Well my seminar is fifteen hours long, so we’re really going to have to [structure] aren’t we?  I certainly… I’ll have to say right up front, I resent both of these gentlemen saying we’re presenting half-truths. I would like you to be very specific, pick on one please and show me.  And also you there is evidence for evolution, I’d like you to be very specific, give me your best shot, give me the first, best evidence you have got.  I’d really like to see it.  I’m telling there is no evidence what so ever for any evolution above the micro-evolution level.  And again, I resent and I think you should resent the implication here that unless you have the critical thinking skills to evaluate the data, you really should get some more education.  In other words, someone else is smart, the people who believe in evolution are smart, the people who don’t believe it are dumb.  To me that is what is coming across, loud and clear. Ok.
    Some of the evidence that is used for evolution and I taught biology and earth science for fifteen years; one of the evidence that I have seen in every textbook is the fruit fly.  Their going to say that they did experiments with the fruit flies since you get a new generation every eleven days it can prove evolution over millions of years compacted into one human life span.  After nuking and radiating and micro-waving these flies and getting them to cause all sorts of mutated babies, they got flies with curled wings.  They fly around, buzz, buzz, buzz, couldn’t go anywhere.  They got flies with no wings.  They have to crawl, [not to] fly.  They raised all sorts of mutated flies; they never got a beneficial mutation.  None of the millions of flies that were raised in laboratories ever showed any improvement.  Every one was detrimental but some how in their twisted logic, these guys who did the experiment said all the mutations we’ve observed were worse off.  And that’s a good observation and I would agree with that but then they concluded: this proves flies have evolved as far as they can go.  And that is a lousy conclusion to reach from the data.  What you should conclude is God made them right the first time.
    Thousands of textbooks, I have reviewed literally hundreds and hundreds of textbooks.  I have several hundred in my library; you can ask my folks that work for me at my ministry and every one that I’m aware of uses the peppered moth as evidence for evolution.  They counted the moths on the trees and found out that they are ninety-five percent white and five percent black.  In the areas that they were burning coal in the factories, the trees turned black so they claimed that there were five percent white and ninety-five percent black.  Turned out later that the experiment was a complete fraud, only two moths, exactly two moths in forty years were ever seen resting on trees.  They had to glue the moths to the tree and glue a dead stuffed bird to the tree to take the picture as evidence for the theory.  The whole thing has been discredited; it is still in textbooks now though.  The purpose of this discussion today is to show what evidence do we have for evolution.  What Mike and I, I think, are trying to do instead of going off into the philosophical realm, we’re trying to say, look there is no evidence, everything that they are telling you is not evidence, it’s false.  The moth evolution is not evidence for evolution but the students are taught this in ever textbook I’m aware of, actually it is evidence for design.  Then they have the gall to tell the students to think critically with a question like this: "Do you think humans are still evolving?"  It’s one of those loaded questions like: "Have you stopped beating you wife yet?"  There’s no way for a kid to answer that question.  The question assumes evolution happened.  This is not teaching them how to think this is teaching them what to think, that is a Soviet style indoctrination type question.  The textbooks are going to say that we’ve got evidence from structure, they’re going to say that it’s the homology argument.  The two bones in the wrist, the radius and the ulna of all the different animals, and that’s supposed to be evidence for evolution?  This textbook says: "Comparative anatomy provides further evidence of evolution."  Which is what the debate is supposed to be about.  "The [commonology] suggests that these and other vertebrate animals are all related, they probably evolved from a common ancestor."  Now hold on just a second.  If you see some similarities in different forelimb structures of different animals that does not prove they had a common ancestor.  It might prove that they had a common designer, the same guy built them all, that’s why they are similar.
    Why aren’t students told we have several ways to look at this?  I mean, do students come to the University of West Florida to get educated or to get indoctrinated?  See indoctrination only shows one side.  My son, right now, and his wife are speaking in the Ukraine.  He’s been over there for three weeks; I’ve spoken over there before.  And in Ukrainian schools, the former Soviet Republic, all the students ever see is one side.  When I spoke over there to thirty professors at the university in [Cinoski], one of the professors was crying.  I asked the interpreter, I said, "what’s he crying about?" And she said "He’s never heard the Creation story, he didn’t know there was one, he wants you to keep going, he wants to hear more about this!"  And the students at University of West Florida need to see both sides.  The evidence for evolution is defunct, there’s none.

Terry Prewitt: Second Argument

     I’m not going to respond to the ad-homonyms and therefore I’ll go on with some evidence.  First of all, the theory of evolution is dependent… the synthetic theory of evolution which is what we pursue today, is dependent on four primary premises.  These are the principles through which evolution works, they are natural selection, isolation, mutation and I forgot the other one… well see, that’s what education will do for you, you just forget.  I’m getting old that’s the problem; they are:  isolation, mutation, selection and drift.  I’m not going to explain those to you cause it would take my whole five minutes.  But I will tell you that natural selection was the ground point that Darwin and Wallas both came up with independently, looking at the same world and opposite sides of the world.  Looking at the diversity of the species and saying that some how the characteristics being passed from one generation to another were being selected for.  They didn’t know the mechanism, that was left to the work of Gregor Mendell, a monk, who worked in Russia in the nineteenth century and his work was uncovered in the 1920’s and began the study of genetics which gave us the study of population genetics.  And genetics led to Watson and [Crick’s] discovery of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid and the functions of deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid in protein synthesis, the basis of all life--the very same chemical structure that is also in the pine trees outside.  And these compounds operate to create the diverse proteins, the diverse biological characteristics and qualities which give us our specific characteristics.
    Through time one of the ways that mutation works is the chemical switches start and stop in different processes.  An enzyme switch in the genetic material itself determines the shape of your molars and the number of cusps.  And we know that we share cusp patterns with gorillas, for example.  All of you in this room have the potential of having Y-5 cusps on you wisdom teeth, if you have them.  Many of you don’t even have wisdom teeth.  Some of you that do have wisdom teeth have cusp patterns that are identical to gorilla’s teeth.  That doesn’t prove anything and I think Kent’s argument that one designer could produce similar designs, god knows . . . [indeterminable] . . . said the same thing, he put different labels on it.
    The fact is that if you look at the full record, and I think Nick made this point a little more subtlety than it should have been made so I’m going to try to be a little more resoundingly.  If you look at the full record of biology, at the advances of the twentieth century, at the human genome project, at the processes of inoculation, at the medical knowledge that we have in this century, all of which are fathered on the very same empirical generalizations as the interpretation of what I have called God’s text, the natural world: which is evolution as a theory. [additional comment indeterminable]  It is a common technique of my opponents to pull out one or another example of something which didn’t work out.  And Piltdown, I’m really tired of hearing about Piltdown, it was anthropologists that exposed Piltdown in the textbooks.  There is not a single contemporary textbook that teaches Piltdown except to tell that it was a hoax, by an over-exuberant, over-zealous,  person who was looking for a lot of publicity.  Science works though anonymous, quiet work.  Most people don’t even remember one of the discoverers of deoxyribonucleic acid, Rosalind Franklin, partly because she was a woman and partly because she died before they gave the Noble Prize.  So Watson and Crick and her partner, you know, got the prize.  The fact is that evolution is the best interpretation of the natural record we have before us, of biology, of process… of biological process and of the geologic record, and now my time is up.

Mike Schultz: Second Argument

    Thank you sir.  Well, he named a few similarities between man and ape but the differences are just astronomical, hair, hands, feet, etc.  And as far as just picking on one of the cavemen what about Piltdown, Neanderthal and Lucy?  I mean it has just been discredited, there is just nothing there.  Let’s talk about what the evolutionist themselves think of evolution.  They all prove each other’s theories totally impossible.  I call that not having a leg to stand on myself.  Each theory I know of proves the others just totally impossible.  There is just no leg to hold that table up.  How bout these family trees that we see in our textbooks today?  Those are certainly still in textbooks today.  Well Mary Leakey, she’s a very big time evolutionist says: "All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense."   Why is that in our textbooks if that’s a bunch of nonsense?  Stephen Jay Gould--I don’t know too many bigger evolutionists except for the ones that I’m using quotes form here--said this: "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches…" That means what is alive today folks.  "…the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
    These are lies that are being taught as fact, and we’re not using half truths, they’ve got to do with what I’m saying today.  They say these single cell organisms are simple but smaller is much more complex, look at the microchip in a computer, that’s very complex.  The paramecium is single celled but it is not simple.  It’s a hundred times more complex than the space shuttle and the space shuttle is the most complex thing on the face of the planet.  See the probability of just one DNA arranging itself by chance has been calculated to be one chance in ten to the one hundredth and nineteenth thousandth power.  That’s a big number, that’s a very big number.  There’s only room in the entire universe for two times ten to the eighty-first power electrons.  I don’t think there’s much of a chance of that happening.  And similar DNA codes can also prove the same design engineer wrote the codes.  It does not prove evolution.  There are two sides to look at here.
    This is what Harris Matthews said:  "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory.  Is this a science or a faith?"   Evolution is just a very bad religion.  "I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretation.  Theories have in the past clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data."   And ideologies and what people want to believe is what’s being pushed in our science textbooks today.  This is Dr. Colin Patterson what he says.  He went around asking; "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?"  He directed this to the members of the evolutionary morphology seminar at the University of Chicago.  The reply, one person stood up and said: "I do know one thing, it ought not be taught in high school."  And I agree, it is not science, it is not fact.  He even went further in replying to a letter one day.  "I fully agree with you on you comments on of the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any fossil or living…" I’ve never seen a living fossil. "…I would certainly included them.  I would lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil…"   How come it is being used in our textbooks today as evidence for evolution?  Why are Christians being made to feel like the minority?  And it’s just ridiculous folks.
    David Raup said, "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general, these have not been found – yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into our textbooks."   Evolutionists are saying this.  This is not the Creationists point of view.  "There are no missing links, the whole chain is missing."   That’s not what’s being taught in the textbooks right there.  The whole chain is missing.  "The absence of fossil evidence for the intermediary stages… has been a persistent and nagging problem for… evolution."   I’ll say so, Stephen Gould said that, big time evolutionist.  That’s what they are saying folks.  "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future."   I believe we are seeing that now.  Scientists are now distancing… many scientists are distancing from evolution.  "Scientist who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men."
    Folks, I’m just reading the quotes from what evolutionists say.  Dr. Arthur Keith, "evolution is unproved and unprovable.  We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."  And that is unthinkable for the anthropologist, [I see], I guess it is unthinkable for many of the scholars these days.  "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless."   This has held up science for hundreds of years.  It is just what happened to George Washington.  He was sick; they thought that [interminable] back in his day.  If you’re sick you got bad blood.  They laid him down, they laid his wrist open and bled him.  They realized that he was dying so they opened up his other wrist.  He died.  They did wrong.  Their assumptions were wrong, their science was wrong, they were wrong.  I’m afraid that our textbooks are dying right now.  They are bleeding to death because there is not enough science in there; there is just fantasy. Alright, then we’ll stop there

Nick Power: Second Argument

    Let me appeal to you again, to think about when somebody tells you that a fact has been discredited or a theory or a part of a theory has been discredited or has been shown to be nonsense, don’t take them at their word, ask for the source, ask for the text. Right?  And evaluate that yourself and look, none of this is to the point.  That individual aspects of this or that theory of evolution, they keep talking about evolution, that evolution is nonsense, that evolution has set back thinking, that evolution is being taught to our kids and it is a bunch of lies.  No one believes in evolution, there… That is to say that you can not just believe in evolution.  You have to believe in evolution via some mechanism.  Right?  You have to have a theory of evolution.  The current theory of evolution, not Darwin’s but one firmly rested on Darwin’s investigations is as confirmed, folks, as science gets.  Now that is not to say that it is proven, that is not to say that bits and pieces couldn’t be false but that’s the nature of science.  Which brings me to my point, that… why should you believe in a scientific theory that apparently threatens some of you in the room.  I’ve already told you why I don’t think you should be threatened.  Right?  I mean I really don’t.
    I think a good course in religious studies or a good course at Terry’s department would allow you to make some distance between the claims of science and the claims of religion.  This debate again is unfortunate.  But anyway, back to why you should believe in this theory.  I said that you shouldn’t believe it cause it is true because you know [like true is].  I think you should believe it cause it might be true.  Right?  And yet it doesn’t come for free, you’ve got to work on it.  You can’t be lazy and accept your preacher’s word that the final account is already in, that we know what you should think.  That we have the final answer and all the answers and we know why you’re important or why you’re aren’t and we already know that you are important.  Maybe you’re not.  Right?  Being important, you don’t get that for free, you don’t get to ascribe yourself a status in your own eyes without doing that critically, without engaging in facts and reasonable inquiry and investigation of the facts and I don’t see much of that here today.  Because it might be true, there is room for you to make a contribution to this.
    The Bible is long written, you know there are theological disputes and they’re very interesting and there are semantic and hermeneutic tasks to be done but the fundamentals are in.  So if you want to know what to think then there’s an answer.  I prefer a mind theory about the origin of the world, there’s a cave and the people come out of the cave and everything.  I prefer that one myself but you are welcome to it.  But science just might be right, this theory might be right and it demands your critical attention and your continued furtherance of that.  Right?  It is not a done story, it is not a done deal and any authority that tell you what to think you see, I think you should automatically resist.  Scientist or otherwise.  If your not there is something wrong with you.
    Look I’ve already given you another reason to believe it; cause it is as confirmed science gets.  And knock science all you want, talk about ideologies creeping up into science and call science just another myth if you like.  I teach a course in philosophy of science, I present that material.  My students could tell you that I do a fair job of presenting how ideology and male bias and other kind of political ideals do creep into science.  But don’t make that… but don’t make that take away from the big picture. This theory is as confirmed as it could be.  And the other reason we should believe this theory is cause it’s bloody hard.  Right?  Science is hard.  Why do you think the universe would be simple or elegant?  Why do you think that a creation story as packed and as complete and as coherent as this would deal or be able to continue to deal with the massive complexity of this natural world.  The hardness of science should be an appeal to you.  It should be a call to you to figure this stuff out.  Right?  There you go, thanks for your time.