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.
I am an anti-you-ist. I don't believe you exist. Your response must just be some kind of random creation of chance. So If I call you a liar, it doesn't matter because I don't believe in you right? Oh, wait, that isn't exactly how it works is it.
I'm full aware that others believe any number of things. People delude themselves with all manner of religious club rites intended at making themselves feel better about unanswerably doing whatever they please without any real guilt or responsibility. I understand, I just don't care that others believe other things. If 2+2=4, I'm not going to sit and worry that others believe it equals 5,6, 10, or a million. Dispelling ignorance requires that they either come to know that 4 is the sum, or that they have access to that knowledge if I'm around to share it. Beyond that, they're responsible for themselves to answer to God for their actions and beliefs. The issue at hand is whether Darwinism or scripture are mutually exclusive and you're way off the beaten path trying to handwring.
If you're talking about transitional fossils, there are literally scores of them (something you won't hear from creationist sources). And, if you actually give it any thought, the elephant's DNA should bear very little resemblance to the ant's (though there will be some very small portions in common).
Great post, thanks for the info.
You know, I never imagined that I would get such opposition about what "Darwinism" is. Modern-day Darwinism is a theory used in the Unitarian church and by atheists to provide reasons for God not existing--I didn't even think this would be up to debate among FR members--but I guess I was wrong. Some members of this board apparently thought I was talking about "Darwinian Theory" and I was not. I have no big problem with Charles Darwin other than that I disagree with macro-evolution. I was not saying that Charles Darwin was some evil person trying to take God out of our schools! I said that liberals are using "Darwinism" as a means to eliminate God.
It is the same as when people say that the Islam-o-fascists have taken "Islam" and are using it to teach terrorism. My agrument is not with Islam, it is with how it is currently beging taught. The same holds true with modern-day Darwinism. I can't believe that this concept is so hard to grasp.
No, I have fallen to no fallacy. I've watched broken limbs be healed. I've seen people I'd known for years to be blind see for the first time. I know what I follow. And I don't care what anyone thinks about it. Again, other beliefs are beliefs. Hundreds if not thousands of people had theories about flight, in the end, it was a pair of brothers that got it right to the exclusion of all else. The belief of the crowd is more important - right. The Wright brothers must be quacks because they could do it because they were the few when everyone else believed something better and different, nevermind nobody else could fly, many even died or just got all wet in the trying, but, those tedious little quacks that actually know something are so danged bothersome..
You want to question the scriptures, that's a whole lot different than arguing God and Darwinism. Now you're arguing, instead, Concepts of God vs. Darwin. Different subject. Watch out folks, argument sunk, time to move the goalposts. Yep, this is an evolution thread afterall..
Don't take this the wrong way, but your assertion, above, is what is known as "unfounded." Because you do not question the assumptions in your statement, you've completely cut off entire lines of research. Needless to say, science cannot operate with such blinders on. This is probably why science and religion come into conflict so often -- religion assumes some things are beyond question and science doesn't.
Havoc, you are exactly right. I made this point earlier. If people want to disagree with me about liberals attempting to take God out of the public square, that is fine, challenge me on that issue.
But, I was quite suprised to see FR members arguing like a bunch of liberals. When they don't like what you are saying, and they realize they are losing the debate they like to change the subject or move the goalposts!
I was accused of being a Dan Rather and citing sources that were "Fake"--I proved that wrong when I showed them my sopurces. Then someone bet me a million dollars that no high-school in the US used a text book that quoted what what I said in my article. So I showed them where it was taught. Guess what, soon as you destroy that argument they are already building the next straw man.
It then becomes an attack on your beliefs. I am telling you--this has been one heck of a learning experience. I never imagined that a group of conservatives and libertarians would debate like a bunch of crybaby liberals.
I bet it is mostly the libertarians--the wing of that party that agrees with legalizing drugs--that is putting up the liberal fight. But, that is just a guess.
Darwinism n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others. It states that species of plants and animals develop through natural selection of variations that increase the organism's ability to survive and reporduce
American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, 1976
If you decide to make up your own definitions for terms, don't be surprised or upset when people who use the standard definitions argue with you.
So God is a trickster?
You're feeding the trolliest of all trolls placemarker.
Only if you are talking about God's physical image -- and anyone looking around can see that would be a false assumption.
The argument is with how Darwin's theory is being applied, not with Charles Darwin. I think everyone on this board knows the theory and knows the def. of the word.
If you want to disagree with what Darwinism is to most people, that is fine. Take a trip to your local Unitarian church and locate their Darwin Room! I think you will see exactly what I am talking about.
Me faith untestable. Me no like possessive pronouns either.
Looks like the crickets have been chirping for four hours now on this one. Too bad! The reply would have been very informative, I'm sure.
Too bad. I was kinda proud of it.
With all due respect, helicopters still use the Bernoulli Principle to fly. You're on stronger ground with the Harrier which uses ducted jets to hover.
"Festival of Trolls Suffering Delusions of Adequacy" placemarker
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.