Evolutions Problem & the Fascist Liberal NAS

Science is the pursuit of truth, right? (Snicker, giggle, laugh out loud)

Not when it comes to the people who are forming what your children learn in school.

To prove my point, let’s reflect on a gathering of National Academy of Science members discussing science education of our children. During that meeting they allowed a survey to be conducted by the science journal Nature of 517 members of the NAS, of which half replied, revealed that 7% believed in a “personal god,” 20.8% expressed “doubt or agnosticism,” and 72.2% expressed “personal disbelief.”

The survey showed that 72.2% of them did not believe in God, or better put believed in the religion of atheism. So be it. Let them worship how and what they may. BUT, later in the discussion about the survey some of the members couldn’t believe that the other 25% were delusional enough to still believe in a God.

In fact, a prominent member named Larry Kraus asked “How come this number [the 15% who believe in God] isn’t zero?” His question combined with the other statements simply meant, “How could the other 25% be stupid enough to still believe in GOD?” Like he had the right to question them.

Which brings me to my first point where one of these same members penned how they feel about your children, what they believe and what they plan on doing about it. Steven Law wrote:

. . . the only way children can be taught that creationism is true and supported by the available evidence is by instilling in them such twisted conceptions of logic and evidential support that they are likely to remain gullible idiots for the rest of their lives.

As I say, teaching that creationism is respectable science means teaching children to think in ways that are, literally, close to lunacy.

Still want these guys deciding what your children learn in school?

So lets give evolution a little test shall we? One that you can ask all your evolution friends and liberal school enthusiast who believe that evolution is the only show in town.

Imagine a meeting of several evolutionists where they were answering questions from the public, when a man rose in the back row.

“Excuse me. I have a question,” came the slight man with a small voice.

“Yes, you may address the panel.” Said the all knowing mediator of the group.

“In a TIME Magazine article dated October, 2006 points out that 3 billion is the number of base pairs in the human genome, and that only 1.23% of which, are different in the chimp genome.”

“Yes, I am aware of the article.” The moderator said smugly.

“Please sir,” he asked meekly, “what is 3 billion multiplied by 1.23%?”
The moderator used his vast brain capacity to quickly solve this simple problem and said, “36.9 million.”

“So when we say that we are only 1.23% different than chimps were are really saying that we are 36.9 million different base pairs away from a chimp, correct?” He said standing a little taller.

“Purely mathematically speaking, yes, I guess you are correct.” He said trying hard to understand where this question was going.

“According to the theory. . .” He began to ask, but was cut off by the moderator.

“Fact! Evaluation is fact! Do not presume to be able to assert that it is nothing else.”

“According to your facts then,” He was slightly taller and more bold, “evolution says that only the beneficial copying errors, or changes in base pairs are kept correct?”

“Of course.” He exclaimed painfully, “This is rudimentary evolution science. Everyone knows that.”

“So, in order to get the beneficial changes, how many other changes had to be discarded?” He asked, now in a clear voice.

“I cannot venture a guess, probably a hundred times that many.”

“Can anyone on your esteemed panel tell me when the last known base pair change in our human genome took place?” He was now bold in his tone, and aware of his opponent’s discomfort.

The moderator looked around at the other members of the panel. They too were conversing with their hands over the microphones, trying to supply an answer with a united front. After much discussion, the moderator delivered their answer. . .

“We believe” He said a little hesitantly, “that a base pair change must have taken place within the last three to five thousand years.”

“Thank you.” He was now walking up the isle, at full height, and in his new found boldness. “Isn’t it widely believed that the human genome evolved from our chimp ancestors about 5.5 million years ago?”

“Correct.” The panel was not only stumped, but scared of this man now.

“Allow my meager, delusional brain to do the math for you. You say that we have not had a base pair change for at least three thousand years. Now, correct me if I am wrong, evolution says that we continue to evolve, there is no reason for it to stop. Humans are not perfect, in fact, we could use evolution right now to solve many problems we can’t with science. Which means that we have to trust the time frame of evolution as it continues to work on us humans as well.

“Mathematics is a pure science, correct?” He didn’t wait for a reply. “So lets do the math together. You say it takes at least three thousand years to make a change in our base pairs. You also say that in order to get the 36.9 million beneficial pairs we would need to go through a hundred times that many. The math on that is 39.9 million times 100 or 36,900,000,000 (36.9 billion). Now let’s multiply that by the time it takes to change one base pair shall we? That math is 3 thousand times 36.9 billion for a total of 110,700,000,000,000 (110.7 trillion years).”

The small man was now a lion standing in front of the room.

“By my calculations, we won’t evolve from chimps for another 100 trillion years.”

“You are wrong!” The panel said. “Evolution is fact!”

The man simply smiled and said as he walked out of the room, “Mathematics is fact. Evolution is YOUR theory. They are mutually exclusive. Math does not lie. One is true the other is not. I will let you decide.”

So go ahead and decide.