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.
Kindly consult the penultimate line of the Lord's Prayer, good sir.
"...and lead us not into temptation..." (Note: we can find it unassisted.) (c8
What great flood? Was this Moses during the Exodus, or before? Are you talking about the parting of the Red Sea?
Darwinism suggests that man evolved from apes. Scripture says that man was made by God after his own image. The two are mutually exclusive. Either man evolved from an ape or God picked up his resources and directly created us. Yes, it does call God a liar. And yes, there are people out there high on intellectual superiority trips that think reason proves they're more pious than one who believes scripture and God -gasp-.
God is a liar?
> Darwinism is the killing of God.
You make God seem like such a puss.
> The ultimate struggle won't be fought with fancy words, trite and ready-made phrases or hiding behind a monitor -- it will be fought on the streets.
Well, fine. I always kinda knew that it'd coem down to a battle between the forces of science and reason, and the forces of darkness. Fortunately, the Creationist mind tends to not be so good when it coems to understanding science and technology, so the battle should be a quick one.
> It's evidently clear who's afraid of the Truth!
Indeed so. Those who are so afraid of the implications of cause and effect that they want to stamp it out.
Yes. But they will never succeed.
I didn't say or imply that. You're rationalizing in order to find some strawman to be angered by apparently as an excuse for actually addressing what I did say.
lie-filled placemarker (designed to test you faith)
Interpretation - no. Language is used to say things. When I say I formed a statue out of the dust of the earth, I made it out of dirt (clay if you will) not a monkey. Words mean things. The whole concept of varying interpretation is an attempt at excusing perversion of what words actually say in preference for what you'd rather people would buy instead. That is the game of the charlatans.. the Jim Jones's of life as it were. When mom says "keep your hands out of the cookie jar" you know exactly what that means; but, you - thinking yourself crafty - grab a pair of tongs, and insert them into the jar to grab cookies out for yourself and your hands have not literally entered the jar. Bully for you, then she steps in and catches you and knocks your head around backwards for disobeying.. If you're stupid enough, you'll say "well I didn't put my hands in the jar" (pow!!). Common sense. You think God isn't going to march in for the aha moment, so you can get by with such subterfuge thinking yourself crafty and above it. God isn't mocked. And you'll get your aha moment whether you like it or not - in his time. I could care less. I'd rather you straightened up; but, God gave you free will, not me. I'm not interested in forcing you to do anything anymore than God is. But, you aren't going to sit by and lie about scripture and pretend it's a matter of interpretation. That, I can do something about. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. not a matter of interpretation. It says what it says. There are words in the language for the different animals. And you can't make "the dust of the ground" into a monkey. God made man from the dust of the ground. He didn't evolve man from monekeys and the two paths are mutually exclusive. So, yes, you are calling God a liar. The fallacy is your own.
Does Darwinism Attempt to Replace God?
I would say that it can attempt to eliminate God (with naturalism) but it really comes down to how the theory is used by individuals. (as you can see on this thread)
The National Association of Biology Teachers [NABT] in their 1995 Official Statement on Teaching Evolution stated the following:
"The diversity of life [all life] on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."It took seven years of prodding from conservative groups before they revised the statement. According to the NABT's executive director, the change was made ``to avoid taking a religious position'' that might offend believers. The two words that were removed from their statement were; 'unsupervised' and 'impersonal'. Their statement boldly claimed that there was no intelligent cause (force, etc.) behind mankind and all existence.
Now if things that people detest exist in religion i.e. --- dogmatism, conceit, mockery, intolerance, and power-obsession, --- why would we not expect to see it in science as well? These have existed in science with religion and without religion. Heck, naturalism can be a religion and there are evangelists here in this forum.
The logical implication of the statement is that if you believe Darwin, you don't believe God is truthful if you believe in him at all. That doesn't mean every darwinist is an atheist. And that supposition was not made by me, nor is it sustainable. My commentary is simple and to the point, the positions are mutually exclusive. You cannot believe both. Either God picked up the dust of the earth and from it crafted man as scripture says, or man evolved at long last from a puddle of goo that somehow spontaniously turned into life where none previously existed, then shapeshifted and changed to become a monkey one day, then turned magically into a man. If you believe the latter, the former is a lie. If you believe the former, the latter is a lie.
If I walk up on you having heard the crack of the bat and you're holding a ball bat standing over a guy who's bleeding from the head, one of two things is true. Either there was an accident, or the person was assaulted. Same situation. There is no third option. Accident and Assault are mutually exclusive. One is determined and the other just happens on it's own without determination. Prevension is moot. The issue is at hand. You are trying to tell us that accident and assault are not mutually exclusive and can be quantified as a third option. Try it in court, then you can justify to yourself how narrowminded and intellectually inferior the judge and jury are when you try to sell that bs to them.
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.