I extend a hearty hello to all you great apes.
You might not have known you are among the great apes, but that is just because most of you do not have a child in school right now. A handful of Texans will vote tomorrow on the use of the McGraw-Hill biology text in some K-12 classes that teaches that you are one of the great apes and exist due to pure evolutionary forces.
I am still one of the worker apes, and I am thinking about taking off for the rest of the afternoon, so I am going to make this quick.
I would much rather write about music, my friends, or other topics that give me a break from work and world heavy issues. But I figured that since I spent enough time to write a book (short though it is) about this evolution/monkey issue, I ought to take the time to send an email about the McGraw-Hill text – so I did. I reproduce it here for you great apes who have learned how to read, By the way, being able to read, do math, drive a car, etc. makes you a very bright ape! Pat yourself on the back, give yourself a big hug, and if you still remember that ol’ chimp trick of doing a backwards flip, do that, too.
Dear Voters-
My recommendation is to VOTE NO for use of the McGraw-Hill Biology text. It teaches solely the theory that we evolved from monkeys due to natural forces, or a variant of this theory is that humans and apes evolved through natural forces from a common ancestor.
I present here a few reasons why the possibility of a creator should be taught with the pure evolution view. You can see more discussion in my book, IS YOUR ANCESTOR A MONKEY? An Exploration of Key Issues in the Evolution Versus Creation Debate, available at Amazon.com.
Are we the result of mindless processes of nature, or we were created by something with vast intelligence that, for simplicity, I will call God? One answer is wrong. Both should be considered because the science behind pure evolution is too weak to exclude other explanations.
Biologists teach that the only POSSIBLE explanation is that we have evolved through natural processes, with no supernatural intelligence intervention. The material world, in this view, is all that exists. You live, you die and cease to exist. Implied by this view, but not stated in the text, is that individual lives have no real meaning, there are no ethical truths, and people will not answer for their actions unless they are caught breaking man’s laws or go against power that does not respect individual rights.
There are falsehoods and shortcomings in this “materialist evolution approach”
- There is no materialist explanation for the Big Bang – the beginning of it all.
- The story told by evolutionists – that the chemical “building blocks of life” create life, and these cells create other cells – is false. Dr. Sy Garte, a biochemist, points out that only living cells can replicate. Life must come from somewhere else. Life must already be present.
- There are such complex components to cells that nature could not possibly be the cause, because there is no advantage to creating the individual parts. An intelligence was behind their creation. An example outside of biology is the set of faces of presidents on Mount Rushmore. It does not matter how many millions of years go by, nature could not create those faces. They are the result of the application of intelligence. So are many cell components.
- For one species to develop into another, additional DNA must be added. This must come in the evolutionary story from mutations in DNA. However, Dr. Lee Spetner explains that mutations cause loss of information, not additions.
- For one species to evolve into another, more DNA must be added, but also the instructions to make new proteins must be added. Douglas Axe, a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from Caltech, determined that the probability that nature could create a protein is 1 divided by 74 zeros, essentially impossible.
- The evolutionist view is that a sharing of DNA among species implies evolution. This is incorrect logic. Sharing some DNA with species means no more than sharing some commonality of function, which could originate with a creator.
The evidence for a creator in our material world is:
- So many aspects of DNA have the characteristics of intelligent design rather than the result of a mindless evolutionary process that it is essentially impossible that humans are the result of natural forces.
- Purely natural forces cannot create the additional information and DNA instructions required to “make a human” from an ape or ape ancestor.
- Consciousness – no overall awareness can evolve from cells.
- There are too many accounts of near-death experiences to dismiss them out-of-hand as false, and they imply that we exist beyond the human body, which is inconsistent with the materialist evolutionary view.
There is one other false premise to address, and that is that allowing the idea of a creator into the classroom destroys the science.
- Some of our great scientists, such as Issac Newton, viewed mankind as sharing in the mind of God, giving our minds the ability to understand nature. Newton viewed every new understanding of nature as evidence of a sharing with the mind of God.
- Studies show that many Nobel prize winners in Physics believe in a creator, so it is untrue that belief in a creator eclipses science.
- Allowing the possibility of a creator in the classroom is not introducing religion into the classroom. Religions have different ways to honor God and to interpret how God wants us to live All main religions share a belief in a creator. The idea of a creator must be allowed without the study of a particular religion in the public-school classroom.
Thank you for your time and devotion to education.
I am writing from work to give you my contact information, but the opinions expressed here are the result of my personal investigations, having nothing to do with the Hagler Institute or my position at Texas A&M. I am an economist and currently an administrator.
Best wishes,
Clifford Fry
Now I am done. So long. Time for a nice banana and a nap.
Is Your Ancestor A Monkey?:
An Exploration of Key Issues
in the Evolution Versus Creation Debate
Leave a Reply