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.

[TitansAFC]

Well if he's a PhD, why should we question him?

Surely he knows better!

[Garattler]

"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.

[laredo44]

But the order of events are as they are listed in Genesis.

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?

[cainin04]

"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.

[cainin04]

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.

[applpie]

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

[hosepipe]

[ "Some Jews have a few, "christians(whatever that means)" have many".... / And you are ill-informed. ]

How would you know that..?
Actually I'm very well, informed...
Its you that are indoctrinated..

[70times7]

Hi WMC,

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.

[go_W_go]

Many have said that, yes. But many have said the Earth is flat, too

We have evidence to prove otherwise, we've been on the outside looking in. Evolution, however, is on it's last legs, science disagrees with you. Come into the light of modern science... all are welcome, come into the light....

Don't hate me because I disagree with you, there's far too much hate on these threads... I'm not talking anymore, already been through this.... Look at the last evo thread.

[Right Wing Professor]

liberal elites are shoving this macro-evolution down our throats

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.

[Fatalis]

But they are not being logical, nor using the science to reach logical ends.

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.

[Ichneumon]

Ok, I realize there are people out there who believe in both. But that is not how it is being taught in our schools.

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?

[Ichneumon]

I have to agree. Darwin didn't attempt to replace God, but everyone that came after him did.

"Everyone", eh? Ooookay...

[stremba]

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.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

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.

[go_W_go]

You're speaking of Genesis chapter one, this is a general arrangement of creation, not the exact order. Go to Genesis chapter 2 for the order. God creates the earth, God creates man, God creates plants, God creates animals, God creates woman....

This is the order given biblically, too many people don't see Gen. chapter 1 for what it is, it gives the generalities of WHAT was created, Chapter 2 gives the WHEN's.

[CobaltBlue]

Darwin doesn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe, nor of the solar system, nor of the earth.

[freespirited]

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.

You are right. Other alternatives would be to refer to it as neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis.

[Busywhiskers]

"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.

[WildTurkey]

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.

This is the second subtle reference I have seen today that explains how apes descended from man.