Evolution isn't really scientific, either

I have read some letters questioning Lisa Szatkowski's beating a dead horse in her Sept. 17 letter because she does advocate the teaching of creationism in the public schools. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated this would be unconstitutional and illegal.

But I wonder what the Supreme Court would have said about teaching evolution had they been informed of the conspiracy to hide the facts that contradict previous beliefs concerning the evolution of mankind.

I refer the reader to the NBC documentary "The Mysterious Origin of Man."

This document revels evidence that any findings not fitting scientists' previous patterns have been systematically concealed.

The Supreme Court has ignored the fact that there are two sides of the coin. I suggest the reader read "Scientific Creation," copyrighted in 1974. The writers and their consultants, all scientists, number an impressive 13. All are professors at universities, all are educated people and all prescribe to creationism.

I have heard it said "Evolution is time-tested." How can it be when evolutionists claim that it happened over millions of years? They can't have it both ways.

Early scientists trusted that the missing link between ape and man would eventually turn up in future diggings.

Quite the opposite is happening. For decades, diggers have been uncovering human skulls, artifacts and stone tools dating back to the age of dinosaurs. No way do these fit Darwin's theory that all forms of life developed from earlier forms through a series of physical changes.

Evolution is not a science. It is based upon a belief : "The origin of life belongs in the category 'at least once phenomenon.' However improbable we regard this event, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once."

A phenomenon is something observed that can be explained scientifically, such as gravity. The "at least once" phenomenon can neither be observed nor explained. In fact, it is the product of an active imagination.

This is why I make the observation that evolution has feet of clay.

So why is it taught in schools? You tell me. But as long as it is taught, then certainly creationism should be taught also, so students may have an opportunity to choose one or the other.

But as long as our Supreme Court continues to ban the teaching of creationism, and as long as we have people that are no smarter than a fifth-grader, the theory of evolution will continue to be taught and consumed.

Lyle Bloomfield

Elgin