[MSTed] Evolution vs. Creation [3/3]
Brian N. Pacula
>
>
>9) Extinction, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest
>
>QUESTION: EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
>ARE FACTS, DO THESE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
TOM: Mr. BillyJack, are these questions gonna be in the midterm?
>
> Extinction does NOT support the Theory of Evolution. It is the
>opposite path for evolution. It is the path creation would predict.
MIKE: So...it makes sense for God to create animals, and then to kill all
of them...
CROW: ...But it *doesn't* make sense for those animals to die due to being
poorly adapted to the prevailing climate and conditions?
>The Theory of Evolution model would have validity by showing natural
>process producing new animals, not eliminating existing animals.
> The Creation model would have validity if natural processes do not
>produce new kinds of animals. Extinction does not falsify the
>Creation model.
MIKE: God *likes* to kill His creations. He makes a game of it.
> What do we observe? Many animal kinds going extinct,
>no new animal kinds emerging.
TOM: If you can't beat 'em...confuse 'em.
>
>Lets look at the two models again and their beliefs.
MIKE: <Kate Moss> I believe that looking emaciated is beautiful.
CROW: <Cindy Crawford> I believe that I *do* have the potential to be a
good actress!
> Evolutionists
>believe life started as one animal (like an amoebae) and favorable
>environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands
>of new animal species!
TOM: Yeah.
MIKE: What's your point?
> Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of
>species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of
>time, and unfavorable environments has reduced this number. Decide
>for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits
>observed events.
CROW: <BillyJack> Just make sure you agree with MEEE!!!
>
> Natural Selection is a true concept. Natural selection makes good
>traits dominant but does not produce new animal kinds. Natural
>selection does not produce new species, families, orders, or classes
>of plants and animals.
TOM: Despite the concept of species, families, orders, and classes being
purely hu-man machinations.
> Imagine someone having 10 children in smoggy
>Los Angeles.
CROW: Oh, no, is he gonna start ranting about welfare mothers now?
> Suppose eight of the kids have lungs that can't filter
>the smog effectively, and they do not reach an age where they can
>reproduce,
MIKE: <Minnesotan> Ohh, these kids start younger and younger these days.
CROW: <Minnesotan> It's a dingdang shame, dontcha know.
> but two kids do have stronger lungs that allows them to
>reach reproducing ages. Their genes will be exhibited in future
>generations.
MIKE: Come here, boy! You *will* wear Grandpa Lester's pants!
CROW: Not funny, Mike.
> But that gene pool is still in human beings. Natural
>selection does emphasize the better genetic characteristics in a
>population, but it does not produce new animal kinds.
TOM: <Dreamy> Yeah. Okay.
>
> Survival of the fittest is a simplistic term that everyone should
>admit is correct.
MIKE: Admit it! ADMIT IT!!!
> The term is simply an equation or a definition.
>For example, it is equal to my saying "bachelors are single men." If
>you are a single man, you are a bachelor...if you are a bachelor you
>are a single man.
CROW: But what if you're not married, but still in a long-term, committed
relationship with someone?
> Regarding "survival of the fittest," if an animal
>is surviving, that means it is fit for its environment, if an animal
>is fit for its environment that means it will survive.
TOM: Until some redneck hunters vaporize it with an AK-47 for "sport."
> If a plane
>load of circus animals is forced to land in Alaska in the winter, the
>lions, elephants, zebras and giraffes will soon be history. But the
>penguins and polar bears live, no problem.
MIKE: What the hell kind of weird-ass circus has polar bears and penguins?
> That is an example of
>survival of the fittest. However, for validity to be given to the
>Theory of Evolution, the lions would not die, but begin producing new
>kinds of animals, that can live there. The problem is, if you are
>unfit you die, and you can't evolve when you are dead.
TOM: No, the problem is that hostile conditions don't just spring up
overnight.
>
>
>10). The requirements for life
CROW: Well, you have to be alive, that helps...
>
>QUESTION: DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
TOM: Gee, I wonder what answer BillyJack will give us.
>
> Lets compare life to a computer.
MIKE: After all, they're so darn similar.
> Computers must have proper
>hardware (monitors, disk drives, keyboards) and proper software
>(information) in order to operate.
CROW: They also need love and constant encouragement.
> Likewise life at the cellular level requires "hardware" (amino acids
>and nucleic acids) and "software" (amino acids in the proper sequence
>to make proteins, and nucleic acids in the right sequence to make
>DNA). Much could be written about the incredible complexity of
>proteins and DNA
TOM: Much could be written about how incredibly dull this post is.
> and how unsatisfactory "chance and time" are in
>explaining its origin.
> THINK!
CROW: C!
TOM: Pascal!
> For the computer example, even if you had the proper
>hardware and the proper software, would you have a functional
>computer? No, because you need a source of power for the system to
>operate. Now lets look at life.
MIKE: <BillyJack> Life. Ain't she beautiful? Okay, back to the computer.
> Suppose there was a dead dog lying next to a living dog.
CROW: Just suppose, okay?
> How would
>someone who believed only in the material world (denying the
>existence of anything metaphysical they are called "materialists)
>explain what the difference is between the dead dog and the living
>dog?"
TOM: The dead one doesn't fetch.
> The unfortunate dead dog has all the proper materials. It has
>the proper hardware (DNA, proteins, organs, bones etc), and it has the
>proper software (its DNA and amino acids are properly sequenced). But
>the dog is dead. Why?
MIKE: Maybe the Mack truck that ran over it at 70 MPH had something to do
with it.
> Creationists maintain there is more to life
>than chemicals, energy and biology. There is a metaphysical or
>spiritual side to life similar to the power source of computers.
CROW: So, Scruffy is dead because he doesn't have a soul anymore...
TOM: Not because his body was damaged to the point where his nervous
system and organs couldn't function anymore.
CROW: Oy...
>
>TWO "TRICKS" EVOLUTIONISTS USE TO MAKE THEIR THEORY APPEAR TO BE SOUND
MIKE: Silly Creationist, Tricks are for Evolutionists.
>
>
> Again, let me remind you to decide for yourself when you read what
>I say. However, I feel if you look for these two "tricks," the Theory
>of Evolution will lose a lot of its validity.
CROW: Yeah.
TOM: Okay.
MIKE: We will.
>
>TRICK #1
> Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in
>time. Time is vital to their theory.
MIKE: Well, yes, it is. Why is that a problem?
> Ask an evolutionist how did
>reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took "millions of
>years," how did fish become amphibians, "it took millions of years."
>Whenever you probe an evolutionist
CROW: Eeewww...
> with questions, they will quickly
>rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence,
TOM: Hey, how many million-year old sheep or chicken fossils have you seen
lately, Creation boy!?
> biological answers, just
>a hand wave and a tremendous faith in time.
MIKE: Contrast this with the Creationist, who offers a hand wave and a
tremendous faith in an unseen higher power.
> But is their "time" explanation satisfactory? No, it is a
>confession the processes they profess to believe in did occur, but
>they are not observed. The evidence was lost in those eons of time.
TOM: As if that couldn't happen.
>There are two explanations why there is no evidence for fish evolving
>into reptiles: either it never happened and thus there is no evidence
CROW: That's correct, they didn't. They evolved into amphibians first.
>(Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time
>(Evolution).
MIKE: Hey, a lot can happen in a few million years.
> Does time lead to increased complexity in chemical reactions or
>systems? No (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics). For a system to
>increase in complexity it does not just need energy, it needs the
>proper type and quantity of energy.
TOM: Love power.
> If you put a leaf on a driveway
>and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more
>complex.
> When I was four, my mom tucked me into bed and told me that a long
>time ago, in a place far away there was a frog.
MIKE: Okay, we're getting into a whole weird area here...
> A princess kissed
>this frog, and it instantly turned into a prince. She told me a fairy
>tale.
CROW: Mother was full of lies!
> In Biology, they told me that a long time ago, in an unknown
>place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the
>amphibian became a mammal.
MIKE: <BillyJack> They also told me I smelled bad, and that I had really
poor personal hygiene.
> The first story is a fairy tale because a
>kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as
>science because "millions of years" turned the amphibian into a
>mammal. Supposedly believing that time
TOM: ...AND complex biological processes...
> (and not a kiss) can turn an
>amphibian into a mammal makes it "science."
MIKE: Given Tom's addendum, that's correct.
>
>TRICK #2
CROW: ...Electric Boogaloo.
>
> If someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I do not answer yes,
>and I do not answer no, I ask them "What do you mean when you say
>evolution?"
MIKE: <BillyJack> Needless to say, I don't have a lot of friends.
> Become aware of how the use of the word "evolution" is used. What
>does the word "evolution" mean? It simply means change. Does change
>happen? Absolutely. If you changed your sox within the past month
>you could say you evolved.
MIKE: <Laughing> No, you couldn't!
> But does that degree of change support the
>Theory of Evolution? Lets explore that thought.
> In item #9 of the list,
TOM: http://thelist.com!!! Get a flat rate ISP today!
CROW: Tom, shut up.
> we showed that natural selection and
>survival of the fittest are true phenomena. Change happens within
>species all the time. But for the Theory of Evolution to have merit
>there must be evidence for new species, families, orders, classes and
>phyla.
CROW: I'd like to phyla complaint against this guy.
> For example, teachers will often say that evidence for evolution is
>the fact that people are taller today than they were 500 years ago.
>Is that "evolution?" Well it is change, but does it support the
>Theory of Evolution? No, because they were people then and they are
>people now, no species change.
MIKE: And hey, if you can't form a complete species within 500 years,
forget it.
> Or a teacher will say England had many
>light colored moths and few dark moths when England was unpolluted
CROW: Man, does anybody remember when that was?
>(due to camouflage advantages). After England became polluted, the
>population of the dark moths increased and the light moths decreased.
>Is that "evolution?" Well, it is a change in the population density,
TOM: There's a lot of density in this post.
>but it does not support the Theory of Evolution because there was no
>species change. You started with light moths and dark moths, and you
>ended up with light and dark moths. and few dark moths.
CROW: I thought you ended up with *more* dark moths.
> If you
>mention this to an evolutionist they will go to trick #1 and say "well
>taken over millions of years the new kinds of animals will emerge.
> Creationists often say they believe in "microevolution
MIKE: A subsidiary of Microsoft.
> (change
>within a species) but not macroevolution (one species becoming a new
>species). Or Creationists may say they believe in horizontal
>evolution (change within a species) but not vertical evolution (new
>species emerging and old ones going extinct).
>
>********************************************************************************
TOM: How nice, a row of stars.
MIKE: They look like little weeds to me.
CROW: Or shuriken. Hi-keeba!
>WHY IS THIS GUY E MAILING PEOPLE AND OFFERING FREE BOOKS ON CREATION
>VS EVOLUTION?
MIKE: Well, given that he has the social skills of a lab rat and women
don't find him attractive, he's got a lot of time on his hands.
TOM: Too easy.
>
> Good question!
>
> First off, let me share my history with you (don't worry, it will
>be brief).
TOM: Uh-oh.
>
> I was raised in Buffalo, New York, and was fortunate to have great
>parents They took my sister and I to church every Sunday, we attended
>Sunday school and church camps in the summer.
MIKE: Sounds like you had a really boring childhood.
> I believed in God, and
>never gave the issue much thought.
CROW: <BillyJack> I like to accept things at face value.
>
> In sixth grade, I remember seeing a big colorful book produced by
>Time-Life. It caught my eye, and I opened it up and was pleased to
>see big colorful drawings.
TOM: <BillyJack> Dahhh, pretty pic-tures.
> One set of drawings really caught my eye.
CROW: <BillyJack> Holy Moley, naked people!
>There was a series of animated drawings that went across two pages.
>On the far left was a very ape-like character walking on all fours and
>covered with hair. The character to his right was a little more
>upright, he had shorter arms, was starting to walk on two legs and had
>less hair.
MIKE: Sounds like a "B.C." strip.
> This progression continued for a few more drawings until
>at the far right side of the page there was this handsome fellow, a
>human being! This is called the ascent of man chart that nearly
>everyone is familiar with.
>
> In sixth grade, I looked at that chart for a while, smirked,
>thought it was ridiculous, and went outside and played softball.
TOM: <BillyJack> My parents had done a pretty good job indoctrinating me.
>
> Eventually I made it to ninth grade.
CROW: Yeah, but only after everyone else your age had graduated.
> While in a Biology class, the
>teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart up
>on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart
>for a long time.
MIKE: While every other guy your age was studying girls.
> It was on that very day that I recognized a major
>conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the
>Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching
>man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy,
>and that book (the Bible)
TOM: *Ninth* grade, and you still refer to these things as, "Mommy, Daddy, and
that book!?"
> that says God made man instantly from the
>dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist
>after all, so this must be valid information.
CROW: <BillyJack> I was easily swayed by figures of authority.
>
> I had a choice to make that millions of people world wide are faced
>with. Do I believe the Bible or what is taught as science (please
>note I did not call it science).
TOM: <Seething> Even though it *is.*
>
> In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and
>considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many
>more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical
>Engineer),
CROW: Oh, *Wow.*
> and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything
>they reinforced my atheist beliefs.
>
> I assume the majority of you are in college now.
MIKE: No, actually, we're in space.
> Do you understand
>my story? I am pretty certain you have had several hours of your
>education dedicated to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution. I
>would love to hear how this affected you.
TOM: <BillyJack> Please talk to me!
> Has it done anything to
>your faith? It obliterated mine!
>
> Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were
>ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them?
CROW: 'Cause in the sixth grade, you were a snotty little punk who
wouldn't know a sound scientific principle if it bit you in the hinder?
>
> Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the
>Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real
>reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one
>word...hormones.
MIKE: <BillyJack> I was hot for Darwin.
> In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my
>life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing
>snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn't.
CROW: Oh, you little scamp.
>
>
> But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation
>of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at
>exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible
>said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong,
TOM: According to the Bible, what *isn't* morally wrong?
>but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is
>completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of
>man. I felt excited.....
CROW: <BillyJack> I was in it for the kicks, man.
> and decided the Theory of Evolution was for
>me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first
>page!!
MIKE: <BillyJack> Being intellectually weak, I couldn't be religious
*and* enjoy myself.
TOM: Gettin' nasty, Mike.
MIKE: Well...
TOM: Hey, I like it.
> I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no
>longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get
>drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no
>problem,
<All snicker>
MIKE: *Try* to have?
TOM: <BillyJack> Geez, I'm sorry. let me abandon some more of my beliefs
then maybe we can try again later.
> I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning
>a system of beliefs built on faith)
CROW: Talk about stretching a definition.
> that allowed me to sin without
>guilt.
>
> It was not the data that made me an atheist, it was the conclusion,
>a belief that made me the judge of right and wrong. Those cartoon
>drawings of ape men did look sharp, but I wanted to believe them
>emotionally, more than I really believed them intellectually.
MIKE: Look, just because you were screwed up as a kid doesn't give you an
excuse to spam the Usenet.
>
> But I made a crucial mistake in 9th grade, a mistake millions are
>making everywhere....I did not inquire!
CROW: Nnnnnobody expects the Creationist Inquisition!
> Whether you are Christian or
>atheist, or something else let me encourage you to inquire! I should
>have asked the teacher: "How did they come up with those cartoon
>drawings of ape-man becoming human...what fossils were actually dug up
>out of the ground?"
TOM: <Teacher> Look, it's just a diagram. No wonder you don't have a
girlfriend.
> Teachers rarely, if ever show (or truly know)
>what fossils were excavated to make up the ascent of man drawings.
CROW: Try working for $22,000 a year and see how thorough *you* are.
>(The first thing that shook my faith in evolution was learning how
>data poor the evidence was, and how imagination rich the "scientists"
MIKE: <BillyJack> "Scientists." Bah.
>were in making the ape-man to man drawings). In ninth grade I thought
>that my science teacher would not present these drawings unless there
>were many complete fossils that supported the validity of these
>drawings. But the fossils that produced those drawings are
>fragmentary! (bits and pieces of fossils) and those fragments can
>easily be explained as belonging to apes, or in other cases human.
TOM: Sure.
>
CROW: Mmm-hmm.
>.
MIKE: So! Who's ready for this post to end!?
>
>
>SUMMARY
> I am a Christian and if you are not, I hope some day you will
>become one,
CROW: <BillyJack> Because diversity is bad.
> and I hope that the path you take is one of testing and
>examining with an open mind. I am not shocked or stunned that many
>people are atheists because I was one for many years. What got me out
>of my atheist beliefs was
TOM: The magic worm the CIA implanted in your skull?
> not fear from preachers on TV, or a need to
>put on the appearance of being pious, it was the evidence of Creation
>versus Evolution.
TOM: I've said it before, I'll say it again: belief in evolution does not
have to preclu--
CROW: Tom, we know what you think.
> I wanted the truth.
MIKE: You couldn't handle the truth!
> I feel the case for Creation
>is truth, based upon the Laws of Science and observable evidence. I
>say this lovingly,
TOM: <BillyJack> Ohh, sweet Creationism, you love me, don't you? You're
soooo much better than any dumb ol' *girl...*
> if you believe the Theory of Evolution is superior
>to Creation after examining the facts of science and nature, you
>should ask yourself if something other than the facts are influencing
>your decision.
CROW: Remember: You're free to decide whatever you want, but if you
disagree with BillyJack you're wrong.
>
> Some people tell me they are atheists because how could a loving God
>allow so much suffering in this world? That is a very fair question.
>But the question addresses the nature of God, not the existence of
>God.
MIKE: So let's just tastefully skip over it.
> There is grief in everybody's life, Christian and nonChristian.
TOM: AKA Christian and ungodly pagan.
>Why? The best answer I have is I don't know. I don't know why loved
>ones have suffered painful diseases and deaths.
CROW: It's because you're a bad person, and God is punishing you by making
them suffer.
> I don't know God's
>plans
TOM: Hmm...try fingering yh...@heaven.org.
> and God's nature. But I do not have to guess whether God exists
>or not, it is evident in the Creation.
> But after determining that there was a Creator, the most important
>question arises of who was the Creator.
MIKE: Steve Allen. You can bet on it.
> I believe it was the God of
>the Bible primarily because of the validity of the Bible. The
>following paragraph is just one marvelous aspect of the Bible.
CROW: Oh, please, just END THIS POST!!!
>
>SOME BRIEFS NOTES ON GENESIS CHAPTER 1
MIKE: Well, first of all, Phil is leaving the band...
> The Bible was written in its original text a very long time ago.
TOM: Oh, this guy *is* smart.
>Many ancient writings of the Bible exist today. Neither Christian,
>Jew or atheist disputes that. These ancient writings in Genesis
>chapter one makes three statements about science, that the authors
>back then would never had made if they followed the conventional
>wisdom of the world back then. But time has shown their statements to
>correct, and the popular ideas of men wrong back then.
MIKE: <BillyJack> That makes them flat-out right.
> Those three statements are:
> 1) The Universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1)
CROW: Oh, come on. Name one ancient religion that didn't hold that to be
true.
> 2) Continental Drift, all the dry land was gathered in one place
>(Genesis 1:10)
TOM: That's not strictly an endorsement of the concept of continental drift,
but in BillyJack's mixed-up little world, anything goes!
> 3) Animals and plants will produce offspring after their own kind
>(Genesis 1:12, 1:25)
MIKE: The conventional wisdom of the time held that plants and animals don't
beget their own kind? What the hell kind of crap were those ancient peoples
smoking, anyway?
TOM: I think the error may be BillyJack's. Just a hunch.
>
>
> Please get back with me with questions, comments and your address
>if you want the free books. Remember you can call me at my home (714)
>898-8331,
CROW: Hello, Mr. BillyJack? Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
> or e mail at Billy...@AOL.COM.. I am just a Mechanical
>Engineer who would like nonbelievers to test the case for Evolution
>against the case for Creation. I had held fast to evolution for years
>until I had the opportunity to hear the Creation side. I want you to
>hear it too.
TOM: <BillyJack> I don't think the world needs to have people who aren't
like me in it.
> For you Christians out there, I also would like to share
>the Creation case to strengthen your belief and strengthen your
>witness for when people ask you "why do you believe and why should I?"
MIKE: Oh, how many atheists do you know that ask to be deluged with this
kind of stuff?
>
>
> I teach free classes on this subject
CROW: <BillyJack> In my basement.
> and would be happy to give one
>to any group of Christians or skeptics. Call me and lets set it up.
>
> I eagerly look forward to hearing from you!
TOM: <BillyJack> Please call, I'm desperate for human contact.
>
>Bill Morgan
<Theatre exodus. Whiirr, shoomp, click, etc.>
TOM: Huzzah! It's over!
CROW: Yeah! -- Hey, look! Somebody sent me mail while we were in the theater!
<Crow reads his mail for a moment. His head then explodes.> D'oh!
<All laugh good naturedly>
MIKE: Thank you, Dr. Forrestor -- for making us laugh at e-mail...
ALL: ...Again.
<Deep 13>
CLAYTON: Ha ha ha! Bite me. <Pushes button>
\ | /
\ | / <Fwooosh!>
- = o = -
/ | \
/ | \
<Credits>
MST3K and all related characters, situations, and names are TM and (c) Best
Brains, Inc. This article is not intended as a personal attack on William
"BillyJack" Morgan and should not be interpreted as such. I'm not wealthy
enough to be worth suing anyway.
> If someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I do not answer yes,
>and I do not answer no, I ask them "What do you mean when you say
>evolution?"
-- Brian Pacula (http://users.aol.com/gb8b/)