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.
?
read post 65, my oh my.
> Did you read the article?
Yes. And a few quotes do not chang ethe fac tthat evolution is no more a replacement for God than telescopic astronomy was.
> they are certainly attempting to remove God
I'm sure there are a few people trying. Evolution, however, is not a program to do that.
You are insisting that "God" or the "Creator" be defined as the one described in the Bible. But nothing in Darwinian theory claims that there was never any original creative force that brought matter and energy and time into being. Darwinian theory speaks only to the evolution of various life forms on this planet after all the raw materials were here.
also, in post 37, I already said that one of the books cited was a college text...
"Evolutionary Biology is a college text, but the one that says "evolution is random and undirected,"without plan or purpose" comes from a 9th and 10th grade book."
The other books are used in highschools. But, I would add that the college texts are a problem too--they are also teaching something as fact, that indeed is not!
In his defense, I only spent 4 (3+ other stuff) years studying Anthropology as a minor, and between visiting excavations, professors, and my personal class experiences, I met a majority of authorities who happened to be Athiests. This may only be my personal experience, but it sure was a lot of them.
Maybe his experience is similar to mine. It does not necessarily represent the larger sample, but it does sway one's thought on the matter.
Believe what you will. If you choose to believe that examination of physical evidence and coming to logical conclusions based on said evidence is by its very nature an attempt to "murder" God... then you must have a low opinion of God.
I understand and recognize zealotry on all sides. Under the banner of Darwinian evolution are those who hold it as a science, and those who hold it as a philosophy. The latter are zealots.
People of faith who hold that disbelief in evolutionary theory is a necessary tenet of faith are likewise zealots.
Darwin himself may not have, but many of those since him have!
Just heard on Paul Harvey today that Jupiter emits more heat than it absorbs from the sun. Apparently astronomers/physicists don't have an explanation. Shouldn't we be teaching "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to astronomy and physics?
> So you're suggesting that people such as Rabbi Avigdor Miller ("Sing You Righteous") have little faith?
If they think that science is by its very nature a threat to their God... then, yes.
Darwin himself, in the last paragraph of Origin of Species, said that the first life form, from which everything now living evolved, was "breathed by the Creator."
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."
As Strategerist has pointed out, that's a false statement. I see nothing in post 65 that acknowledges it's a false statement. Would you like to acknowledge it?
Thus requiring that geocentrism be taught in the schools, as the heliocentric model of the solar system is only a theory.
I have to agree with you. It doesn't diminish God's power and influence to think that he actualizes the physical cosmos from which many material forms (including Man) arise.
I think one of the problems we have in trying to comprehend the Almighty is that, existing in the sphere of time, we tend to constrain God to the limitations of time.
I'm not going to do research FOR you that you should have done. You provided 4 quotations from textbooks, and only gave a source for ONE, that turned out to be an obvious college text. How exactly am I supposed to magically find out what book quotations are from on my own? I don't happen to have the various creationists books lying around that you're quoting the quotations from.
The quote about evolution being non-directed and random, comes from 1998 highschool textbook (p 658, Miller/Levine, Biology,Prentice/Hall).
And that's by far the most innocuous quote with the least direct reference to religion. It's not the "money quote" designed to get creationists to soil their panties in fear of what little Johnny is being taught in the local high school. The "money quotes" are the one from Evolutionary Biology, and the last quote.
I'd bet substantial money that the quote "Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation" is NOT from a public high school textbook anywhere in the United States. Feel free to deign to let us know what book that's from for us non-psychics.
It is not a false statement, what are you talking about?
That particular book is used in some college classes--and it says what I said it says.
As far as post 65, I show you clearly that highschool texts use the same language.
> One can talk to a miriad of evolutionists on any given day who say God doesn't exist because evolution is a fact.
I'm sure you can. But they are not being logical, nor using the science to reach logical ends. If a time machine was produced that could prove the entire history of life on Earth to be the result of natural selection and mutation producing evolution, this in no way whatsoever would be poof of the nonexistence of any god.
> Your statement is most incorrect.
You confuse "Darwinian evolution" with "some Darwinian evolutionists." Frex: some Americans think that Socialism Is A Great Idea. This is not the same as saying that America Thinks Socialism Is A Great Idea.
---"Thus requiring that geocentrism be taught in the schools, as the heliocentric model of the solar system is only a theory."--
Actually, we can measure gravity and calculate rotations, among other things. We can even come up with pretty exact numbers for how long a year is on a given planet. We don't even need to estimate that a rotation of Neptune may take anywhere from 300 days to 450,000 days; we can observe and calculate with pretty remarkable accuracy.
Perhaps the idea that some Archaeologist in the distant future could discover my skeleton and narrow my existence down to anywhere from 5000 B.C. to 150,000 A.D. should be viewed as something that needs a little bit of ironing out before we simply stop ever QUESTIONING it ever again.
If there comes a point where Evolution can prove to the same standard Heliocentrism did (and does), Creationists arguments will be forced to die out.
Well, you'd have to talk to the graphic artist about what he had in mind, but no matter, as he's not the wellspring of evolutionary doctrine. If he got some morphological details wrong, then I say "fie" to him. At any rate, ancient apes did look very much like modern apes. If you saw a resurrected proconsul walking around, you'd probably think it was a chimp. A zookeeper might say, "woah, what is that!" but he'd be in no doubt that it was an ape.
Don't make claims that are simply wrong like that it has "ONLY EVER MEANT." It was not always held that man evolved from a different form of ape that was "ancient."
Don't project your own misunderstandings of evolution onto others! If evolution is correct at all, then it is necessarily true that apes have evolved over time, and that therefore the apes of yester-epoch are different from the apes of today. There is no conception of Darwinism that would have humans evolving over time, but apes staying the same. There has never been such a conception of Darwinism. To argue against it--and then to claim triumph--is comical.
I resent your comparison to "flat-earthers." It is ridiculous because we have INDISPUTABLE proof that the Earth is round.
Oh, really? What is it?
If we had INDISPUTABLE proof of evolution, Creationists would have no argument.
I sincerely think that's the case.
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.