Posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:15 AM PST by 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.
Wonderful research. I'll have to check that stuff out.
Actually I was reading about his position last night and have not studied it sufficiently to draw any conclusions. I would not say that he is unknowledgable or an atheist-it could be that he is just plain wrong.
Yes they are mutually exclusive. If God did not create man in his own image but used evolution, then Genesis is a lie.
God can not lie, lying is a sin.
What's up with assigning days in Ch. 1 then?
Funny that the Chinese, American Indicans, Incans, Aztecs, Egyptions ... never saw the big flood.
The theory of evolution is just a theory
The word theory means something different in science than it does in common usage. Theories are the result of a hypothesis, or educated suggestion, being tested and found to be consistent with observation. A theory coherently explains a large range of observations. It is in contrast to a law which simply expresses a regularity seen in observations without attempting to explain that regularity. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not somehow more certain than theories. Both are on equal footing in science.
There's no way life could have arisen from non-living chemicals/There's no way to get from the big bang to humans
Neither the origin of life nor the big bang is covered in the theory of evolution. Evolution only applies once life has begun. It makes no difference how life began.
The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible
The second law of thermodynamics states that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy always increases. The earth is not a closed system. The earth receives energy from the sun. This release of energy from the surface of the sun at a temperature of 6000K to space at a temperature of ~3K represents an enormous increase in entropy. Therefore, even taking evolution into account, the entropy of the earth/sun system does indeed increase over time.
Creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution/Evolution is not really science
To qualify as a theory in science, an idea must explain observations in such a way as to be falsifiable. This means that it must predict something and finding that this prediction is not true would require abandonment or serious modification of the theory. Evolution meets this requirement. For example, evolution predicts that in billion year old rock layers, no fossils of modern humans will be found. It predicts that all organisms on earth will have nucleic acids as their genetic material. It predicts that it will be possible to observe changes in the genepool of organisms. All of these predictions have been borne out by observations. If any of them are not, then evolution would have to be seriously modified or abandoned. I am sure that someone with more knowledge of biology could provide many more such examples. Creationism, on the other hand, by its very nature can offer no such predictions. The most basic premise of creationism is that there is an omnipotent God who created the universe. By virtue of God's omnipotence, there is no possible observation that could falsify this premise. God could have made the universe appear any way He wanted it to appear.
Evolution has never been proven
Neither has quantum theory, or relativity, or any other scientific theory or law. Science never offers proof, merely strong evidence for an idea. Evolution is backed by a large amount of observational evidence.
Poppy cock.
Can you tell us how "Creation Science" explains why the backbone, the common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos, while the the cerebrum in humans, the most sophisticated part of the brain, develops last?
No, what I meant in my statement is that several of the members (who I know are conservative or libertarian) are debating like a liberal does. They keep moving the goal posts on me. If you want to disagree or debate my general thesis (that liberals are attempting to take God out of the schools and one way they are doing it is by using Darwinsim) that is fine. Debate me on that stance. but what I don't like is people questioning my research. Saying that my quotes were either "fake" or that they "did not come from any US high-school text book in the country."
I find it hard to believe that members of the FR do not see this fact. Heck, we just had a teacher say that students can't read the Declartion of ID because it mentions God!
This is my thesis. I am not debating whether or not evolution is true or whether or not Charles Darwin was a fine upstanding citizen. I am simply making a point about the attempt--by liberals--to rid God from our nation.
Ok, have your read their works?
I did not mean to give the impression that I believed that Darwin HAD anything to do with the creation of Earth or man. Darwin only tried to follow the sequence of events in the creation. It is my belief that God created the Earth and man, but, in what sequence and order and how long is a day to an Entity (Spirit) that knows no time. That's all I have to say on this matter.
My Priest says differently.
From Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
As you can see, Vegetation was created in Verse 11, Light was created in verse 3, so while I may have been confused about what you were asking, you were wrong in saying that vegetation was created before sunlight...
No. You either lied or you did not. So look in the mirror and tell us what you see.
A child could drive a truck through this 'logic'. I state that I am married. That is a true statement. It is hardly a scientific statement.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. The two are different. It is a fact that the allele frequency in the gene pool of a population of organisms varies over time. This is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution uses this fact to explain the wide variety of life observed today. It says that evolution leads to speciation. It explains that natural selection is the primary driving force behind evolution. You can argue that some detail of the theory of evolution is inadequate while still holding that evolution occurs. As of now, however, there is no competing scientific theory to explain evolution.
Boy, you would think my foot would hurt more. :)
What I was trying to question is the apparent double standard where, when the source of imperfect knowledge applies to human origins we need to bring in competing theories, but other ignorances stir not so much as a hint of interest from religious interests.
"But many of the Free Republic members disagreed. "
Count me as one of them. I'm not sure if 'God' exists, but if He does, I'd think He'd favor the subtelty of evolution over the childish magic of Creationism.
Doesn't it depend on what is meant by Darwinism?
For example, I interpret this to mean the notion that without the action of an intelligent designer, just blind natural selection and mutations, there arose the diversity of living beings we see and the diversity of living plants as well. That none of this apparent design, as Dawkins calls it, requires a Creator or Designer. It just happened over lots of time.
Such a definition of Darwinism necessarily replaces a Designer by definition. Hence no need for a God or if there is a God he doesn't really matter to matter!
Or if you are a believer that a god used evolution to bring us about then what in the world is this god for in the first place?? Did this god cause the various mutations and then make sure the best survived? If this god had that kind of power then why in the world would I want to believe in such a deity? Evolution from one kind of animal to another is ridiculous.
Have you read Behe and learned about "irreducible complexity?" Evolution as a theory is hog wash and is unnecessary for any modern scientific invention or discovery.
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.