Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.
The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]
Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.
"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."
Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.
"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."
Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.
Yeah, in fact you recently scored a stunning victory in the creation-friendly state of Kentucky.
Oh wait, that was our side, who scored a stunning victory in the presumably evolution-hostile state of Kentucky.
Answers in Genesis is a fascinating group. They're one of the few creationist sites that has had the courage to publicly point out some of the more laughable flaws in other creationists' arguments. But if you read their stuff over time, you periodically discover flashes of desperation scattered in between the usual bursts of triumphant bluster. Such as this:
There is a growing tension in the church between many lay people and their leadership concerning the Bible’s historical account of origins. AiG’s supporters—and our new staff—often struggle to understand why so many Christian organisations and leaders ‘bristle’ about AiG. Megan M. sent us this e-mail:‘I am just blown away by the attitude ... we have met here [since returning from seven years in Asia] regarding the creation issue—that six literal days is not the point, and ... is being divisive. ... We have been dumbstruck by the lethargy and wishy-washy teaching we have experienced in churches here ... . We are thankful for the materials that you supply—solid stuff with backbone! ... This country needs no-compromise teaching that points directly to God the Creator and His Son, Jesus Christ!’Recently an AiG event coordinator spoke with the pastor of a large evangelical church and asked why he did not want AiG ministry there. He answered, ‘It’s because of your stand on the six days of Creation.’ When asked why this was a problem, he said it was because of what he’d been taught at Bible college.
This is not an isolated case, sadly. ...
AiG received a number of letters and e-mails from people dismayed and shocked by Pat Robertson‘s recent comments on a couple of ‘700 Club’ TV programs about those who believe in the six literal days of Creation. I certainly wasn’t surprised by theses statements. You see, I visited Regent University a number of years ago and discovered that a number of its professors were teaching theistic evolution. And over the years we’ve had contact with a number of students who have confirmed this (although there may be some literal Genesis professors at Regent). ...Sadly the views of Pat Robertson are also held by many Christian leaders in America today. While these same leaders have a heart for fighting America’s culture war, Christians are losing the battle. The problem is that the culture war is being lost because Biblical authority has been lost. And this has happened because the majority of Christian leaders have rejected the literal history in Genesis in order to compromise with millions of years and evolutionary ideas. Until Christian leaders get back to accepting God’s clear Word beginning in Genesis, and thus reestablishing Biblical authority, Christians will not be able to fight the culture war at a foundational level—where the real battle is largely being won by the secular humanists.
So, where was creationism winning, exactly?
I'd say "fair question" if you hadn't been told the answer so many times before. I'll give you an answer but only if you promise not to keep asking the same lame questions and keep ignoring the answers. Deal?
This was brought home to me as I was reading a Watchtower tract about evolution.
Well, that is a good laugh. But I'm not a JW. Tell you what: I won't blame you for Stalin's mass murdering if you don't hold me accountable for what the JWs print.
For example, to bring us back to the Grand Canyon: Did God fill this lake with sulphuric acid directly? Or did he place a deposit of sulphur in the ground in such a way that it would get exposed to the Flood waters at the right time & dissolve into it in the right proportions?
The question is absurd. The acid idea came from the fertile imagination of one of your idealogue compatriots.
Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
*Losing* ...
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists !
Listen smartass, next time keep your mouth shut if you don't have anything intelligent to add.
Oh the irony. "Listen", son, I was responding in kind to your "BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!" post, specifically as an satirical observation of how little intelligence it added to the discussion. A third grader could have made your post -- in fact, I was wondering if one had. Are we clear now?
Aah, atlaw! Click! The light is going on, isn't it?
What is this Free Republic anyway? It is a conservative political forum!
Why are we discussing evolution on a conservative forum? Because ideas have consequences!
If you think there is a connection between Hitler's atrocities and his belief system, you are correct. This is only denied by the blindest of fools. Did I or Dan say that all evolutionists are evil? You yourself made the connection. Logically it follows that if Hitler and Stalin and Mao and other enemies of the human race used social darwinism to justify their atrocities, that others may well do the same in the future. It does not, however, follow that all believers in evolution will do the same.
Now, as a point of information, more than one secularist has embraced evolution simply because the only alternative was creation and the existence of a Creator is unacceptable.
If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation", Nature, no. 124, p. 233)
Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy. A geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth: It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28)
No, why, do you think I should apply for the job?
I'm a participant in this discussion, and I'll comment where I choose. If that bothers you, there are plenty of other threads.
I'm sorry, you seem to have "forgotten" to support your claim. That's pretty common for you folks, isn't it?
What's the latest flying weasel to come out of China that you guys are going to claim solves the avian problem.
More ignorance -- weasels, being mammals, are not on the ancestral lineage for birds.
And what's this "avian problem" you speak of? Is that the one where creationists can't agree with each other when they try to figure out what Archeoptryx is? Half of them say it's "obviously" just a reptile, the other half say it's "obviously" just a bird. The irony of their disagreement is lost on them, unfortunately.
You and Dan play this fascinating game of condemnation by innuendo, followed by transparent protestations of innocence
What you describe is the last thing I'd expect of Dataman, after several years' acquaintance.
For myself, I don't really know what you are talking about. I delight in giving straightforward answers, when I have them to give. I honestly can't guess what you're alluding to. (If you've simply lost track of who says what, I can't blame you.)
Dan
Hmmm.
"Such a choice is not logical, but willful. Why would the existence of a Creator evolution be unacceptable? If He it exists, He it exists. Denial does not make Him it cease to exist. The only logical answer to why the will would be allowed to dominate the mind is that the self becomes more important than truth."
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.