Posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:15 AM PST by cainin04
Well if he's a PhD, why should we question him?
Surely he knows better!
"Seriously, now: you believe trees and grasses existed on Earth prior to the creation of the sun?"
The first five verses of Genesis deal with the creation of light and darkness. Grasses are mentioned in the 11 th verse. Please Read the chapter of Genesis and Darwin and compare the sequence of events. I have no idea who is right or wrong in this. I only know that my faith in The Book tells me that both are possible.
That order would have grass and fruit trees created on day 3, sun, moon, and stars created on day 4, whales, fishes, and birds on day 5, and land animals on day 6. That order seem ok?
"It is possible," No it is fact!!!
The book is used in several high-schools across our country. It is also probably used in some colleges.
Either way, the statement is just another example of what my article was about--liberal elites are shoving this macro-evolution down our throats. And they are doing it to remove God. I think it is pretty darn clear what their intent is--by reading their words--if you don't see that there is no more need for us to argue about this.
Before I answer you claims, I want my money from the people who have been betting me millions of dollars that the quotes I used were not actually used in high-school and college texts.
i don't understand how a person can believe there is GOD or FAITH in evolution (other than faith IN evolution). only a cruel god would create using such a hideous concept--"oops, let's try again". also, there is no holiness or perfection in a creation method such as evolution--how can you expect that a perfect, holy god would create such a marred creation???? god can't do evil.
god made a perfect creation just as it says in the bible. then we rebelled and turned the deed over to Satan and that is why the world is not perfect today. god is going to take back the deed before too long.
the following link explains some potential motivation behind the elites of the time accepting Darwin's theory. One of his peers included Sir Julian Huxley brother of Aldous Huxley, "his most popular work, the science fiction novel Brave New World (1932) shows human beings mass-produced in laboratories and rendered incapable of freedom by indoctrination and drugs." [nice group of folks]
i think this quote says it all....
'A public television interviewer had just asked Sir Julian Huxley, a leading defender of evolution until his death in 1975, why he thought Darwin’s idea caught on so quickly. His answer astonished me.
“[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Darwin’s On the Origin of Species],” Huxley said, “was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” “Mores,” of course, is a secular term for morals.
One might have expected something more lofty. He might have replied that the evidence uncovered by Darwin was so scientifically compelling that we were forced by pure reason, by the scientific integrity of our calling as scientists, to accept the facts as true.
But that’s not what he said. It was not evidence, not science, but sex that drove him—and others—to embrace the ideas of Darwin.'
http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2004_May_Pg8.htm
This link explores the affect Darwin's THEORY had on Dewey--the "father of modern education".
http://www.christianparents.com/jdewey.htm
How would you know that..?
Actually I'm very well, informed...
Its you that are indoctrinated..
I think blanket statements a somewhat useless regardless of who posts them...
Science deals with the tangible, the observable.
Not always. I don't think either one of us has observed an atom (please relax... I'm not disputing their existence). And while many experiments and predicted results have shown we have a good understanding of atomic structure the reverse has been true of evolution experimentation (fruit flies, etc). This takes us back to the whole micro/macro thing, and frankly there isn’t time.
Science can make no claim about a God one way or the other.
I have never heard "science" make any claims, and neither have you. Now then, if you are instead referring to scientists, they have voiced many opinions and from all prospectives based on all kinds of information.
Now to the issue - Claiming that "evolution attempts to replace God," shows you don't understand either topic very well.
I think you are the one grossly mistaken. Your standpoint that evolution is the straightforward pursuit of scientific truth without regard to theological issues is completely understandable. Many scientists study evolution in that way. But many do not, and if you are not aware if it you are poorly informed. Quotes from some evolutionists have plainly stated their vested interest in evolutionary theory is because they are unwilling to accept the alternative. I expect that you are familiar with the reverse reality; creationists unwilling to accept evidence that discredits creation. Please let’s not pretend, just as the Dims do, that those operating from a theological perspective are a pack of stupid ideologues. And if some evolutionists have concluded that evolution has supplanted God, it is silly not to recognize that the vast majority of Christians view it that way. Scripture makes it clear that humans are profoundly flawed by our sin nature, and we avoid God because contact exposes that nature and our sin. A reasonable, logical explanation for our existence neatly frees us to pursue anything we choose without accountability beyond whatever is current law or moral entanglements. You need not believe in God to recognize the logic of the conclusion, and since in your own words “Science can make no claim about a God one way or the other” the conclusion should be reasonable to you. To deny these realities is either ignorance or hair splitting for the sake of an argument.
Evolution is a fact. You'd better get used to it. The "Theory of Evolution" is the body of thought science has gathered to explain HOW allele frequencies in populations change over time. If you still doubt that this happens, you might ask why we keep having to come up with new flu vaccines every year.
I disagree, but that is really rather irrelevant. This is right back to the macro/micro thing and that ground is hard packed like diamonds. Later – and thanks for hearing me out.
Almost everyone on this site, and everyone, AFAIK, who is arguing with you, is a libertarian or conservative. I happen to agree with the statement; whether or not you believe in a god, Darwinism indeed gave the diversity of life a scientific explanation. In fact, I'd warrant quite a few IDers might agree with it; they might not agree that Darwinism is true, but they'd agree it's a scientific theory, that replaced previous supernatural theories.
You seem to have confused conservatism with adherence to your particular religious sect.
But they are representing Darwinian evolution, or misrepresenting it, and it's a big reason for the contentiousness between evolutionisists and people of faith. Far too often, there's a cavalier attitude among evolutionists about their own resopnsibility to temper the debate.
And exactly how many of "our schools" have you been in to check out this broad claim?
They texts are actually attempting to say there is no need for God.
Several Freepers have made similar claims in the past. Each time we challenge them to actually quote the textbooks saying that. Each time they either vanish from the thread, or post quotes from textbooks which *don't* actually say that.
Would you like to try to be the first to actually substantiate these wild claims?
"Everyone", eh? Ooookay...
Certainly it's possible to be an intelligent creationist; I personally have met many such people. However, it's just as certain that the theory of evolution is not, in and of itself, an attempt to replace God. Some people may see it as such and may even be trying to use it as such, but evolution says nothing at all about God. Your fight (and mine because it tends to foster a destructive and combative anti-science attitude) is with those who try to use theories such as evolution to somehow prove that God does not exist. Evolution says no such thing and this is a complete misuse of evolution. I would fight those who do this as much as you would.
The one identified quote you used was from an advanced level college text, while you clearly identified it as a public school text, not a college text. You have refused to acknowledge what you posted was false.
Darwin doesn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe, nor of the solar system, nor of the earth.
You are right. Other alternatives would be to refer to it as neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis.
"an attempt to "murder" God... then you must have a low opinion of God"
Actually it is an attempt to ignore God rather than "murder" him.
I would also argue that an examination of the evidence,(creation or nature or whatever you want to call it), implies a cause. The cause must be sufficient to produce the effect. An omnipotent God is a sufficient cause. Darwinian evolution (DE) isn't. At lease it could be said that at the the stage of understanding that we have of biology we don't know if DE is a sufficient cause.
This is the second subtle reference I have seen today that explains how apes descended from man.
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.