Posted on 11/14/2004 8:13:06 PM PST by lodity
In Georgia, the theory of evolution is on trial, and the Bible thumping fundamentalists are out to reverse scientific progress. Okay, not really -- but that's what the anti-Christian "civil liberties" group, the ACLU, wants people to believe. What's really on trial is a small sticker on the inside cover of high school science textbooks, that reads:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”Seems innocent enough, right? I mean, who wouldn't want young students to evaluate things with an open mind and critical examination? That sticker should be applauded for encouraging open-mindedness and critical thought.
Well, the dirty little secret is that when evolution is held under critical examination, people begin to question whether these extraordinary things that evolution teaches can really be true. I mean, evolutionism states that every living organism on earth ultimately derived from a microscopic cell in the ocean some 4.5 billion years ago. Now, if such a theory is studied as something in question, then most students (and adults) will not believe it -- it's too ridiculous. But if that theory is studied as something which is already proven by science, then they suppose that their books are teaching truth, and have no right to question it. And that's really why the ACLU and the staunch evolutionists are so adamently against this little sticker.
You see, evolutionary theory is really a religion. It's a philosophy that many atheists have tried to intertwine with science. What this sly tactic does, is give the evolutionist community grounds to say "if you question evolution then you are a science hater simply promoting a dogmatic and ignorant myth called religion." But what's really happening is that they have hijacked science. They have woven evolution into science, attempting to make the two inseperable.
So when anyone questions evolution, a philosophy, they cry that religion is invading rational thought, or, science. But what this mindset also does is drive home the point that all religion is false; that there simply CAN'T be a Supernatural explanation to the origin of life because it promotes religion. So even if our universe and the life therein does cry out that intelligence was involved, it doesn't matter, because, you guessed it, it's "religious." You see, they are presupposing that there is no God, and teach such with evolution.
They say that when you bring God into the picture, that it no longer becomes science. Therefore everything MUST somehow be naturalistic, EVEN THE THEORIES YOU PROPOSE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN. It must all be "naturalistic." But evolution theory, particulary the origins part that's taught in schools, is NOT science either! Just because you are speculating things while omitting a possible Supernatural cause doesn't mean your science is any better. It just shows that you believe things were created by themselves for no reason. It shows that you are an atheist trying to push your beliefs onto someone else, precisely what they accuse us Christians of doing.
Finally, let me just say this. Evolution theory has become so widespread, and our country (as well as countries around the world) has become so indoctrinated into the evolutionary web, that it has become hard to seperate the philosophical aspect of evolution and the scientific part. But, that is precisely what they wanted.
Hopefully, people won't stop fighting this battle, and eventually the deceit and confusion that the evolutionists have cast on us about this issue will be defeated. I hope to God that it is.
The beautiful thing is that the more we understand science, the more it points to a creator. See "The Creator and the Cosmos" "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" "The Face" et. al.
GummyIII - More inanimate things coming to life Ping!
One very important lesson students (and scientists, and historians) need to grasp and remember is that examination of a system's present state often cannot reveal its past state with certainty, or even with a bounded degree of uncertainty. One may determine that a proposed past state would have a higher level of probability of yielding the current state than would any other proposed past state, but that would not imply that there were not any other past states that could have yielded the present one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.