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.
The original point was that in 1860, people believed that the Bible said that slavery was okay and in 2004 we no longer believe this. Therefore, people's understanding of the Bible changes.
Here's a start, there are literally dozens upon dozens, thanks for asking:
http://www.lawandliberty.org/history1.htm
Your right, I shouldn't have generalized. That said, the majority believed that government should be guided by a higher power and not by man. A government that has no controls becomes corrupt so that's why the founding fathers, including Jefferson, put God in the constitution.
I never claimed that evolution is contradictory to Christian values. Don't read what is not there. What I clearly did say, and believe IMHO, is that evolution is contradictory to the Creation theory. It would certainly be contrary to common sense that those who believe in Evolution did not exercise Christian values (although sometimes a few dont). Even non-Christians try to exercise moral values.
Geez, your incurable. You can't pick and choose certain portions of the Bible, mangle it to your point of view and use it to verify your position. Obviously no independent research on your part was attempted. Frankly, there are no errors in the Bible, none, not even mathematical. So if the Bible truly says in Hebrew it is three, than it is three. If in translation to English it is something else, then it is something else in English. Where is the translation from Hebrew to English to show that they mean the same thing?
Without research specifically your question, I am in no position to answer other than to state my opinion. The Bible has no errors, not one, including mathematics. Therefore, if in original Hebrew it says 3, then I believe it to be so. If in translation to English it computes to 3.14, then that's what it is in English.
The only people who think that Darwinian evolution is an attempt at replacing God are religious people of little faith.
Absolutely correct.
I will admit to not being able to vouch personally for the accuracy of the claim that the Bible says pi = exactly 3. It is something that was posted on one of these threads previously. However, if the original Hebrew does state that pi = whatever the Hebrew translation for exactly 3 is, would you still believe that it does equal 3 or that it equals 3.1415926... as it proven by mathematics? If you say that exactly 3 in Hebrew = 3.1415926... in English, then why can I not argue that 6 days in Hebrew = billions of years in English? Why can I not argue that "God made man from the dust of the earth," in Hebrew means that God made man from non-living material that combined to form a cell which evenually evolved to become man in English?
I don't mean any disrespect to your beliefs, by the way. I am simply trying to determine what underlying assumptions you bring into this debate. If your underlying assumption is that your take on the meaning of the Bible can never be questioned, even if mathematics, science or anything else disagrees, then it is the math, science or whatever is wrong, then I see no real point in debating any further with you. I simply do not hold this assumption. My assumption is that the Bible is true, but that I may be misunderstanding what it says. Therefore, if math, science or whatever disagrees with my understanding of the Bible, I can reconsider what I believe the Bible says. I will never be able to cause you to change your assumptions and I don't think that any further debate about evolution will be constructive given our differing basic assumptions.
> the founding fathers, including Jefferson, put God in the constitution.
No, they didn't. God was left entirely out of the Constitution.
That is what I was questioning in posts 489, 490, and 501. So now you give me a link to a website with the title: "Biblical origins of American Political Philosophy." Other than calling the Constitution a "covenant," there is nothing in that guy's essay to contradict my earlier statements to the effect that the clauses of the Constitution have no source in scripture.
Remember, the Federalist Papers went through the Constitution almost line-by-line and explained what it was all about. It was written by Madison and Hamilton (mostly) and they wrote the Constitution and knew what it meant. For two centuries, the Federalist Papers have been regarded as the most authoritative source we have for understanding the Constitution. And as I pointed out, there are no scriptural sources mentioned therein. Or in the article you linked, for that matter.
However, the article does have paragraphs like this one, which may have confused you:
Principles basic to our U.S. constitution are found in Deut 16:18 - 17:13 where we discover the establishment of a civil government which exists primarily to administer justice. The Bible gives us rather explicit guidance on basic rules of adjudication, rules of judicial procedure, rules of evidence, rules for capital punishment, and guidelines for the establishment of an appellate system.
That's pretty vague stuff. Covenant, right. It's also true that the Romans had a written constitution -- the Twelve Tablets, and maybe 1,000 years before that, the Babylonians had the Code of Hammurabi. Frankly, I took the time to read that website carefully, and it doesn't support your position.
You made an over-ambitious claim when you said: "In fact, the bible was a major contributor to the development of our constitution." All you have to do is acknowledge that, and our little dialogue will be over. You don't have to drag this out by fishing around to find websites that mention the obvious fact that most of the Founders were Christians. That's certainly true, but it's not a fact which supports your claim.
"My faith as a child was ruined. I was being told two different things by people I felt were telling the truth.See, that is the reason I give the evidence for both sides without suggesting that they are mutually exclusive. (I home school)
"There will be no proof of macro-evolution found as there is none."But what if there ever is such evidence that even you can no longer deny? I already see very strong evidence - I started off as a skeptic arguing against it, but the more I saw and the more I fact-checked the claims against it... If my children see it as I do, I don't want that to impact their future decisions or convictions about spiritual matters.
"Micro-evolution should be taught... Macro-evolution can be presented as a theory ... 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.I agree that that's basically the best way - it's what I do at home. ID doesn't technically qualify as a Science, but I see nothing wrong and everything right about simply explaining that there is a debate about limits of evolution and giving the case for irreducible complexity.
Churches are just as capable of becoming corrupt as governments.
No offense, but your writings are pretty scary to those who do not wish to make the US a theocracy. If the GOP ever publicly these kinds of beliefs, the party would never en be competitive in another national election. I do believe that most people in the western world would rather live in a socialist state than one ruled by a theocracy.
Its the pushing of these kind of ideas that keeps the democrats competitive. All they have to do is find out a way to win Ohio next time and its over for the GOP.
There are so many fiscal conservatives that would love to vote GOP but don't simply because of the "morality police" aspect of the party. Bush didn't win because of his morality - he won because of his leadership in the war against terrorism. That issue will not always be at the forefront of every election though.
Your honesty is refreshing. You can say whatever you want. I trust and have faith in the literal interpretation of the Bible. I take the Word of God over the word of man. But that's me. The Bible clearly states that a day is light into dark to light again (in at least three passages in Genesis). The day is used throughout the Bible as a time references. I'm unfamiliar with the way the Bible describes pi, so I can't compare the two issues.
There is a lot of interesting research out there about the literal interpretation of the Bible. It seems like you have a lot of questions and interest.
Thanks, your kindness is welcome surprise from the "opposition"
You are 100% incorrect. Please research what you say before you say it.
I appreciate your deep knowledge of our history and given your screen name, I can win no contest with you on our founders' writings. That said, I will email to you later tonight after work some of the research I read that confirms for me the Christian foundation of this country.
Sorry you feel that way, but our country has a judeo-christian foundation. That's not disputed.
> You are 100% incorrect.
OK, fine. Prove me wrong. Show me where God is mentioned in the Constitution.
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.