I
am new to this format and want to do the right thing. Although I
clearly see from looking around the HomeSchool Blogger that friendly,
personal and anything on your mind is an OK manner I am unsteady as yet
as to how to interact here. Is the protocol; I make an entry on the
weblog and thereby respond to numerous blogs as though I heard all the
comments and respond to the "group" or email folks individually
[yikes]. I noticed in Denver most authors did not write different
things in each book like I did because I actually had a bit of
conversation with every person. I am personable by nature and I am
hoping that I can reach many from this platform but obviously if it
does become many - which I hope - I need to be free to answer all and
snub none.
Therefore, please let me know if I need to respond to
individuals. Maybe I can occasionally announce private responses are
via email and should be requested. If private questions generate
valuable answers I can post such answers without mentioning who the
question was from.
Oh, I'm probably getting too complicated about
this. It is a new medium and feels almost like a different culture and
I simply want to not do something rude that wouldn't be rude normally
to me.
Having said that, let me comment on recent events.
This week was fantastic for my book because President Bush endorsed Intelligent Design very publicly.
I have a map provided by a Missouri article stating there are 21 states
that have dealt with state or local controversies over how evolution is
taught to high school students just in 2005! Funny thing is the
evolution scientists keep saying "There is no controversy".
Rep. Scott Muschany provided a delightful response to the rhetoric at a
hearing in which he was on the committee just the week before. He told
the gentleman making that statement that he considered it an odd
statement considering the setting [a controversial hearing not short on
emotion on both sides]. The guy then said it was merely a social
controversy. Rep. Muschany asked "What other kind is there?" and the
man said "Scientific controversy and with evolution there is none".
[something like that]. Let me just copy and paste a portion of the
article here for you:
“The theory of evolution has stood the test of time,” says Boldt, a freelance video producer from Jefferson City
who says that real scientists long ago stopped scratching their heads
over evolution. “It comes as close as any theory in the life sciences
can to being an absolute law.” “It
struck me as odd, ” Muschany observes, “given where we are and what
we’re talking about, when you said there is no controversy.” “The controversy is definitely a social controversy,” Boldt says. “Well, what other kinds of controversies are there?” wonders the politician. Scientific
ones, Boldt says: “One might as well call the theory of gravity
controversial as to question the theory of evolution.” “Are
you aware of any scientific laws or natural laws that contradict the
theory of gravity?” Muschany asks. “However, there are some natural
laws — we’ve heard testimony today — that would be in conflict with
evolution.”
Let me point out to you a couple false tactics that I keep seeing repeated over and over.
One is a false form of argument called "Bandwagon approach". It is like
peer pressure claiming "Everybody believes it so it must be true". This
guy is saying "REAL
SCIENTISTS" stopped questioning evolution. That is not evidence, is it?
His statement implies if you are a scientist that disagrees with
evolution [and there are quite a few] then you are not a REAL
scientist. How rude and unscientific, I might add.
Evolution IS
still a theory but an old one - 150 years since Darwin and 80 years
since the Scopes Trial. Since it has had 150 years to prove its case
and has not; I find that an even greater reason to doubt it. Still this
man says "the theory of evolution has stood the test of time". So we
should believe the theory because it's old? Readers, please think this
one through. It has not stood the test of time. It has not been proven
over a long period of time. 150 years later it is still unproven making
it a far weaker theory than it was when it first was a new theory in
the mid-1800's.
He then says evolution comes as close to being an absolute law as any theory could.
This is a jaw-dropper. You need evidence 100% of the time to make something a law and he compares it to gravity.
I want to show you something. Evolution is an incredibly weak theory
because it defies science. It does not embrace science. It looks for
the unprovable exceptions rather than the obvious patterns.
My dog will never have kittens. Terrorists use bombs for destruction
not creating incredible order [I refer to big bang]. Scientists are the
students of nature learning from its superior wisdom. Doctors and
hospitals spend billions trying to learn how to restore people's parts
to the flawless performance they had out of the womb before accidents
or diseases made some part dysfunctional. Accidents don't improve
things much. All of this trying to learn from the incredibly high level
of fantastic design performance - and many of these same guys are
saying that they are brainy but it took absolutely no brains to design
what they wish they could imitate. You see the irony, right?
OK, I could go on and on but this is a blog not another book.
You see in the article snippet I pasted here that Muschany does a great
job on the gravity comparison by asking if the pro-evolutionist is
aware of any natural laws conflicting with gravity. Great question! I
loved it.
“However, there are some natural laws — we’ve heard testimony today — that would be in conflict with evolution.”
Bam! Great closure to the ridiculousness of comparing gravity to evolution.
I called Scott Muschany's office this past week and his administrative
assistant felt he would be very interested in my book. I mailed one to
him. He actually called me the next day and was very friendly claiming
he couldn't wait to get the book. I was flattered, gotta admit. He is
on a couple education committees in his state. I congratulated him on
his comments and look forward to talking to him again.
The
book doesn't talk much about this controversy but this blog will. The
book talks about nature and nature provides the evidence to the reader.
I am not quoting experts that disagree with other experts. I let you
the reader analyze the nature that is right in front of you.
I do have a couple articles you can download from my website though.
I'll probably include "my website" comments in almost every post :)
www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com
Thanks Nancy for calling my attention to making a reference to a website an actual link.
And as to the reference for coming to Tennessee (I'm smiling). I'd love
to but I'm no rich writer. You mentioned your local B&N. I am doing
a book signing at a Barnes and Noble in Fresno, CA in September.
When I'm in big demand (I'm dreamin' just a tad) community groups will
get together to sponsor trips for me to visit them at community
meetings -
My youngest son is in boot camp in Ft. Benning
Georgia. He has a graduation ceremony in October. That's a stretch for
us financially but we are going for 4-5 days. We'll probably set up
some book signings for out there while we are visiting. I have to tell
my publisher.
All the best folks.
|
Mar. 22, 2009 - Untitled Comment
Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't defy science at all. In fact, it is an excellent example of the scientific method and the definition of a good working theory.
You are way behind the times, it does very well with obvious patterns and has even predicted in advance subsequent discovered ones.
Evolution is a complex theory, I suggest that you study it to the same extent that you have studied your beliefs and then, and only then, might you understand it.
It would also be helpful to you if you read Judge Jones ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.