Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

[gladiatrix]

Evolution's a religion that says nature is all there is. Evolution is the basis for humanism, communism, naziism, abortion, and so on.

When creationists fail to prove their case, some of them will try to divert us from the FACT that they have presented NO evidence to support their claims by trying to play Hitler/Stalin=evolutionist=atheist=racist (yadah,yadah) card.....

Boy are you off the beam, NK, and here is why. What do you want to bet the NK uses sources like this one as "evidence" for his claims:

From Darwin and Marx
Claim
Karl Marx was admired by, and corresponded with Darwin. He sent him a personally inscribed copy of the 2nd edition of Das Kapital and wanted to dedicate it to him, but Darwin wrote a letter politely declining.

Source
Morris, John D., 1989. The Long War Against God Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p. 82-92
Creation Science Home Page [1]

But is this story true?

Responses

1. Not only is it of no consequence whether or not Darwin corresponded with Marx, there is also no evidence to support such a claim (Creationists spreading rumours with no evidence, whatever next?).

2. Darwin did, however, correspond with Marx's son-in-law, Edward Aveling, who offered to dedicate to him a book about atheism, The Student's Darwin. Marx's daughter, Eleanor, inherited her father's papers and some of these got confused with those of her husband. [Anon, 2000] The rumour that Darwin corresponded with Marx was then propagated in Soviet Russia.

3. Darwin did own a copy of Marx's book Das Kapital, but its pages were unseparated when he died, so he never read it.

4. This is, of course, as relevant to science as Newton and Hitler's belief in creation or Stephen Jay Gould's appearance on The Simpsons.

Fallacies contained in this claim (NOTE: link added, since Evowiki's isn't up yet.)
Bad Company (Darwin is tainted by contact with Marx)
False Rumor

Also see Anon., 2000. Marx of Respect. which also debunks the above claim.

If you read the bovine scatology that usually graces many creationist websites one would think that communists regarded Darwin as some kind of god, but that is not the case, even with regard to Marx. Marx was not that thrilled with some of Darwin's ideas as evidenced by these rather mocking references to Darwin's work in his private correspondence:

Marx to Engels 1862
I'm amused that Darwin, at whom I've been taking another look, should say that he also applies the ‘Malthusian’ theory to plants and animals, as though in Mr Malthus’s case the whole thing didn’t lie in its not being applied to plants and animals, but only — with its geometric progression — to humans as against plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence’. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom’, whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.

Engels to F. A. Lange 1865
Meanwhile, the involuntary delay in my reply has given me the opportunity to obtain your publication on the working-class question; I read it with great interest. I, too, was immediately struck on first reading Darwin by the remarkable similarity between his description of the vegetable and animal life and the Malthusian theory. Only my conclusion was different from yours, viz.: that it is to the everlasting disgrace of modern bourgeois development that it has not yet progressed beyond the economic forms of the animal kingdom. The so-called ‘economic laws’ are not eternal laws of nature but historical laws that appear and disappear, and the code of modern political economy, insofar as the economists have drawn it up correctly and objectively, is for us merely a summary of the laws and conditions in which modern bourgeois society can exist, in a word: its conditions of production and exchange expressed and summed up abstractly.

Marx to Engels in Manchester 1866
A very important work which I shall send on to you (but on condition that you send it back, as it is not my property) as soon as I have made the necessary notes, is: ‘P. Trémaux, Origine et Transformations de l’Homme et des autres Êtres, Paris 1865. In spite of all the shortcomings that I have noted, it represents a very significant advance over Darwin.

Marx to Paul/Laura Lafargue 1869
As to Paul’s lively narration of his adventure with Mlle Rover, it has tickled Engels and my humble self. I was not at all astonished at his failure. He will remember that, having read her preface to Darwin , I told him at once she was a bourgeois. Darwin was led by the struggle for life in English society — the competition of all with all, bellum omnium contra omnes — to discover competition to [...] as the ruling law of ‘bestial’ and vegetative life. The Darwinism, conversely, considers this a conclusive reason for human society never to emancipate itself from its bestiality.

Marx to Engles 1875
1) Of the Darwinian doctrine I accept the theory of evolution, but Darwin’s method of proof (struggle for life, natural selection) I consider only a first, provisional, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact. Until Darwin’s time the very people who now see everywhere only struggle for existence (Vogt, Búchner, Moleschott, etc.) emphasized precisely cooperation in organic nature, the fact that the vegetable kingdom supplies oxygen and nutriment to the animal kingdom and conversely the animal kingdom supplies plants with carbonic acid and manure, which was particularly stressed by Liebig. Both conceptions are justified within certain limits, but the one is as one-sided and narrowminded as the other. The interaction of bodies in nature — inanimate as well as animate — includes both harmony and collision, struggle and cooperation. When therefore a self-styled natural scientist takes the liberty of reducing the whole of historical development with all its wealth and variety to the one-sided and meager phrase “struggle for existence,” a phrase which even in the sphere of nature can be accepted only cum grano salis, such a procedure really contains its own condemnation. [...]

Looks like Morris et al prefer to propagate a myth rather than report the truth. And how about this blurb from the Creation Science Home Page

Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in "Scientific Atheism" which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.

Funny thing is that if you read things like The Communist Manifesto, evolution or Darwin are NOT mentioned at all. Oh and where's the "case" for supporting the claim of "Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China". Not one shred of evidence is given to support the claims above.

Furthermore, this is actually a lie when one considers that Stalin was most definitely NOT an evolutionist:

STALIN, AN EVOLUTIONIST?
Stalin did NOT believe in evolution but was a devotee of the ideas of Trofim Lysenko. What Lysenko proposed was a form of Lamarckism which is NOT evolution. Lysenko got Stalin’s ear with the assertion that Darwin’s theory of evolution and Mendel’s theory of heredity were wrong. “Bourgeois science,” he called them, not fit for a communist state. It was a case of politics replacing science.

Lysenko came from a peasant family in the Ukraine. He was a prominent figure in the Soviet Union The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) because of his controversial, unscientific, approach to biological science, beginning with agriculture and leading to a more general theory of heredity that rejected the existence of gene. In particular, Lysenko insisted on the ability of different species to transform one into another. He "proved" this by planting a field of wheat and finding there several plants of rye. The real reason for this was in stray seeds of rye that found their way to the field; however in order to hide the obvious he silenced those who dared to speak against him using his connections with the Secret Police (NKVD ).

Biography
After World War II regime led by Joseph Stalin began to distance itself from Western ideas and concepts, including science. Stalin declared genetics and cybernetics to be Anti-Soviet and ideologically unfit; he put Lysenko in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of Soviet Union and made him responsible for ending the propagation of harmful ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose faithfully, causing the expulsion, imprisonment and death of hundreds of scientists and the demise of genetics (a previously flourishing field) throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. Particularly, he bears responsibility for the death of the greatest Soviet biologist, Nikolai Vavilov at the hands of the NKVD. After Stalin's death in 1953, Lysenko retained his position, enjoying a relative degree of trust from Nikita Khrushchev.

In 1962 three of the most prominent Soviet physicists, Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich Iakov Borisovich Zeldovich, set out the case against Lysenko, his false science and his policy of political extermination of scientific opponents. This happened as a part of a greater trend of combatting the ideological influence that had held such sway in Soviet society and science. Khrushchev then dismissed Lysenko.

The implementation of Lysenko's "science" eventually resulted in the starvation of millions. Read more about this debacle when ideology overcomes science. This instance of where pseudo-science/ideology triumphs over the facts should be a warning to us all (not repeat this mistake by teaching bunk like YEC or ID as science when it's nothing but religion with no scientific evidence to back either)
Continued in Part 2 . . . .

 

[gladiatrix]

Evolution's a religion that says nature is all there is. Evolution is the basis for humanism, communism, naziism, abortion, and so on.

PART 2: HITLER AN "EVOLUTIONIST"?

To answer this charge, let's begin with the following:
From Creationists, Hitler and Evolution
EXCERPT
A common charge made by creationists is that evolutionary theory is "evil" and is the source of racism in general, and of dictatorial killers in particular. The most often-heard assertion is that Hitler and his racist genocide were the product of "evolutionary philosophy". Henry Morris, for instance, flatly declares, "However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionst." (Morris, "Evolution and Modern racism", ICR Impact, October 1973) Morris adds: "The philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche--the forerunners of Stalin and Hitler--have been particularly baleful in their effect: both were dedicated evolutionists." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974 p. 33)

How accurate is this creationist finger-pointing? Not very. The creationists are apparently unaware of the fact that Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution as "bourgeois" and instead embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology" of Lysenko and Michurin (a disaster from which Russian genetics and biological sciences has still not completely recovered). As for Hitler, even a cursory reading of his book Mein Kampf reveals that the true source of Hitler's inspiration and exhortations came from a source that creationists, understandably, would rather not talk about.

Hitler's goal was the "purification" of the "Aryan race" through the elimination of "subhumans", which included Jews, gypsies, Asians, black Africans, and everyone else who was not a white Aryan. Despite the creationists claims that this was based on Darwinain evolutionary theory, Hitler's own writings give quite a different story. The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true---a quick scan of several online English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation."

Had ICR made even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf, they would have seen a quite different source for Hitler's racist inspiration than the one they would have us believe. White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." (all quotes from Hitler, Mein Kampf, online version) Actions which aid the "subhumans" at the expense of the Aryan master race, Hitler declared, were an offense against God: " It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."

Rather than basing his racism on any evolutionary theory, Hitler based it squarely on his view of white Aryans as the favored people of God. In fact, Hitler solemnly declares that his program of removing Jews and other "subhumans" from the earth is a divine task forced upon him by the Lord Almighty: "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."

Hitler concludes: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," adding "Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order, thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission." For Hitler, removing the subhumans from earth was not a matter of biology or evolution---it was a divine mandate from God Himself, the "work of the Lord", a "truly high mission".
-----end excerpt-----

When the "Hitler was an atheist" argument is shown to be a fallacy, creationists will invariably try to blame Hitler's cruelty on evolution, their second-favorite whipping boy for the evils of the world after atheists/Satan. FYI, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was NOT coined by Darwin, but by the philosopher Henry Spencer. Furthermore, this phase, reluctantly adopted by Darwin, does NOT mean the survival of the meanest, strongest bad guy on the block at the expense of the weaker. This is the common mischaracterization by religionists and erstwhile "social Darwinists" like the American industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller et al, who first coined the phrase to justify their underhanded, dog-eat-dog corporate warfare and exploitation of their workers. What this phrase really means , IN CONTEXT, from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading. For one thing, survival is only one component of selection -- and perhaps one of the less important ones in many populations. For example, in polygynous species, a number of males survive to reproductive age, but only a few ever mate. Males may differ little in their ability to survive, but greatly in their ability to attract mates -- the difference in reproductive success stems mainly from the latter consideration. Also, the word fit is often confused with physically fit. Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest..." In other words, who produces the most offspring (leaves more copies of their genes behind) is the "fittest".

HITLER PRO-CHOICE?

What is hilarious about this comparison is that Nazis were dead set AGAINST abortion AND birth-control (just like most anti-choicers). They burned Margaret Sanger's books (very strange behavior on their part if she were really a Nazi sympathizer as most anti-choicers like to claim)

From Die Nacht der Scheiterhaufen: 10 May 1933--Greatness and Tragedy of the German Mind
In May, 1933, the Nazi party decreed that any book, "which acts subversively on our future or strikes at the root of German thought, the German home and the driving forces of our people..." was to be burnt. Students carrying banners toured the streets, rifling libraries, synagogues, and private homes. Works of philosophers, rationalists, poets, and internationally acclaimed authors, which had until then formed part of universal studies, were thrown into the flames. Some of the authors targeted in the book burning campaign are listed below.” (see PDF file, page 4 for list)[...]

The list of books burnt includes works by German and non-German Jews, by the American women’s rights activist Margaret Sanger and by one Magnus Hirschfeld for his “sympathetic studies of homosexuality”.

Nazis viewed women as having only one important function, that of perpetual baby factory (when they weren't worshipping at the shrine of Nazi male superiority in their spare time after changing nappies). To that end they outlawed both birth control and abortion which became a capital crimes (punishable by death):

From The Pink Triangle
The Nazis saw the two issues as one. Indeed, on October 26, 1934 a special department on abortion and homosexuality was set up in the Berlin Gestapo under SS Captain Joseph Meisinger. Two years later, on October 26, 1936, the Federal Security Office for Combatting Abortion and Homosexuality --- the infamous Subsection IIs of the Gestapo --- was organized by Heinrich Himmler in order to "purify the German people and regulate their sexual behavior by rooting out *sociosexual saboteurs*".
Dealing with sociosexual saboteurs (or homosexuality and abortion) the way other subsections dealt with political dissenters, freemasons, etc., IIs fell under control of the Gestapo's political department (or Department II).
From THIS SITE. If this one doesn't work on your server the same info can be found in the following SITE and is also quoted HERE

Just how women were treated in Nazi Germany can be seen in this excerpt from Nazi Attitudes Toward Women :

The Nazis believed that a woman's place was in the home. The purpose of women was to produce babies, bring up children and to care for their home and husband. In the words of the famous Nazi slogan, women were to be confined to Kinder, Kirche, Kuche - children, church and kitchen. They were not allowed to take part in government, the law or education.

At the same time all married women doctors and civil servants and most married women teachers were sacked. They were banned from law courts as judges. lawyers and even as jurors. In Hitler's opinion, "women cannot think logically, or reason objectively, since they are ruled only by emotions". Married women were supposed to have children, not jobs. Childless women were called traitors and mothers of large families were given a medal. (NOTE: This award was satirically called the "Order of the Rabbit" behind Hitler's back)

More here from Hitler's Minister of Propaganda German Women by Joseph Goebbels

Did Hitler ever advocate abortion? Yes, when it was part of a campaign to exterminate all the "subhumans" (the "untermenschen"--Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, "coloreds", etc.). However, the Nazis usually didn't bother with abortion, but either killed those already pregnant outright or just worked them to death. After all, it was so much cheaper and cost effective than trying to mount "population reductions" by sterilization and abortion.

Should you also visit the sites of white racists like Christian Identity, Stormfront, White Power World Wide you will find that one reason that they idealize Hitler is his attitude toward women, abortion, and birth control (they call him "real progressive in the true nature of women's rights"!)

Hitler was NOT

• an evolutionist
• an atheist
• pro-choice

despite what Novaknight would like others to believe in his campaign to slander all those who don't walk in lock-step to his particular version of Christianity.

Looks to me like you are doing nothing here but bearing false witness, NK.

 

[jwu]

The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true

---a quick scan of several online English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation."

Not only that, but the German word for "evolution" is "evolution". The straightforward translation of "Entwicklung" is "development" or "design".

ICR is playing a semantics game with synonyms and polynyms there.

jwu

 

[h2whoa]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gladiatrix again.

h2

 

[MQTA]

w0w

 

[notto]

But Communism violates the 2Lot!!!!!

(great job Gladiatrix although I doubt it will silence the ignorance)

 

[wardpossy]

The Problems Of Evolution

Some have assumed that an evolutionary explanation of life would make God unnecessary. This overlooks some problems. Even if we assume that scientists will someday find enough "missing links" to confirm that life appeared and developed gradually over great periods of time, laws of probability would still show the need for a Creator. As a result, many scientists who believe in evolution believe also that the universe in all of its immensity and complexity did not "just happen." Many feel compelled to acknowledge the possibility or even likelihood of an intelligent designer who provided the ingredients for life and set in motion the laws by which it developed.

Scientific method is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins. Info. provided by rbc

 

[h2whoa]

The Problems Of Evolution

Some have assumed that an evolutionary explanation of life would make God unnecessary. This overlooks some problems. Even if we assume that scientists will someday find enough "missing links" to confirm that life appeared and developed gradually over great periods of time, laws of probability would still show the need for a Creator. As a result, many scientists who believe in evolution believe also that the universe in all of its immensity and complexity did not "just happen." Many feel compelled to acknowledge the possibility or even likelihood of an intelligent designer who provided the ingredients for life and set in motion the laws by which it developed.

Scientific method is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins. Info. provided by rbc

This is not a problem for evolution. Evolution adheres to the principles from your quote (copied and pasted, word for word). If people would actually bother to listen to even most atheistic evolutionists, let alone theistic evolutionists, you would have hear us say that evolution and science as a whole is not out there to disprove God. Clearly I would have a problem being a genetics researcher and a Christian if this were the case.

Only militant atheists and militant Creationists argue that evolution is attempting to disprove God. In fact anyone who actually gives the smallest damn about what pure science is about looks on both camps with equal dismay.

Science is not a theology. Nor does it attempt to be. Science and religion do not occupy the same niche in human understanding. Therefore any conflict between them is essentially artificial or the result of misapplication.

h2

 

[wardpossy]

W H A T E V E R ! ! ! !

 

[h2whoa]

Ya know, You are such a whiner

Thank you for your thoughful and concise reply which addresses the main body of my post.

you complain for my spelling,

Remedy = learn to spell. And actually it should be "you complain about my spelling".

You say I need to check my sources before posting, I do and I copy and paste a Professional point of view correctly written to post and you complain about that

Remedy = learn to think for yourself and stop regurgitating that which others have already vomitted into the discussion.

Remedy = redefine what you might consider a professional view point. A totally pointless argument about evolution that doesn't even apply due to the fact it's based on the false premise that evolution = NO GOD.

I would ask what you wanted but you would just complain or smart of about that....

You know what I want. Intelligent responses to the actual issues. ORIGINAL THINKING!

Are you insecure or something????

Yes, I worry that maybe the fundamentalists are the true representatives of Christianity in which case I'm insecure about the decision between abandoning my faith or turning into an ignoramous.

Sorry if this sounds kinda ******

Apology accepted. And you make your first correct post (ever?) it does indeed sound starstarstarstarstar...

but You dont even know what you want

Milk, two sugars.

inless

Just so that you can keep whinging, should that be "unless"?

Anything I copy and paste are materials I have studed and use on a regular basis.

Edit: should say "anything I plagarise are things that someone told me are against evilution and I have copied and pasted them a thousand times before, never giving one ounce of thought into what I'm actually debating about".

That is my complaint.

Now, would you care to address what the rest of my post was actually about (i.e. that science and theism are not opposed)?

Love and hugs.

h2

 

[wardpossy]

No Response Needed , You Know It All , Nice To Have Met You.......God

 

[h2whoa]

Nice To Have Met You

I'd say the same, but then "thou shalt not lie"...

h2

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

No evolution is not science

 

[wardpossy]

It is a Religion and a very weak one at that

 

[Dal M.]

It is a Religion and a very weak one at that

Unsupported (and unpunctuated) assertion. How is evolution like a religion?

 

[L'Anatra]

It is a Religion and a very weak one at that

Would you care to explain how that is?

 

[caravelair]

No evolution is not science

why not?

to me, that answer indicates that you either don't understand evolution, or you don't understand science. possibly both.

 

[L'Anatra]

Why? Evolution goes against MANY laws of the universe, such as the 2LoT. It defies the 3LoT, saying as matter's temperature approaches absolute 0, all processes cease. Does it go with ANY laws of the universe? The laws are constant. The theory must change.

If evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then life itself would also violate it, as would practically any process that required heat input. Evolution can not possibly violate the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics, since life can not exist at such a temperature. Do you realize what absolute zero is? It would seem that you do not know one iota about thermodynamics at all.

 

[wardpossy]

Face it, If a person wants to believe something as a fact ANYONE can find evidence to pick and choose thru to make it APPEAR to back their Idea's, If you think about it we people here dont have any idea as to what is 100% FACT all we can do is take educated guesses and build ourselves upon that, Diffrence of opinions are healthy.

 

[Battie]

Face it, If a person wants to believe something as a fact ANYONE can find evidence to pick and choose thru to make it APPEAR to back their Idea's, If you think about it we people here dont have any idea as to what is 100% FACT all we can do is take educated guesses and build ourselves upon that, Diffrence of opinions are healthy.

Precisely. I hope you see that this is true for creationism as well. Your job, then, is to look at both sides with an open mind, examine things carefully, and make a decision based upon your conclusions from the evidence rather than concluding from bias. From your posts I feel that the latter is what you are doing.

If you lock up your mind against foreign ideas, you will miss out on a lot. And if you don't believe the creationsists are capable of doing what you accuse evolutionists of, you must at least be feeling some cognitive dissonance.