[R. Scott]

What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of?

Could it be the teaching of religion in the government schools? Could it be the return to teaching of a flat Earth, a Table of elements containing only earth, air, fire and water? Could it be a return to teaching that all illness is caused by possession by evil spirits – or the four humors as an acceptable “scientific approach” to medicine?

[eddie2]

So you're saying schools are doing a lot better job now than,say, back in the sixties and before when religon (philosophy) wasn't taboo?

[forgivenyeah]

Evolutionism is a cancer to knowledge. Evolutionists are definitionally incapable of recognizing intelligence. They claim to be created in their own image: a most unimpressive collection of matter.

Not surprisingly evolutionism is definitionally flawed: "A change in gene frequency over time." Even DEvolutionists believe in this! It only gets worse from here for evolutionism.

So the gatekeepers of higher ed are definitionally incapable of recognizing intelligence. Does anyone see a problem here?

Evolutionism is the answer to the fornicator. If your will to fornicate is strong enough, evolutionism and all its glory is yours.

[Matchett-PI]

""What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of? --- Could it be the teaching of religion in the government schools?"

No - because the religion of Scientism is already being taught in science/biology classes and they don't want any competition.

"For the nontheist, evolution is the only game in town; it is an essential part of any reasonably complete nontheistic way of thinking; hence the devotion to it, the suggestions that it shouldn't be discussed in public, and the venom, the theological odium with which dissent is greeted." ...

"..I take the evidence for an old earth to be strong and the warrant for the view that the Lord teaches that the earth is young to be relatively weak. .. ...how can Christian intellectuals-scientists, philosophers, historians, literary and art critics, Christian thinkers of every sort.... best serve the Christian community... One thing our experts can do for us is help us avoid rejecting evolution for stupid reasons. The early literature of Creation -Science, so called, is littered with arguments of that eminently rejectable sort.

"We shouldn't reject contemporary science unless we have to and we shouldn't reject it for the wrong reasons. It is good thing for our scientists to point out some of these wrong reasons."

"..I can properly correct my view as to what reason teaches by appealing to my understanding of Scripture; and I can properly correct my understanding of Scripture by appealing to the teachings of reason.

"It is of the first importance, however, that we correctly identify the relevant teachings of reason.

"Here I want to turn directly to the present problem, the apparent disparity between what Scripture and science teach us about the origin and development of life." ~ Alvin Plantinga -University of Notre Dame. Read complete commentary

"Could it be the return to teaching of a flat Earth, a Table of elements containing only earth, air, fire and water? Could it be a return to teaching that all illness is caused by possession by evil spirits – or the four humors as an acceptable “scientific approach” to medicine?"

Now you're sounding quite frantic and irrational [like this guy here], but I understand - Darwinism / materialism is the "only game in town" left to those who deliberately reject what they already know

The religious worldview of Darwinists like Dawkins, Spieth, Ruse, Ayala, Gould, et.al., is inherently irrational.

Given the view they hold that they are mere accidents of the evolutionary process, they can't even be 100% sure that their thoughts are valid - yet, in their cognitive dissonance, they make "just so" statements.

Gould, for instance, said: "If you replayed evolution on this planet, the chances of getting any species as smart as humans­ smart enough to reflect on itself ­are "extremely small." .. "we are, whatever our glories and accomplishments, a momentary cosmic accident that would never arise again if the tree of life could be replanted from seed and regrown under similar conditions." To insist otherwise, to see evolution as a natural progression toward intelligent forms of life, is to indulge a "delusion" grounded in "human arrogance" and desperate "hope."

Right thinking (small "o" orthodox) Christians begin with the warranted (because it's rational) presupposition that God is. He has spoken; He has created the universe; He has spoken it into existence. ... any other proposition is irrational. ...Gould's Materialism gives us a theory which explains everything else in the whole universe, but which makes it impossible to believe that our thinking is valid. That’s because an accident cannot think of itself in any objective sense.

Consider C.S. Lewis’s words: “In order to think, we must claim for our reasoning a validity which is not credible if our own thought is merely a function of our brain, and our brains are a by-product of irrational, physical processes.” ....[the] materialist, naturalist ..say[s] there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. How can they know what they are saying is true? They are making their claim with a brain that supposedly results from a chance collision of atoms that came out of the primordial soup 8 billion years ago. .."

[walden]

WOW-- are they really afraid of all that? If so, I take those fears as prima facia evidence that they are stark, raving mad. I'll pray for them. ;)

[Conservomax]

Don't forget that a good old bleedin' is a cure for what ails ya.

[FrankR]

"...Could it be the return to teaching of a flat Earth, a Table of elements containing only earth, air, fire and water? Could it be a return to teaching that all illness is caused by possession by evil spirits – or the four humors as an acceptable “scientific approach” to medicine?"

Could be...but doubtful.

The entire argument can be summed up in four words...it's what you believe.

The Bible and Religion gets put "on trial" by those who believe in evolution; the Darwinists dare the Creationists to "prove" the Bible is absolutely correct, while the Darwinist don't have any proof that it was evolution.

All the while, the average person is going to believe what s/he believes no matter what the current "wisdom" proclaims.

However, I'll have to agree with the President; if we allow Darwinism to be taught in schools, then Creationism should be taught as well. Either that, or don't teach either, and leave it up to the parents, Churches and whatever secular place the Darwinists meet.

Frankly, I'm sick of all of it - and I'm going to believe what I believe, regardless of all the liberals, atheists, and ACLU members on the planet.

[Sybeck1]

Could it be the return to teaching of a flat Earth,


I wish you guys would try a little more decorum than that:

The passage saying the earth is round is Isaiah 40:22:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


The shape of the earth may already have been known in Isaiah's time. Ancient astronomers could determine that the earth was round by observing its circular shadow move across the moon during lunar eclipses. There is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 B.C.E., defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon (Uotila 1984). If this information was known by educated Greeks and Egyptians during biblical times, its use by Isaiah is nothing special.

[A. Pole]

government schools? Could it be the return to teaching of a flat Earth

We live in a constitutional republic and not in a scientific theocracy where scientists are the priests of the nature worship. So if the parents/government wanted to teach that the Earth is flat or if they wanted to close all schools and move back to the farms THEY HAVE RIGHT TO DO IT.

The last time science was put above all else was Soviet Union (political economy) and Nazi Germany (darwinism).