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.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Hey if that's what you want to believe, more power to you. I choose to believe differently. I think some of the statements you illustrate were misinterpretations from translation from Hebrew. Like corners was the English word they thought closely matched the Hebrew term. Oftentimes there are subtle but important nuances.

Your wrong, the Bible is still literally interpreted to many people, including my humble self. Science is an attractive alternative to faith and therefore, IMHO, I believe that it is used to test our faith.

[Right in Wisconsin]

I'm Catholic as well and they did a lot more than removing portions from the Bible.

[hineybona]

Why is it so difficult to believe evolution is God's work ? Science and religion in many aspects are moving closer together ."More shall be revealed "

[JeffAtlanta]

I think some of the statements you illustrate were misinterpretations from translation from Hebrew. Your wrong, the Bible is still literally interpreted to many people, including my humble self.

How does a person know what to take literally if there are misinterpretations?

[Right in Wisconsin]

Man is a man. Chimp is a monkey. Separate and distinct. Adam was not only a man, but the first man made in God's image.

[Junior]

Chimp is a monkey.

Nope. Chimp is an ape (as is man). Monkeys are primates with tails. Apes are primates without tails.

[VadeRetro]

Man is a man. Chimp is a monkey. Separate and distinct.

Then I guess that picture is macro after all.

One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.) (larger 76K JPG version)

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Source: 29+ Lines of Evidence for Macroevolution.

Note that A is a chimp. N is a man.

[VadeRetro]

Monkeys are primates with tails.

Except for the non-simian lemurs, colugos, tarsiers, aye-ayes, pottos, etc.

[70times7]

Perhaps you are. Where in the Bible is disbelief in evolutionary theory a necessary requirement for Salvation?

First of all, thanks for your posts. They have made me think (and the first two gave me a laugh).

Although it is difficult to answer succinctly, at least for me, I'll give it a try. Salvation is based in the atoning sacrifice of God on the cross; Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ is based on the Word of God – the scriptures. It is clear to me and to others that the scriptures are interwoven, including statements by Jesus recorded in the Gospels that refer specifically to the Old Testament and Genesis. Some contend that Genesis refers to Christ as well, but it is not specific. To undermine the accuracy of Genesis challenges the veracity of Christ’s statements and/or the reliability of scripture. While one can indeed pick and choose what portions of scripture to accept or reject, the practice is potentially dangerous. I expect that many regard such a choice as flawed faith - that one can trust God to rise from the dead and convey an accurate written account through 2000 years or so, but not ~8000. Lastly, a thorough analysis of Genesis shows that the creation account and evolution are mutually exclusive. I have heard the Pope disagrees, but I have not read his explaination.

This is a skimpy explanation, omitting massive amounts of detail and is rather easy for someone from either camp to shred (so please don't bother), but hopefully it conveys the general idea.

[VadeRetro]

I should retake set theory. All monkeys are indeed primates with tails. Not all primates with tails are monkeys, but you didn't say that.

[Right in Wisconsin]

My faith as a child was ruined. I was being told two different things by people I felt were telling the truth. I guess I should be more specific. Micro-evolution or adaptation is valuable science and rightfully taught in school. Macro-evolution is hogwash. The only way for the evolution theory to work is by macro-evolution - that a kind can change into different kinds, starting with randomly chanced goo.

Faith is many things, including believing when others say your wrong. The Bible has yet to be proven wrong so I would dispute that any "evidence" tells you something else.

You can't take bits and pieces out of the Bible and plug them in where most convenient. My opinion is that I would love to see the Bible taught in school, but that is not what society wants. Intelligent design is an important scientific theory and has more evidence than macro-evolution. Only makes sense these theories should be offered together.

[Junior]

I'd forgotten about the lemurs, et al.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Man is a man. Chimp is a monkey.

Your first statement is just Ayn Rands A=A. The second statement is false.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Look, its great that you think that those very similar and non-dramatic "drawings" prove something. Obviously you have strongly held beliefs, a person of conviction. There is nothing wrong with that. I too have strongly held beliefs and am a person of conviction. There will be no proof of macro-evolution found as there is none. Many scientists admit to this flaw and are trying to figure out ways to get around it. It is becoming so well known that Darwin's theory is very flawed that we are now seeing a push to include alternative theories. Intelligent design is one and it has a lot of backing in the science field.

[muir_redwoods]

Darwinism is the explanation and observations about a mechanism that may well have been divinely created. Their is no inconsistency between Darwinism and any but the most childishly literal interpretation of scripture. Those supposedly religious people who feel justified in limiting how the Creator works are beyond me. It seems humility would be a welcome addition to those personalities.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Know what's amazing? Even the skulls themselves have evolved!

Early Man

[BikerNYC]

If "macro-evolution" is wrong, untrue, and has absolutely no evidence to back it up, it should not be taught in the schools at all, no?

Do you think that not teaching it in the schools would be putting American students at an intellectual disadvantage compared to other students in the world, or would American students be better off?

[Right in Wisconsin]

Faith. If you have questions, you do some research, or ask. It's important to know the history of your religion and the Bible. The Bible in its entirety is to be taken literally. Bibles that come out with some of the differences previously illustrated are easily caught by clergy and denounced.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Man is not ape in my opinion. Your opinion is different. Don't state your opinion as fact, please.

[JeffAtlanta]

Bibles that come out with some of the differences previously illustrated are easily caught by clergy and denounced. How did the church get on the wrong side of the "earth is the center of the universe" debate? How come the clergy didn't catch it?