it, but God is not a falsifiable concept. If you want to prove that Genesis is literally and scientifically correct, you will not get there by attacking evolution. You must have evidence that can scientifically support the Genesis story for that story to hold up as a viable theory. And by the way, if you actually succeed in bringing down evolution, Genesis will not win by default. Again, this is not an either/or thing.

You will not bring down evolution (or any other scientific theory) by basing your arguments on personal incredulity (a fallacy of logic) or by picking out and attacking particulars of the science in question and presenting those objections in books that are mainly published for the purpose of accomplishing a goal that has less to do with science than it does with other motives.
…the scientific objections to evolution…
Oh, please. You actually have the nerve to say the objections are scientific, and yet you know as well as I do that they are not. Explain very slowly so I can understand were the theory is in intelligent design. What predictions does it make? Is it falsifiable? Or is it just another argument from personal incredulity?

And while you are at it, what specifically have the scientific creationists offered up that isn’t a combination of wild speculation and quote mining. And what theory is it that they are presenting? What do they have to support that theory?

I guess what I’m saying is: stop whining and offer up something that holds water. There is no giant conspiracy to stop progress in science. Maybe if you guys would actually go out and learn how science works (the scientific method) you might even find some success along the way. Once again, good science does not put the cart before the horse. And hey, don’t tell me that the “scientific objections” are not religiously based and can stand on their own, shoulder to shoulder with evidence-based science. If it could, it would be taught.
Then, David, I will send you the scientific proofs for creation.
Okay?
Here’s the deal: since evolution is accepted theory, your claim that it is a hoax places the burden of proving that claim on you (Logic 101). But If you are willing, I will set up a debate with you and someone from our site. I am confident that we can make the terms of that debate agreeable to both sides. If you can prove, or even make a good case for why evolution is a hoax, you should have no problem winning the debate. Since you don’t seem to lack confidence in that claim, I can’t see any reason why you would not welcome the opportunity to show us how we are wrong in our thinking.

How the universe and its contents originated is cosmology and not evolution. How life began on Earth is abiogenesis and not evolution. Let’s keep it simple, okay? The Big Bang and how life began are irrelevant to your claim that evolution is a hoax. Let’s do try to avoid those particular logical fallacies, strangely reminiscent of the Kent Hovind school of cowardly challenges.

Anyhow, truthfully, my goal was not to get you into a debate about evolution but to question your method of proselytizing. Attacking what you think is wrong with science is all well and good, but there is a place for that. The creation of false dichotomies have no place, no matter how equipped you are to recognize that.

The challenge is a real one. Take it or leave it.

But hey, how about addressing that either/or thing that I keep bringing up as my main criticism to how you present the science that you find inconvenient to your beliefs? And tell me how it differs from what Galileo was up against when he suggested that the Earth was not at the center of our solar system, much to the chagrin of Church doctrine at the time.


To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 28, 2006

You wrote: "It is intellectually dishonest to make statements about
science and how it applies to religion without being prepared to
defend your position." David, I can't believe this statement was made
by an intelligent human being. What you should have said is, "John, it
is intellectually dishonest to expose 4 + 4 = 9 until you are ready to
prove 4 + 4 = 8."

That, David, would have made just as much sense.

Jesus still loves you, and He will until your open-system body goes the
way of the second natural law... to the grave. 


To: David Glück (Kil) From: John Schroeder Date: January 30, 2006 David, for a chap who's not defending evolution, you sure sound like a chap defending evolution. Are you aware that one of the stages of the scientific method is falsification? When evolution is proven false - as is occurring on an ever-widening perimeter - no new natural theory of origins will be substituted for the simple reason that the origin of all things was a supernatural event. Because a lot of scientists - and you - have decided that the origin of all things was a natural phenomenon does not make it a natural phenomenon. Because a lot of atheists - and you - have decided that there is no Creator does not do away with the Creator nor give the credit for what He did to an accident. Because a lot of scientists - and you - have chosen to defend faith in evolution by attacking those who expose its fallacies and frauds does not in any way prove evolution to be an established fact. Nor does it prove wrong those who expose evolution as the hoax it is. Evolution scientists - and you - have an open forum to set forth the verifiable proofs for the belief that all organic life has evolved from one common ancestor. Evolution scientists - and you - have an open forum to set forth verifiable proof that lifeless atoms and molecules organized themselves into biologic units that turned them from lifeless into living organisms. Evolution scientists - and you - are the ones claiming that evolution is a proven scientific fact. The burden, therefore, is on them and you to "put your proofs where your mouth is." I say molecule-to-man evolution is a hoax. I have cited in my latest book fifteen scientific reasons for making that accusation. Attacking me in no way makes those accusations go away. In fact, absent proof to the contrary from evolution scientists - and you - those accusations stand and evolution falls. I believe in a living God and a historical Jesus who was crucified, buried, came back to life and left an empty tomb to prove He was who He said He was. Any doctrine that has monkeys allegedly evolving into human beings is not compatible with faith in the living God and His Son, Christ Jesus. He already has proved who He is. When are the evolution scientists - and you - going to send me the twenty verifiable proofs that all organic life is evolved from one common ancestor? And that there really is spontaneous generation? I'm waiting.


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 30, 2006
Do you actually read my replies to you? Gosh you have made a lot of assumptions about me. That said, I must go earn a living. I will respond to your reply in detail later this evening.

One quick thing: even if we all agreed that God started all life, that would not erase the evidence for evolution and is therefore not relevant to your goal of proving that evolution is a hoax. More on that later.



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 30, 2006

Do you read my responses? Exactly WHAT evidence? Evolution scientists,
and you, keep talking about all this evidence for evolution. WHAT
evidence? The folks out in Kansas invited the evolution scientists to
come before the State school board and PROVE that evolution is a fact.
Nobody but an ACLU shill showed up. All the evolution scientists did
was attack the school board for asking them to put up or shut up. The
result is that they and the ACLU have had their proverbial teeth
pulled. The state of Kansas WILL permit the teaching of scientific
data that refutes evolution, and the ACLU will not file suit.

You obviously have accepted the evolution hoax hook, line, and sinker.
So, let's have the proof. You've got the floor.

It's time to put up or shut up. 

You're trying very hard with a lot of silly words to comply with the
evolutionist creed, "Never, never let them get you in a spot where
you've got to prove molecule-to-man evolution." Well, David you're in
that spot. Prove it! Or direct your words elsewhere.


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 30, 2006
Thanks for the reply. And here is mine, as promised.
David, for a chap who’s not defending evolution, you sure sound like a chap defending evolution. Are you aware that one of the stages of the scientific method is falsification? When evolution is proven false — as is occurring on an ever-widening perimeter — no new natural theory of origins will be substituted for the simple reason that the origin of all things was a supernatural event.
I accept evolution as the best way to describe the diversity of life on our planet. But I have not been debating that with you. What I have been suggesting, and what you have been ignoring is that science cannot say anything about God. You just said, “the origin of all things was a supernatural event.” And, I can’t say that you’re not correct about that, which has been my point all along. Science will never verify the existence of God.

What science can do is, for example, come very close to knowing the age of our planet and our universe. Science can tell us a lot about a lot of things. Science works by collecting bits of evidence that may tell a bigger story when put together. And the evidence that it collects must be in a realm that is falsifiable, as I have mentioned several times now. In other words, science can only describe how things work in the realm that we live in. That would be the natural world.

You have a God belief. And correct me if I have this wrong, but your version of that belief holds that God is omnipotent. God can do anything. And if that’s the case, God could be directing the whole shebang. So, if God chose evolution as his method for getting us to where we are today, and directed each and every mutation that eventually leads to speciation, he could do it and do so and without detection. Have I mentioned to you that there are many scientists, Christians in fact, who study the natural world with the tools of science but praise and give credit to God for making this world what it is? They see science as a way to see the workings of God. Is there a conflict there? Nope.

But that isn’t you, is it? You seek to place God in a tiny box that fits what you know to be true. The way you read Genesis is the only correct way, even when the facts don’t fit. Our Earth is somewhere around five billion years old. That is what the geologists tell us. Our universe is around 13 billion years old. That is what the cosmologists tell us. Biologists and geologists tell us that life on this planet started somewhere around 3.5 billion years ago. But of course, to your way of thinking, all of that is a hoax. You have a lot more than evolution to debunk if you insist on taking the words in Genesis literally.

But how dare you trample on other peoples’ faith in the same God you pray to. You have not the humility to understand that you don’t know the mind of God but have the temerity to justify your attack on knowledge itself because it doesn’t fit with your particular interpretation of the same book that many good scientists are also reading. It is the narrow view that sets up the false dichotomy that you are so comfortable with that you don’t even recognize it for what it is.
Because a lot of scientists — and you — have decided that the origin of all things was a natural phenomenon does not make it a natural phenomenon. Because a lot of atheists — and you — have decided that there is no Creator does not do away with the Creator nor give the credit for what He did to an accident.
And I have never once suggested otherwise. Science can only deal in the natural realm of things. How many times must I repeat myself?
Because a lot of scientists — and you — have chosen to defend faith in evolution by attacking those who expose its fallacies and frauds does not in any way prove evolution to be an established fact. Nor does it prove wrong those who expose evolution as the hoax it is.
Mostly we attack the arguments, and mostly the arguments don’t hold water. Now and then we get to pick on a cowardly doofus like Kent Hovind, master of the “Gish Gallup” but completely unwilling to defend his attacks on evolution in a written debate where his thousand-word-a-minute patter will do him no good. Have you ever seen his doctorial thesis? Priceless!
Evolution scientists — and you — have an open forum to set forth the verifiable proofs for the belief that all organic life is evolved from one common ancestor. Evolution scientists — and you — have an open forum to set forth verifiable proof that lifeless atoms and molecules organized themselves into biologic units that turned them from lifeless into living organisms.
Oh sure. Blame the system. It’s a dang conspiracy, that’s what it is. It’s a conspiracy to cover up a hoax. Several hoaxes, in fact. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Evolution scientists — and you — are the ones claiming that evolution is a proven scientific fact. The burden, therefore, is on them and you to “put your proofs where your mouth is.” I say molecule-to-man evolution is a hoax. I have cited in my latest book fifteen scientific reasons for making that accusation. Attacking me in no way makes those accusations go away. In fact, absent proof to the contrary from evolution scientists — and you — those accusations stand and evolution falls.
Well, you just keep saying evolution is a hoax. Care to defend that position in a structured written debate? I’m talking about, you know, opening arguments, rebuttals, that sort of thing. We could even get outside moderation if that would make you happy.

I believe in a living God and a historical Jesus who was crucified, buried, came back to life and left an empty tomb to prove He was who He said He was. Any doctrine that has monkeys allegedly evolving into human beings is not compatible with faith in the living God and His Son, Christ Jesus. He already has proved who He is. When are the evolution scientists — and you — going to send me the twenty verifiable proofs that all organic life is evolved from one common ancestor? And that there really is spontaneous generation? I’m waiting.
John, did you know that chimpanzees are more closely related us than they are to any of the other apes?

How about it, John? You don’t seem to be much interested in that false dichotomy thing that bothers me about your position on science. So how about a debate? And John, really, I am not going to debate evolution with you in emails. That was never my intention. Let’s do it up the right. A formal written debate should be no problem for you if, as you say, you have the goods on evolution.

Thanks again for writing…



To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: January 31, 2006
You replied:
Do you read my responses? Exactly WHAT evidence? Evolution scientists — and you — keep talking about all this evidence for evolution. WHAT evidence? The folks out in Kansas invited the evolution scientists to come before the State school board and PROVE that evolution is a fact. Nobody but an ACLU shill showed up. All the evolution scientists did was attack the school board for asking them to put up or shut up. The result is that they and the ACLU have had their proverbial teeth pulled. The State of Kansas WILL permit the teaching of scientific data that refutes evolution, and the ACLU will not file suit.
Do the words “Dover, Pennsylvania” mean anything to you? The reason the scientists boycotted the Kansas school board hearings is that the board’s majority had already made up its mind and the hearings were a sham. The scientists did show up in Dover, in front of a conservative judge who was appointed by Bush. The outcome? Do I really need to tell you? And by the way, the scientist who wrote the science book that the Dover school board took exception to is a Christan. Among other things, Kenneth Miller had this to say as a witness for the plaintiffs in the case:
As a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith.

— “Excerpt from Kenneth Miller’s Testimony
But back to you:
You obviously have accepted the evolution hoax hook, line, and sinker. So, let’s have the proof. You’ve got the floor. It’s time to put up or shut up.
Again, a structured, written debate is what I would prefer. That is my offer to you. And I would be willing to set that up with terms it are agreeable to you. Take it or leave it.
You’re trying very hard with a lot of silly words to comply with the evolutionist creed, “never, never let them get you in a spot where you’ve got to prove molecule-to-man evolution.” Well, David you’re in that spot. Prove it! Or direct your words elsewhere.
And again, a structured written debate is what I would prefer. That is my offer to you. And I would be willing to set it up with terms that are agreeable to you. Take it or leave it.

Thanks once again for writing.



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: January 31, 2006

I accept evolution as the best way to describe the diversity of life on our planet.
Why, David? Why do you accept evolution? On what proofs do you stake your beliefs... and your eternity? I keep asking you to send me the proofs that this hoax is not a hoax and you keep sidestepping, backstepping, and blowing smoke. Why do you accept evolution? Let's have the proofs or butt out.
...science cannot say anything about God.
Oh, really. And who, may I ask made that rule?
...science can only describe how things work.
A very good point. One of the best reasons why evolution is a hoax. Darwinists - you included because you keep dodging the issue - have never once described how life arose on Earth, nor how a land animal (unidentified) became a whale, nor how a dinosauer became a bird, nor how monkeys became human, nor how all the organisms that evolved into another organism are still with us.
...directed each and every mutation that eventually leads to speciation.
Surely you jest, David. Beneficial mutations? Don't make me laugh. Millions would be needed to support the simplest transmutation. Evolution scientists haven't even been able to identify one favorable mutation, to say nothing of millions. And don't say Sickle Cell Anemia. That's a cop out. So, let's have a list from you of beneficial mutations.
...even when the facts don't fit.
You mean there are more ways to read Genesis than as a God-directed synopsized account of His creative activities? Who told you that? When you read Caesar's Gallic Wars, are there more ways to read it than for what it says? When you read Plato's Dialogues, are there more ways to read it than for what it says? When they made you read Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea in school did they tell you not to accept it for what it says? And just exactly which scientific facts don't fit?
...how dare you trample on other peoples' faith in the same God you pray to.
If anything I write or have written tramples on other people's faith (such as your blind faith in evolution), their faith and their prayers are not in and to the same God I serve. And I will dare to serve the God I serve whether your or anyone else on this planet likes it, approves of it, or kills me for doing it.
...you don't know the mind of God.
Your ignorance of Scripture is pitiful. I debate you on the subject of molecule-to-man evolution because I have studied it for twenty-plus years. You make comments about my faith and you haven't even picked up a Bible. Brilliant!
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." - 1 Cor. 2:15,16
You know nothing of the new birth, the second nature, the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit. You need to do your homework before you start trying to lecture intelligently to a Christian.
John, did you know that chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to any of the other apes?
David, did you know that their DNA and human DNA is comprised of three billion (3,000,000,000) base pairs of four different chemicals? Did you know that the 4% difference in their and our DNA is in two hundred and forty million (240,000,000) base pairs? That's why they're still monkeys, always have been monkeys, and don't plan on being anything else but monkeys. You need to look into one of evolution's many dirty little secrets - Haldane's Dilemma. If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans. Be sure to keep me informed when they start.
It's a dang conspiracy, that's what it is...
Well, I must admit you finally got one right. Let me quote:
Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday Schools meeting for an hour a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching? - Charles F. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion, Simon & Schuster, 1930, p. 3
Did you know R. Dawkins is a Secular Humanist?
Mostly we attack the arguments, and mostly the arguments don't hold water.
Your use of the personal pronoun "we" at last exposes exactly where you're coming from, David. And your statement is false. Evolutionists never attack arguments. They always attack the person and their religious affiliation. The party line is that Christians have no say-so in scientific matters, and to let them teach the fallacies of evolution in the school system would be to permit Christian proselytizing. You are the perfect example of the Darwinist policy - never defend evolution with proven facts and documentation; always attack the person and the integrity of the attacker. I have told you, David, that you have an open forum to defend evolution with proofs. Now that you have admitted to being a card-carrying Darwinist, it is even more urgent that you send me the twenty verifiable proofs that justify placing your faith and your immortal soul in molecule-to-man evolution. I know you don't care, but Jesus died so you may have forgiveness of your sins and eternal life with Him. That's how much He loves you. He said He is God. And proved it with a empty tomb. you have had an open forum
To: David Glück (Kil) From: John Schroeder Date: January 31, 2006 Get real, David:
...boycotted the Kansas school board hearings is that the board's majority had already made up its mind and the hearings were a sham.
Two entirely different situations. In Kansas the school board outsmarted the ACLU by giving the evolutionists the opportunity to prove that what they teach is supported by empirical proof. There was no adversary setup in Kansas. The evolutionists were given an open forum to defend with hard facts what they contend is true. They didn't show up because they could not defend evolution - just as you cannot defend it - with verifiable proofs. In Dover an adversary setup existed. ACLU and some parents were plaintiffs, the school board the defendants. The ACLU loves that position and has used it very successfully. You have been trying to use it on me and I'm not intimidated. In Dover, all the ACLU had to do was establish the possibility that the school board's motivation was religious. There was not one requirement that evolutionists provide proof that what is being taught to our public school students is scientific fact.
As a person of faith...
Good ol' Kenneth Miller. Trying so hard to make a name for himself in Darwinist circles. I have been in touch with, and have quotes from, Kenneth in my book. He and I do not serve the same God.
Again, a structured written debate is what I would prefer. That is my offer to you. And I would be willing to set that up with terms it are agreeable to you. Take it or leave it.
A typical evolutionist cop-out. I'm really not particularly interested in what you would prefer. You'd really prefer that I just go away and let you alone with your silly, unproven and unprovable beliefs. Let me tell you, David, if you can't provide me in person or in emails with the empirical proofs for molecule to man evolution, then you ain't got any and you're just marking time, trying to get into a position to write a lot of meaningless words aimed at sending someone down a bunch of rabbit trails. I ain't buying, David. You already have proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my attacks on the hoax of Darwinism is as God-directed as I have always believed. And so, you are rid of me. (Big sigh of relief. Ha! I did it again. Got away without having to prove my beliefs.) Bye, now. Jesus loves you. "Whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) shall be saved."


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: February 3, 2006
Sorry that it took so long for me to get back to you. I am replying to both of your last letters to me. I am also sending this email as an attachment. My regular mail doesn’t let me use italics and such. So I am sending this one as I formatted it for download.

Why, David? Why do you accept evolution? On what proofs do you stake your beliefs… and your eternity?
Pascal’s Wager doesn’t really work for me.

You made the claim that evolution is a hoax. That would make a whole lot of scientists liars. And since evolution is a widely accepted theory, it really is up to you to prove that it’s a hoax. It is not up to me to prove that it isn’t a hoax. And that’s basic logic John, not rocket science.

I told you why I accept evolution in the sentence that you quoted.

As for the “butt out” thing, I will remind you that you wrote to me first.
…science cannot say anything about God.
Oh, really. And who, may I ask made that rule?
Holy guacamole, John! You mean to tell me that science can say something about [the nature] of God? Or are you just playing with words now? Please advise.

In the meantime, below is what a couple of my favorite creationists said about creation and science.
Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, openly admits, in his textbook Scientific Creationism:
“A. Creation cannot be proved

1. Creation … is inaccessible to the scientific method.

2. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 5)

“The creationist model does presuppose a God, or Creator, who did create things in the beginning.” (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 4)
Another ICR member, Duane Gish, writes in his book Evolution? The Fossils Say No!:
“Creation is, of course, unproven and unproveable by the methods of experimental science. Neither can it qualify, according to the above criteria, as a scientific theory, since creation would have been unobservable and would as a theory be nonfalsifiable.” (Gish, 1978, p. 21)

“We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe… We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, 1978, p. 40)

— “Is Evolution ‘Just a Theory’?” by Lenny Flank
but back to you, John:
…science can only describe how things work.
A very good point. One of the best reasons why evolution is a hoax. Darwinists — you included because you keep dodging the issue — have never once described how life arose on Earth, nor how a land animal (unidentified) became a whale, nor how a dinosauer became a bird, nor how monkeys became human, nor how all the organisms that evolved into another organism are still with us.
All but one of the above statements are false. The one you got right is “how life arose on Earth.” But that is abiogenesis, not evolution.
Surely you jest, David. Beneficial mutations? Don’t make me laugh. Millions would be needed to support the simplest transmutation. Evolution scientists haven’t even been able to identify one favorable mutation, say nothing of millions. And don’t say Sickle Cell Anemia. That’s a cop-out. So, let’s have a list from you of beneficial mutations.
See “Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans” and “Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection.”
You mean there are more ways to read Genesis than as a God-directed synopsized account of His creative activities? Who told you that? When you read Caesar’s Gallic Wars, are there more ways to read it than for what it says? When you read Plato’s Dialogues, are there more ways to read it than for what it says? When they made you read Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachea in school did they tell you not to accept it for what it says?
Strawman alert, strawman alert.
And just exactly which scientific facts don’t fit?
So, you accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years? And you accept the 3.5 billion figure for the first appearance of life? Some creationists don’t, you know. And they cite the Bible as proof of their belief in a young Earth.
If anything I write or have written tramples on other people’s faith (such as your blind faith in evolution), their faith and their prayers are not in and to the same God I serve. And I will dare to serve the God I serve whether your or anyone else on this planet likes it, approves of it, or kills me for doing it.
And I would defend your right to believe anything you want to as long as you don’t strap bombs onto yourself to prove it to others. Oh, and as long as you don’t attempt to place your belief in science classrooms.

Get yourself published in a respected peer-reviewed journal and knock the crap out of evolution and I will reconsider the science classroom thing. We must always be willing to change our views as the evidence dictates. That is but one of the ways science is not like religion.
You know nothing of the new birth, the second nature, the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit. You need to do your homework before you start trying to lecture intelligently to a Christian.
According to the way I read Corinthians, you may know the spirit of Christ but you can never directly know the mind of God. That said, how you interpret the Bible is your own business. I’m not going to play this game with you.
If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans. Be sure to keep me informed when they start.
First off, chimpanzees are not monkeys. The 4% difference in the DNA is 120,000,000 base pairs, not 240,000,000. Check your math. I’m going to just jump over to Haldane’s Dilemma because it is old and it was not correct.

John, you are aware of the difficulties of human-to-human transplants, right? Primate-to-human transplants are banned in most countries. The FDA banned xenotransplantation in 1996 for a very good reason. The closeness of the species is paradoxically also the problem with using primate organs for transplant. The problem is the existence of dormant retroviruses in other primates that can activate upon transplantation into a human. We are closely related to chimps and your argument is just another strawman.
Well, I must admit you finally got one right. Let me quote… Did you know R. Dawkins is a Secular Humanist?
I’m not a joiner. I don’t care what Charles Potter said in 1930. I don’t care if Dawkins is a Secular Humanist. With 78% of all Americans identifying as Christian and 52% of those identifying as protestant, and with only 10% of identifying as non-believers, it appears that Potter has failed in his quest to subvert the children of America. In other words, get out of town.

And by the way, 40% of all scientists profess a belief in God. So the idea that Christians are locked out of peer-reviewed journals is ridiculous.

But just so you don’t feel alone in your claim of conspiracy, the same is said by just about all of those who claim some kind of bad science in general. Those who make claims to a device that cures every kind of cancer, those who think aliens are abducting us, those who claim that space travel is not possible and those who think science is obliged to support stories from the Bible are all yelling “conspiracy!”

Your use of the personal pronoun we at last exposes exactly where you’re coming from, David. And your statement is false. Evolutionists never attack arguments. They always attack the person and their religious affiliation. The party line is that Christians have no say-so in scientific matters, and to let them teach the fallacies of evolution in the school system would be to permit Christian proselytizing. You are the perfect example of the Darwinist policy — never defend evolution with proven facts and documentation; always attack the person and the integrity of the attacker.
Nice bit deductive reasoning, John. You figured out that I have debated creationists. And now this:
  1. “…at last exposes exactly where you’re coming from David.”
  2. “They always attack the person and their religious affiliation.”
  3. “The party line…”
  4. “You are the perfect example of Darwinist Policy…”
  5. “…never defend evolution with proven facts and documentation.”
  6. “…always attack the person and the integrity of the attacker.”
Hypocrite.
I have told you, David, that you have an open forum to defend evolution with proofs. Now that you have admitted to being a card-carrying Darwinist, it is even more urgent that you send me the twenty verifiable proofs that justify placing your faith and your immortal soul in molecule-to-man evolution.
“A card-carrying Darwinist.” I find your fondness for pithy (and meaningless) little phrases almost endearing, John.

John, I have said from the begining that I am not interested in having an email debate with you on the validity of your claim that evolution is a hoax. Another email debate with another creationist. Yawn.

Come on, John, let’s do it correctly, just for once. Let me prove you wrong about “never attacking the arguments” by creating a structure where only the arguments are allowed. Our best shot against your best shot. How about it, John? You seem so sure of yourself that I just can’t understand why you wouldn’t jump at the chance to show us, and all who read the debate, once and for all, just how full of shit we are.

Next letter:
There was no adversary set-up in Kansas. The evolutionists were given an open forum to defend with hard facts what they contend is true. They didn’t show up because they could not defend evolution — just as you cannot defend it — with verifiable proofs.
Baloney. You can put any spin you want on it John, but the decision was made before the hearings. The hearings were a sham show of fairness by the conservative majority. That is why the scientists boycotted.

Also, I think it is pretty telling that the board had to change the definition of science itself to make their moronic decision work. By removing the words “natural explanations” from the definition, they have opened the door for any supernatural hypothesis to be taught in science classrooms. And there are a lot of them John, not just creation science or ID. By the board’s definition every creation story from every religion should be regarded equally and taught as an alternative to evolution. And any objection they may have to other supernatural explanations must be regarded as willfully biased under the new guidelines.

Anyhow, you say the scientists didn’t show up because “they could not defend evolution.” Well, I promise you that we will show up. Lock and load, John. We’re waiting for you.
In Dover, all the ACLU had to do was establish the possibility that the school board’s motivation was religious. There was not one requirement that evolutionists provide proof that what is being taught to our public school students is scientific fact.
Judge Jones:
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
Judge John E. Jones III wrote the opinion, not the ACLU. And forget about “the possibility that the school board’s motivation was religious,” the judge sounds absolutely convinced of it, doesn’t he?

Good ol’ Kenneth Miller. Trying so hard to make a name for himself in Darwinist circles. I have been in touch with, and have quotes from Kenneth in my book. He and I do not serve the same God.
Sigh.
Let me tell you, David, if you can’t provide me in person or in emails with the empirical proofs for molecule-to-man evolution, then you ain’t got any and you’re just marking time, trying to get into a position to write a lot of meaningless words aimed at sending someone down a bunch of rabbit trails. I ain’t buying, David. You already have proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my attacks on the hoax of Darwinism is as God-directed as I have always believed.
Well, glad to have been of service to you, John. And by the way John, rabbit trails are exactly what you get in person-to-person or email debates. That is why I will not debate your contention that evolution is a hoax in email. Been there, done that. Let’s face the truth of it, John. You will not accept my offer to set up and take part in a structured debate because you don’t want to risk having your clock cleaned in a public forum that can be referenced by anyone and everyone. You can scream from the rooftops that we don’t have the goods, but until you are willing to defend that position, all of your protestations amount to nothing but wind. You have, in our correspondences, relied on strawmen, red herrings, and a whole litany of logical fallacies. Those are the rabbit trails, John.
And so, you are rid of me. (Big sigh of relief. Ha! I did it again. Got away without having to prove my beliefs.)
Indeed you did, John.
you have had an open forum
And my offer to you remains open.



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: February 4, 2006

I'm still waiting for the verifiable proofs that molecule-to-man
evolution has taken place. If you really want to know my rationale for
calling this great hoax a great hoax, read the book... and the next
one, Why Monkeys Are Monkeys and People Are People.

Oh, by the way, better re-read my transmissions. I never once so much
as implied that Creation is scientific. I don't have to prove Creation
to anyone in order to tell everyone that m-to-m evolution is a hoax.
You deny it's a hoax, let's have the proofs. I'm still waiting.


To:   John Schroeder
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: February 4, 2006
Even you would agree then that scientific creationism is an oxymoron. And presenting ID as a scientific theory is a lie.

The claim that evolution is a hoax is yours to defend, as I have explained. Simple logic is apparently not your strong suit.

In-house publishing (not for peer review) and a refusal to take part in a structured formal debate in writing are part and parcel of the creationist way of doing things. Your refusal to take part in a formal debate is therefore noted. And nothing changes.

Have a nice life.



To:   David Glück (Kil)
From: John Schroeder
Date: February 4, 2006

You have a really nasty habit of trying to put words in people's mouths
that were not uttered. It is a serious flaw of evolutionists. In this
brief discussion, I have never had to defend my statement that
evolution is a hoax - really a fairy tale for grown-ups like you. You
are the one who has disagreed from the outset that evolution is a hoax,
the deception of the age. You are the one upon whom it is incumbent to
prove me wrong. Anyone can say to another you are wrong. I have
written a book that clearly sets forth why evolution is a Satanic lie.
My proofs already are in writing. You have said evolution "happens" but
to every challenge I have sent your way to prove m-to-m evolution has
taken place all I have gotten from you is a lot of meaningless words.

A formal debate? What can you say in a formal debate that you cannot
say in an email? I'm telling you right now - just as clearly as I know
how - you are a four-flusher. You're holding a losing hand. There are
no - zero - proofs to support m-to-m evolution, and that is why you
can't send them to me in an email. This has nothing to do with
Creation. It's about your claim that evolution "happens." I've said it
before, and this is the last time I intend to say it, "Prove it!." If
you can't come up with at least as many proofs FOR evolution as my book
lists AGAINST evolution, I repeat, butt out.

If another transmission comes thru without the alleged proofs for your
faith in the "god of forces" (Daniel 11:38) it will be summarily
deleted. My proofs already are in print. I really don't want to waste
any more valuable time trying to get a lemming out of a Satanic trap.

As I began, so I close. Jesus loves you, died for you, rose the third
day so you could have forgiveness of your sins and eternal life. It is
only thru Him salvation is assured. "I am the way, the truth, and the
life; no man cometh to the Father but by me." (John 14:6) There will
be no discussion of evolution in heaven.


End note from David:
John said, “just as clearly as I know how — you are a four-flusher. You’re holding a losing hand.” And yet, he didn’t call me on it. As sure as he is, he didn’t call my bluff. All he had to do was accept my challenge. If I were bluffing my deception would have been revealed. I wasn’t bluffing, and the offer still stands.



Read or Add Comments about this Article


Back to Fan Mail



The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.08 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000