Kansas Board Holding Evolution Hearings

Peoplepc news ^ | 5-7-05 | People pc

[furball4paws]

If you mean that the TOE is atheistic in that it requires no place for God in the theory, you are probably right. If you mean that evolutionists are atheists, then you are certainly and very wrong.

[Gumlegs]

Madame DuFurb ... ?

[jennyp]

lying or woefully ignorant

I would go for the latter.

Although, don't forget the middle ground position: They could be willfully ignorant.

[Dimensio]

You obviously do not know enough about theology to make that distinction.

Actually, it's more of a matter of knowing enough about evolution to know that it makes no claims whatsoever regarding theology.

However, William Provine said evolution is atheistic, and he was one of the leading spokesmen for the Darwinists.

And, on that matter, he is wrong. He probably does not understand theology

Charles Hodge, professor of systematic theology at Princeton, was the leading theologian in the United States, and he said evolution is atheistic.

And he's also wrong, and his problem is that he doesn't understand evolution.

I'm a theologian, and I say it's atheistic.

And how much do you know about evolution? What do you know about evolution that leads you to conclude that it is atheistic? Be specific, and use your own words rather than ripping out quotes from other people.

What, in the theory of evolution, leads to the logical conclusion "no gods exist". Be specific, and remember that it's not about just your particular religious beliefs. There's a difference between not fitting perfectly with your specific religious beliefs and being atheistic, and a lot of creationists arrogantly make that mistake.

[Dimensio]

Although, don't forget the middle ground position: They could be willfully ignorant.

See, evolution leads to a destroying of a belief in absolutes!

[Dimensio]

Why is it most people who swear by evolution

Who here "swears by evolution"?

[jennyp]

William Provine said evolution is atheistic, and he was one of the leading spokesmen for the Darwinists. Charles Hodge, professor of systematic theology at Princeton, was the leading theologian in the United States, and he said evolution is atheistic. I'm a theologian, and I say it's atheistic. I could go on and on with witnesses, and they would all refute you in claiming it is atheistic.

I'm an atheist, so I am just as qualified as Provine to tell you that evolution is, indeed atheistic. Evolution is atheistic in exactly the same way that the germ theory of disease is atheistic.

Do you believe in the germ theory of disease or the evil spirits theory? (Think carefully before you answer - by your logic the fate of your eternal soul may hinge on it!)

[Dimensio]

I was from the article we are all responding to!

You're right, and I should have noticed that. The article got it wrong.

If you would like, I will gladly Google her name and get you some additional information.

Go right ahead. I couldn't get much more than the fact that she was an associate professor of chemistry rather than a professor of biology.

The article said she critized evolution in a speech and eventually lost her job. What part don't you comprehend???

The part where it explains how, exactly, she criticized evolution. I can't find that anywhere, even with a Google search. I just get a load of creationist pages lamenting the removal of a professor who "dared" speak out against evolution without bothering to provide the statements that they made so I can determine for myself whether or not this was one scientist who was informed or talking out of her ass.

[durasell]

Trick post -- what did Hodge mean? Did he mean that Darwinism promotes atheism, belongs in a realm outside of religion (science) or is in conflict with religion?

[Dimensio]

I suppose that I should have tried to define terminology first. When I hear 'evolution is atheistic', I tend to think of it as an assertion that evolution implies an atheistic universe -- that is, that the the theory of evolution somehow implies or states that no gods exist. I've not really considered the fact that it invokes no gods in its explanations as being 'atheistic', but I can't really dispute the terminology.

So I guess that I have to agree that the theory of evolution is atheistic in that it invokes no divine entities. Of course, for that matter, so is every theory in science, yet I don't see any creationists attacking most other theories for that same reason. This is probably becuase they are taking the declaration that evolution is 'atheistic' in the 'no deities are invoked' sense and either willfully ignoring the fact that not mentioning deities is not the same as saying that no deities exist or dishonestly attaching it even when the original 'expert' never said any such thing.

So evolution does not involve deities in its explanation, which makes it atheistic. However, even though it is atheistic, it does not state or imply that no gods exist. Anyone who claims that the theory of evolution implies or states that no gods exist is either lying or woefully ignorant. My statement, thus, is revised.

[jennyp]

I suppose that I should have tried to define terminology first. ... My statement, thus, is revised.

Oh, I don't think you needed to change anything. To say "evolution is atheistic" makes just as little sense as to say that the germ theory of disease is atheistic. I would hope that the vast majority of lurkers will automatically understand that as soon as they stop & compare those two theories.

[exDemMom]

scientists like Provine

In the quote above, it said that William Provine is a professor of the history of biology. While he might be a scientist, he doesn't have to be one to teach the history of biology, any more than one has to be a pilot to teach the history of aviation.

[Gumlegs]

I admire your faith in the majority of lurkers.

[GarySpFc]

In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."

How do they know the process was unsupervised?

How do they know the process was mindless?

How do they know the process was purposeless?

Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "purposeless" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way ... and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith ... just as much as OUR conclusion is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal creator being involved in the evolutionary process.

To be fair, as was reported by Brendan Sweetman, Ph.D. in a letter to The Kansas City Star August 21, NABT removed the language after it was pointed out by the philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, and the theologian Huston Smith, that their guideline was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms. The definition of natural selection includes unsupervised, mindless and purposeless. Clearly, in defining evolution they have left the world of science and entered the world of philosophy and theology, and established atheism (a religion) in our classrooms.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms. Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

Gary Butner, Th.D.

[furball4paws]

Hi Gummy. I haven't been to Denmark lately, as far as I know.

[Dimensio]

This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms.

There is a difference between not invoking a deity -- which is an unscientific assumption -- and asserting that a deity does not exist.

Lying about the content of evolution education does not make you look better.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

You can tell when a creationist has no rational argument when they try to blame the teaching of evolution for any number of abhorrent acts.

[Gumlegs]

Sorry. Just a Dickens pun on furball4paws.

[furball4paws]

"They could be willfully ignorant"

This implies that they have some "hidden" agenda that this "willful ignorance" will help them to attain.

Would you like to elaborate on this?

[exDemMom]

There is a difference between not invoking a deity -- which is an unscientific assumption -- and asserting that a deity does not exist.

Scientists invoke a deity all the time. As in, Dear God, please let this experiment work, AMEN! (Then we back it up with ritual sacrifices... nothing bigger than bugs, I swear.)

[Gumlegs]

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms.

"Mindless atheism" is not being taught "in our nations classrooms." My son has just finished his 8^th grade unit covering evolution. It was "atheism" only in the sense that it did not invoke God (or gods), as a mechansim. Neither does germ theory. Is that "atheistic"?

And when did we start determining the utility of scientific theories according to how well they poll?

Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

It's a distinction without a difference. ID postulates an unknown "designer" in the absence of any evidence whatever. This is not science and does not belong in science class.

According to your presentation of ID, one could posit that the universe was created five minutes ago by polka-dot unicorns from the Framblehuleh star cluster. Heck, why not? Why not present all the alternatives? How about equal time for the Muslim stories?

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

Well, heck, as long as we're "only speculating," why not speculate they were Jim Jones buffs? I already know -- Jim Jones wasn't a "real" Christian. I don't really believe the speculation I just posted, I'm just returning the favor of utterly baseless speculation.