Humans Chimps & Idiots

By: Charles (Bill) Carpenter

Ok, here are the facts as scientist would have us believe them. Researchers have found that of the 3 billion genetic letters shared between the human and the chimp genetic blueprints 96% are identical. Scientists conclude that this “proves” Darwin’s theory of evolution. That’s it, what you have just read are the only facts that have been referenced to draw a “scientific” conclusion. So let’s be practical.

While humans and chimps “possibly” share a 96% identical genetic footprint, scientist fail to emphasize the fact that this means there are still 40 million variances in the genetic footprints, making us wildly different. I say “possibly” share because these scientists seldom reveal the likelihood for human error in their research, not that I blame them, after all they do have an agenda. Another fact that scientist will not share enthusiastically is that humans share more genetic similarities with mice than they do with chimps. As a matter of fact, both humans and mice have about 30,000 genes, and the human genome shares 99% of its genes with mice. That’s right; humans are far more similar to mice than chimps. Yet, scientists aren’t chomping at the bit to tell you that. Why? Simply because they know that it wouldn’t make sense, if genome similarity means that one species evolved from another, then, humans would have evolved from mouse before chimp. One might argue that the mouse came first then the chimp, which would “seem” practical except that as the species evolved from one to another the genome similarities diminish, challenging the entire rationale of genome similarity thesis. Grant it the thinkers among us understand that scientists and researchers usually ignore facts that oppose their position, and usually present the few facts they do regard with bias and slant to persuade the non-thinkers to join the ranks of the idiotic. I am simply restating this obvious truth here for the naive masses that embrace everything that is reported in scientific white papers as truth, with hopes that they will be awakened to the need to think for themselves.

A recent news report from MSNBC.com revealed that in Dover, Pennsylvania, the school board mandated, by popular vote, that biology teachers must present the theory of “intelligent design” along side any theory of evolution. Of course, as you might imagine, biased evolutionists and non-thinkers are outraged and up in arms. Let’s explore the ignorance of their position. They assume that it is appropriate to impose the unproven, unsubstantiated “theory” of evolution on my child, but it is inappropriate to share the “theory” of intelligent design which I believe. Here’s a suggestion, why not leave the exploration of theory to parents and teach only scientific fact in the public schools, now that is both reasonable and intelligent. But biased idiots would never resolve to a solution that makes so much sense. In the same MSNBC report it is further revealed that these extremists are up in arms over a sticker being placed in Georgia text books stating that “evolution is a theory, not a fact”. Just as a reminder, these same radical extremists are the ones screaming about tolerance and fairness. On the same note you may be interested to know that a March MSNBC poll found that Americans reject the theory of evolution two to one.  Is anyone stopping to think about this.

So I conclude that Darwin may have left a gap in his evolutionary theory. It seems obvious that the idiots may be an unexplored species of their own. Could it be that these idiots are the missing link in the evolutionary theory, a less evolved species between man and ape? Of course there is no evidence to substantiate this theory either, but it does sound good. Ok, let’s leave theory alone and leave you with one last FACT to ponder.

The dictionary defines science as: the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and documentation of phenomenon. Since Darwin wasn’t there to “observe” the “evolution” he could only describe what he might have imagined and produce only theory and not science. If the curriculum doesn’t fit the above definition of science it doesn’t belong in public school programs. That makes sense.