|email - December 2008|
We are now getting less hate mail from evolutionists. Now, they want to help us!
In the past, a lot of our hate mail has been unprintable. In recent months, however, evolutionists have taken a kinder, gentler, tone. Here is a typical example.
Subject: Responding to "Take A Joke!"
Most of what is said on the site scienceagainstevolution.org is truthful and I value that. But when I read "Ironically, in his last paragraph, he admits he can't explain how a love for cats could have evolved, which was our only point." in the article "Take A Joke!" and reread the last paragraph of the email within it, I was troubled. He claimed that he was not attempting to explain nor to make a claim. He said nothing about not being able to explain. If I am not mistaken, the statement I quoted in my second sentence was a lie. I suggest you correct it before more repercussions occur.
Technically, Nicholas is correct. Cyrus did say that he wasn’t attempting to explain how love could have evolved. But, we have to ask, “Why did Cyrus not attempt to explain how love could have evolved?” The answer seems clear to us. He didn’t attempt to do it because he could not, and he knew he could not. It is an unsolved problem for evolutionists. If Cyrus could explain it, then the problem would be solved.
Nicholas doesn’t really want to help us. He is trying to get us to back away from the position that love cannot be explained by any evolutionary process.
Love certainly exists. Even some animals show behavior that implies at least devotion or affection. But unselfish love is incompatible with the idea of selfish genes trying to win the struggle for existence at all cost. It is a constant thorn in the side of evolutionists.
Remember, Cyrus started his email to us last month with “good advice.”
|Your arguments would be much more compelling if your writers would stick to fact.|
He didn’t want to help us refute evolution. He just wanted us to stop using humor because it is an effective weapon.
In fairness, however, we must admit that we have sometimes offered “good advice” to evolutionists. But we are honest enough to admit that we offered this good advice out of purely selfish motives.
We have told evolutionists how to end the controversy once and for all. Simply put forth a scientifically sound argument in favor of evolution. Let there be honest debate between those who believe in intelligent design and those who believe in evolution. If there is such good evidence for evolution, then the evolutionary argument will surely carry the day.
But evolutionists have fallen into that trap before. That’s why they won’t debate any more. That’s why the go to court to censor the science curriculum. That’s why they don’t take our “good advice.”
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month