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.
Explain to me how we set up an experiment to disprove macro evolution.
See post #155. You should study general relativity and big bang theory a bit. You might find that science and the Bible actually may not be in conflict. The Bible may never change, but our understanding of it has over the course of history. Remember, people once thought that the Bible justified slavery and that the Bible said that the sun couldn't be at the center of the solar system.
Actually, depending on who you ask, his attributes align with the varying creeds of every sect, small and large. It's amazing really.
I reposted it because I thought it had a lot of good info and was afraid it would be lost in a sea of posts. Frankly I could care less if people read it or not; that is why I don't normally post to a specific person. The originator of the thread liked it and that is all that matters to me.
The Way, THE TRUTH, and the Light!
I wasn't going that way at all. I was going to demonstrate that, from the perspective of the typical person, the evidence for a round Earth is no more compelling than the evidence for the fact of evolution. Furthermore, the quibbles against either proposition are similar. But, well, you didn't ask because you didn't want to know.
> Explain to me how we set up an experiment to disprove macro evolution.
Look for a fossil with a modern fish and one of the critters from the Cambrian era. Find a dinosaur and a human. Hell, find *any* notable anachronism in the fossil record. A tyranosaur and a plateosaur.
The implication in those textbooks being that no gods exist, or have you just decided that if a god exists, it must fit very specific attributes and anything that would contradict these narrowly defined attributes is directly promoting atheism?
Yes, but it doesn't say how long a day was. And it also says we were made from clay. This could be a metaphor for the primodial ooze from which we came...
Wrong again.
#1. You don't test the Bible against secular scientific facts. You test secular scientific facts against the Bible.
#2. There is plenty of science which is perfectly compatible with the Biblical account. I would suggest checking out www.icr.org, but you are probably one of the people here who will say that the scientists there aren't real and they have diploma mill degrees. That would of course be completely wrong, but you'd probably insist in order to try to discredit them.
#3. I think you need to redirect your salvo to yourself. It is not me who is trying to tell God how to run things. He has told us how he runs things in the Bible. And you're telling Him to get with the program and just shut up and believe the scientists. So, while I agree with the sentiment of "quit telling God how He's supposed to be doing things" the target is not me. But you.
#4. With regards to the scientific community being united against creationist like 99%...I can only say, of course they are. That's what I would expect. But I would also point out that probably 75% of the "economists" on American faculties are socialists and probably 99% of the "political scientists" are socialist. The remaining 1% are communist. Just kidding. Sort of....You get the point, though. The people that brought us socialism might be wrong on the origins of the universe. Especially since no one alive today was there to observe the origin of the universe. Isn't science based on observation?
***
Friends, the real issue here is the authority of Scripture. Either you buy it or you don't. I don't really have a problem with either camp. I happen to belong to the camp that buys it. But it is intellectually dishonest to say that you believe the Bible - and evolution. That can't be done except by people who haven't thought through the issues.
The God of Scripture and the God of Darwin (he did claim to believe in God after all...as we all know) are logically incompatible.
You gotta decide which one you believe.
Yes, I was hoping to avoid having to point out the obvious.
If there should be a flaw in the current understanding of evolution, that would automatically make every standalone church, creed, and denomination completely correct in every article of faith. All perfectly and simultaneously worthy of attention in our textbooks.
I think that is the same answer Darwin came up with.
Then what you call the God of Scripture and the God of the Roman Catholic Church are also incompatible. There are many who believe in the authority of the Scriptures who believe differently from you. The Scriptures may be infallible, but you are not. Your understanding of the Bible may be wrong.
Show an electric lightbulb to a 17th century church and you'd be burned at the stake for witchcraft.
We have things called hyperlinks....
I've asked you for an alternative theory, which you provided, then asked for you to demonstrate how it can be falsified, which is a requirement for any scientific theory. Perhaps you missed the post. Please answer that question, and I will be more than happy to provide NUMEROUS answers to yours.
Prepare to be Shocked. Where do I collect on that bet?
This came from the enemy itself (Michael Moore)
Taken from a debate on Michaelmoore.com forums
Evolution disclaimer supported
By WILL SENTELL
wsentell@theadvocate.com
Capitol news bureau
High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.
If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.
Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.
The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.
It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.
"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.
Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.
Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.
"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.
"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."
Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.
A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.
"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."
Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.
Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.
White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.
He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.
"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.
John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.
Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.
Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."
Quantum mechanics deals with randomness all the time.
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.