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.
Geez, you are easily persuaded. If what you see in your pictures tells you our grandpa's are apes, that's what you see. I see a bunch of fossils of skulls lined up in an attempt to prove an unproven theory. I would imagine that many of those animals lived at the same time, so how would that be explained?
Well, the bottom one is a fairly early reptile. It has a multipart lower jaw bone. Its teeth show almost no differentiation. (No molars, incisors, etc.) The top end of the series has two early mammals. The multipart jaw bones before your eyes have become a single jaw bone and three ear bones. The teeth have become the familiar mammalian pattern. That you think that doesn't mean anything probably means you should stay out of science class unless you want to enroll as a student.
Obviously you have strongly held beliefs, a person of conviction. There is nothing wrong with that.
No, I am reasoning from a sizeable preponderance of evidence. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way to do most things.
I too have strongly held beliefs and am a person of conviction.
There can be something wrong with that. In particular, you are absolutely evidence-proof.
There will be no proof of macro-evolution found as there is none.
You seem to be willing to define away any such you are presented. It is unreasonable to demand evidence which you will always throw out on any possible excuse or no excuse.
Many scientists admit to this flaw and are trying to figure out ways to get around it.
The evidence I have presented to you is accepted by science. They see it. YOU are trying to get round 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.
That push is coming from creationists who want to get creationism into the schools despite various separation clause rulings.
Intelligent design is one and it has a lot of backing in the science field.
It doesn't have a shred of scientific backing or standing.
Macro-evolution should not be taught as fact.
Why don't you ask the church? I don't know enough about that to make a statement either way.
If it's completely wrong, why should be it be taught at all?
Look, I'm not into arguing back and forth. We won't reach a compromise. There is no preponderance of evidence, despite what you say. I'm not trying to get around anything but I researched how "evidence" is manipulated by evolutionists to prove their case. It is now starting to fall apart on them. If you don't see it, then that is to your detriment.
And, no where in the constitution does it state separation of church and state. This is the biggest misunderstanding today. I believe it was in a document written by Jefferson? that said that no government will force a religion on its people as the Anglican church was forced on our forefathers (believe or die. That's the crux of the separation of church and state.
Believe it or not, some atheists believe in intelligent design, unfortunately the designer is an alien.
Curiously, as a debating tactic to discredit other hominid fossils, creationists often accept 1470 as human, even though many of them reject larger-brained erectus specimens as apes. But if 1470 is human, one could then make a strong case that the very similar but smaller skull ER 1813 is also human. Creationists, however, are unlikely to find the idea of a human with a brain size of 510 cc very appealing.Creationist Arguments: Homo habilis
(Yes, some scientists lump 1470 in to the larger bin Homo habilis, some split out a species Homo rudolphensis. That's because the various habilis fossils show too much change over time for a single species. (But supposedly there's no evidence for evolution!)
FYI. YMMV. BPP(Big pointless placemarker).
Hey, I agree, but what alternative would they have? All that would be left is intelligent design and they can't have that go unchallenged to our children, could they?
My position is not an opinion. It is a taxonomic reality accepted by the scientific community and is based upon morphological and genetic similarities.
Whatever floats your boat buddy...
Evidence will do that for people who go by that kind of thing.
If what you see in your pictures tells you our grandpa's are apes, that's what you see.
I see that there is no possible fossil evidence that would matter to you. So what would have been the big deal about you just admitting that up front?
I see a bunch of fossils of skulls lined up in an attempt to prove an unproven theory.
Try to remember that they weren't supposed to exist. In 1859, they had not been found at all. In our time, they've been found but for you they still don't exist.
I would imagine that many of those animals lived at the same time, so how would that be explained?
There are still non-hominid apes now. There are still reptiles now. Why do you imagine this as a problem? It's a branching process in which at any given time, many various life forms are around. (Just not so many very early on.)
Recall that originally the figure didn't show anything macro going on anyway. There is no evidence for macroevolution, you said. Now you seem to be just sort of thrashing around.
There is no preponderance of evidence, despite what you say. I'm not trying to get around anything but I researched how "evidence" is manipulated by evolutionists to prove their case. It is now starting to fall apart on them. If you don't see it, then that is to your detriment.The final refuge: "It's all fake." But if it isn't, you're wrong.
Not sure I understand what your asking. Biology is an awesome thing, how perfect the body is put together, how the knee needs like hundreds of things to happen at once in order to work. Micro-evolution should be taught as it is better named adaptation, thicker skin, etc. for environmental changes. Macro-evolution can be presented as a theory of how some explain the creation of man and Intelligent design can be presented as another alternative theory. Being taught that way leaves the choice up to the kids, to get them thinking and making up their own minds and not having there is no God shoved down their throats.
"And, no where in the constitution does it state separation of church and state."
By the same token, nowhere in the Constitution does it say they may be intertwined.
Would it help if I called it "the establishment clause?"
"The Bible has yet to be proven wrong..."
Really? So there is actually no problem with slavery?
Linksys-Wireless-B-Music-System-is-NOT-ready-for-prime-time 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.