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.
Actually, yeah. Knowing a little of contract law, if its not in the contract, there is no specific opposition to it. Our forefathers felt it necessary to carry the constitution in one hand and the Bible in the other. They felt it reckless not to require abiddance of the 10 commandments. In fact, the bible was a major contributor to the development of our constitution. Do a little research, and you will learn about the English primer, the main elementary book used in all public classrooms that included instruction of Christian values. So, if our forefathers were against teaching Christian values, indeed they would have made a specific reference against it. They didn't. They endorsed and cherised these values enough to put them on our money, in our pledge of allegiance, etc., etc. Their intention is quite obvious.
I would disagree that irreducible complexity (IC) is "a defining attribute". I didn't suggest that and I doubt that anyone else did either.
The arguement with respect to IC is that those biological structures that are irreducibly complex could not have arisen by the process of random mutation and natural selection. Seems to me that the proverbial turd is in the pocket of the proponents of Darwinism for proving either, a. there is no such things as IC, or b. showing how such a structure could arise through evolutionary processes.
Who cares. If I build the pyramids with wooden logs, ramps and water, why couldn't I have done it another way. One trusts God did what he did in a way that suited Him to do.. If you want to question him, that's your business. But rewriting scriptures isn't your place. Nor is it appropriate to defend this nonsense by saying "well God could have done it this way.." And the pyramids could have been built a different way, but they weren't. Possibility and options are nice when you are standing at a decision as to how to proceed. Right now you're using them as excuses to ignore the fact of what has already been done and long before decided by a being far greater than yourself. Not to mention the fact that you're begging the question..
Stop sign here. From the dust of the earth, comprehend - not from another living being; but from the dust of the earth. And it is later written that man was formed from the dust and would return to it - upon death and decay, that is precisely what happens.. the body disintegrates into base elements and falls back into the mineral composites that generally are dirt. The problem here is that man comes from dust and will return to it; but, in between times, neither he nor any other living thing can be referred to as dust.
As for your example of baking flour into bread, you have a major problem - primarily that the flour came from wheat grains. You had to plant a seed, grow a crop, harvest the wheat grains, sort them from chaff, process them into flour, then mix in other ingredients, bake and present bread. At the point you converted the wheat to flour, it stopped being wheat and became elements extracted from wheat. When you added other things and baked it, it became something far beyond just mere flour. And if you grind the bread back down to powder, it is not merely flour. Nor can you return it to the state of being a pile of wheat grains. At no time along the way is bread=wheat. At no point along the way is man=dirt.
Scripture says plainly that God formed man from the dust of the earth and that this was done after the animals had been created. It does not say God made man from the beasts of the earth, from another animal, etc. Language is specific enough to disern between dust and animals. Your story is a lie attempting to supplant itself in place of the truth.
No, your beliefs are wrong because language has a purpose and the language was used to write down what God did and the story stands in opposition to your whims regardless of what you believe. Hitler lived. If you choose to believe otherwise, it doesn't change the fact of his prior existance - it just makes you a self-decieving liar. God asked you to believe him and his son. Apart from that, he doesn't much care what you believe once you enter into calling him a liar. He'd like you to stop, but he did give you freedom of choice. What you choose to believe apart from the truth is immaterial and not especially sacred. You can believe what you will - that doesn't make it so. And if you lie about God you will answer to him - that is an irrevocable destiny of every man. Every one.
It's never a waste of time to defend the faith or give an answering for one's beliefs (apologetics). The blind may never willingly open their eyes; but, lurkers will witness the exchange and many times glean the truth from it that the blind one either cannot or will not. Christ found crowds useful in demonstrating that very point.
It is now starting to fall apart on themYou must understand though, that this sort of statement is hard to take seriously as it's been repeated ad infinitum the past 150 years. This at the same time as more and more of the scientific community has accepted the ToE.
There have always been people who disagree, but as time has passed their relative numbers have dwindled. Sometimes we see creationist headlines claiming more and more scientists are doubting evolution. No matter if this is actually the case, even more scientists are accepting the same.
tail-less placemarker
I question that. Hundreds, maybe thousands of scholarly works have appeared on the Constitution, and I can't think of any that go through the Consititution, line by line, and give the scriptural source for the provision. The bible is essentially the product of people who rarely knew anything but monarchy. A churchman from the 1600s would probably be utterly confounded by the Constitution (and the Declaration too).
You can search the Federalist Papers on line (I have done this), but you'll find not one mention of the words "bible," "scripture," or "Jesus." The word "Christian" appears once, in a reference to an historical period. "Lord" appears 5 times, but always in reference to aristocracy or the House of Lords. "God" appears 3 times, respectively refering to demi-gods, pagan gods, and nature's god.
Written by the same fellow, an anti-federalist, who insisted on and wrote much of the Bill of Rights.
Ah yes. And a fine fellow he was!
But that fellow wasn't at the Constitutional Convention.
Celebese Macaque and Barbary Ape -- sorry to upset your theory.
You have a good heart, and more patience than me.
Well at least you agree that scientists do disagree.
Did you look at what resources were used in drafting the final product? Did you look at all the revisioning, etc., that lead to the final product. Just because a holy word isn't found a bunch of times in writings doesn't mean that they were not used in the formation of those writings.
I did not dispute your claim.
Wrong again there my friend. Very odd too, that you would use a tactic commonly practiced by the 'living, breathing document' leftists. The Constitution specifically states that if no power is granted to the Congress by the people through the Constitution, then Congress has no such power. Read the Tenth Amendment more carefully, it covers this very issue. So, since there is no specific power to mix or in any way connect religion, or church with government, then Congress has no power to do such a thing.
. . .the bible was a major contributor to the development of our constitution.
Doesn't the very first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" rather heavily conflict with the very first amendment which guarantees the freedom to worship how we please? Where are the influences of the rule of law, separation of powers, and individual rights to live in happiness and liberty found in the Bible? Why wouldn't the Founders simply add the Ten Commandments into the Constitution?
By the way, the words "Under God" in the Pledge wasn't added until 1954, and the official change of our National Motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" occurred two years later, in 1956 -- long after the last founding father was dead and buried. So you're just a little off on your timeline there.
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.