Does Darwinism Attempt to Replace God?

11-30-2004 | W.T. Stewart

[cainin04]

Over the past days there has been a great discussion about the role of the theory of evolution and whether it alone or the thoughts on Intellegent Design should be taught in schools.

I made the argument that Darwinsism attempts to replace God. "If you have Darwinism there is no need for God the Creator." But many of the Free Republic members disagreed.

Read the text from this recent text book used today in public schools and draw your own conclusions. I found this in Lee Stroble's "Case for a Creator."

Futuyma Douglas author of "Evolutionary Biology"--page 3--"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superflous."

The book "Sign of Intellegence" cites several of the other popular text books. The writers cite the terms used to describe evolution; "evolution is random and undirected,"without plan or purpose,"Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation."

Stroble also cites an article from Time Magazine, "Charles Darwin didn't want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did."

One can read text book after text book, they all come to the same conclusion--Darwin replaced God.

Why then is a theory that has so many holes in it, still being taught as "fact?" Many excuses could be listed, but I would say it is just part of the liberal establishment trying to remove God from our schools and our country as a whole. In history class we can't read the "Declaration of ID" or say the Pledge of Allegiance, because they mention God; in English we can't read a story from the Bible, because that is seperation of church and state--yet we CAN read other religous materials as long as they are not Christian; and of course in science class we can't mention ID because that would include God.

Americans are going to have to stand up. We can not sit back and watch these atheistic liberals have every mention of God removed from our country. If we do stand up, not only will we produce children who have no understanding of our country, our history, or our values, but we will also see our nation fall into a great moral decline.

However, I do not think we are going to allow that to occur. In this last election we had a clear choice between a man of God--a man with values--and a man with little or no values. We chose the man with values. The fight will continue and Patriotic-God loving Americans can never give in. Read what is in your child's text books and if it attempts to remove God, speak out against it. Your voice matters--it matters not just for your child's sake, but for the sake of all America's citizens.

[mikeus_maximus]

I do not routinely question the intelligence of those who believe in macroevolution. But I will point out that slavish acceptance and bombastic defense of that theory as "fact" indicates an emotional bias-- something that not even intelligent human beings can avoid (an are in fact often the last recognize in themselves):

http://boundless.org/features/a0000884.html

snippet:

"Curiously, naturalism’s theory of knowledge (i.e., Claim One, according to which a belief is rational only if it is scientifically testable) is not itself scientifically testable. Thus the naturalist’s theory of knowledge fails to pass its own standard of acceptability..."

[Shryke]

And that's by far the most innocuous quote with the least direct reference to religion. It's not the "money quote" designed to get creationists to soil their panties in fear of what little Johnny is being taught in the local high school. The "money quotes" are the one from Evolutionary Biology, and the last quote.

I'd bet substantial money that the quote "Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation" is NOT from a public high school textbook anywhere in the United States. Feel free to deign to let us know what book that's from for us non-psychics.

Exactly, exactly my thoughts when first reading this vanity. I am very close to calling him on willful distortion, instead of negligent.

[furball4paws]

Can we make an effort to call evolution Evolution instead of Darwinism? Darwin responded to several other natural scientists, whom he cites in the Forward to "Origin of Species". The theory is Evolution not Darwinism. I realize that the creationoids need a effigy to hang, but the theory as it stands today is much changed from the original that Darwin espoused. I don't know, but I don't think very many people have actually read Darwin. It's real difficult reading and his style is snything but great. Still, this theory was promulgated before even the basics of Mendelian Genetics so much of the material that supports it is far removed from Darwin himself.

[ibtheman]

Actually evolution is a religion, when you take the time to do a research on the false findings, and faith you would need to have. The whole concept of evolution is to state a belief, that man and organisms come from a rock! Exactly a rock, if you do your research, take the time to read all the books on evolutuin, it is a false religion, that we do not have to answer to a supreme being!

[Physicist]

Oh, I've known plenty of atheists! But not one has told me that evolution is proof of the non-existence of God.

[longshadow]

Evidence that more and more scientists are becoming geocentrists.

I think you're on to something. It would be an interesting exercise to cull out-of-context "geocentric-friendly" quotes from the publications of mainstream scientists to create the false impression that there is a stampede among them toward geocentrism, much as the anti-Evos have dome with writings by scientists in biology, turning out-of-context quotes on their head to create the false impression that hordes of biologists are abandoning evolutionary theory.

Doing so would amply illustrate the disingenuous deception that is the anti-Evo's stock in trade.

[Right Wing Professor]

It is not a false statement, what are you talking about?

You said it is used in public schools. In fact, it is used in advanced undergraduate and graduate level college classes.

[cainin04]

Do yo really want to make a bet with me? how much money are you putting on the line?

The quote "Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation" comes from an Addison/Wesley biology book "biology."

The same book also says what many of you on this site are saying" "There have always been those who resisted the appeal of evolution and every now and then declare 'Darwin was wrong,' in the hope of some profitable publicity, usually revealing that they do not understand Darwinism."


Yes, this book is and was used in HIGH-SCHOOLS ACROSS THE NATION. Do a search and you will find it.

[cainin04]

Do yo really want to make a bet with me? how much money are you putting on the line?

You said: "I'd bet substantial money that the quote "Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation" is NOT from a public high school textbook anywhere in the United States. Feel free to deign to let us know what book that's from for us non-psychics."


Well,
The quote "Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation" comes from the Addison/Wesley biology book "Biology."

The same book also says what many of you on this site are saying" "There have always been those who resisted the appeal of evolution and every now and then declare 'Darwin was wrong,' in the hope of some profitable publicity, usually revealing that they do not understand Darwinism."


Yes, this book is and was used in HIGH-SCHOOLS ACROSS THE NATION. Do a search and you will find it.

[orionblamblam]

> evolution is a religion

Only to Creationists, who cannot see opposing concepts in anything other than religious terms. When all you have is a hammer...

[BikerNYC]

You tell that to the good Dr. Neville T. Jones, Ph.D., who continues to maintain, and he is a Ph.D., mind you, that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the earth revolves around the sun.

I am sure he would insist that stickers be placed on science books that say, "Heliocentrism is only a theory."

[cainin04]

Read post 109. You all can laugh and come to conclusions other than the truth if you wish, but I just proved ya wrong.

I am dead serious about my article. There is an attempt to remove God from public schools--biology class is just one example.

So please, I am not a "vanity" or a liar--the facts are the facts. Read the text books before you make your judgements about me!

[Right Wing Professor]

I'd bet substantial money that the quote "Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation" is NOT from a public high school textbook anywhere in the United States.

I think you would have made a wise bet. The quote is on a whole lot of creationist web-sites. It's apparently from Campbell, Reece and Mitchell's Biology, 5th edition . On the Addison/Cummings website , they list appropriate courses' for the seventh edition as General Biology (Majors).

[go_W_go]

The short answer is "not at first", however, Darwin understood (and fought with) the ultimate end of his claims. If evolution was finally drawn out as fact, God would have a lot of explaining to do.

I, myself, believe that Darwin was well meaning, however, he has been proven wrong in the end. As many have stated in this thread, and past threads, true science is now coming to the conclusion, that Darwin was wrong. His theory has not survived the scrutiny of the (lack of) evidence, and so punctuated equilibrium, a host of hoaxes, and hopeful monster theories abound.

Evolution didn't start off with the purpose of "murdering God", as some put it, but it would be comforting to believe that we would not be held accountable by a superior being at the end of the age... So that's what it became, a comfort to those whose lifestyles could no longer be considered as "sin". Eliminate God, and right and wrong don't exist; so are the thoughts of those who are willing to believe the "liberal media", for once, on this topic... But who are quick to pounce on these same liberal professors when they squelch conservative speech in their classrooms and on their campuses, shouting "SPIN" at the top of their lungs when someone of a conservative viewpoint is attacked by the same lies. Interesting, and sad, that they don't see the spin when it suits their interests.

Interesting what (and who) the depraved mind will believe when they really want to.

[eagle11]

I'll second that!

[cainin04]

I think you mean "an unwise bet."

[cainin04]

I totally agree with you.

[Right Wing Professor]

Addison Wesley say the 'appropriate course' for Campbell's Biology is 'General Biology (majors)'. It is possible some high-schools use it; it's not unusual for AP high-school courses to use college texts. But it is a college text.

[orionblamblam]

> As many have stated in this thread, and past threads, true science is now coming to the conclusion, that Darwin was wrong.

Many have said that, yes. But many have said the Earth is flat, too. Evidence of evolution grows daily. Evidence of competing hypothesis does not.

[TitansAFC]

------"When someone says "man evolved from ape", it has only EVER meant that modern man evolved from ancient ape."---

---"On the contrary, I think that creationist ideas and flat-Earth notions are on precisely the same footing."---

---"There is no conception of Darwinism that would have humans evolving over time, but apes staying the same."---

**"I resent your comparison to "flat-earthers." It is ridiculous because we have INDISPUTABLE proof that the Earth is round."** ---"Oh, really? What is it?"--




"We're through talking."