Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biology 101: Dissecting Today's Textbooks (teach your kids how to spot Evo-religion in textbooks!)
Answers Magazine ^ | Roger Patterson

Posted on 08/05/2009 11:15:25 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Today’s top-selling biology textbooks present evolution as the only scientific view of the history of life. Often these textbooks use faulty or deceptive evidences to support evolutionary ideas. Fortunately, students can easily equip themselves with free materials that dissect textbooks and reveal the truth...

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: aevojihad; biology; catholic; christian; crackpotcentral; creation; darwindronesexposed; evocretinismexposed; evocretinreligion; evolution; evoreligionexposed; intelligentdesign; science; scienceeducation; textbooks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-320 next last
To: ColdWater; YHAOS; count-your-change; metmom; CottShop
ID is compatible with Darwinism. In fact ID’er Behe called Darwin’s theory “elegant” and insisted that it should be taught in schools. All the ID groups believe that man and ape had common ancesters and evolved over billions of years from simple compounds.

Which most certainly explains why liberals hijack the legal system to keep all intelligence and design out of science class! /s

281 posted on 08/08/2009 8:39:58 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Uhhh ColdWater, it's not up to me to allow who is or isn't Christian, Catholic or otherwise and your post is evidence you're unable to actually define the term, thereby rendering your own observations as to who is or isn't Christian, moot.
282 posted on 08/08/2009 8:43:28 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
It’s simple when you just divorce yourself from all logic...
a) No truer words were ever spoken.

And, b): So that's how you do it!

283 posted on 08/08/2009 8:53:32 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And your support for the ToE is...??
And the biblical explanation for theory of electricity is??

OBVIOUSLY you're a believer in something involving, um, what - electrons maybe?

No?

You have faith in Ready-Kilowatt, lamps, refrigerators, air conditioning, car (yes, cars) and - and - computers it seems, because, of, well, continued use (and reliance?) of/on same it would seem ... so, what is the 'theory'?

I just 'needs to know' ...

284 posted on 08/08/2009 9:00:20 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

Your response has nothing to do with the comment I posted.

Is that the best you can do?


285 posted on 08/08/2009 9:14:47 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Good by.


286 posted on 08/08/2009 9:19:05 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: All
This is an 'open call' to any others on the biblical explanation for theory of electricity??

OBVIOUSLY you guys are believers in something, if not, I would like to hear that too.

No? Nothing?

C'mon, you have faith in some sort of Ready-Kilowatt used to 'drive' lamps, refrigerators, air conditioning, and computers it seems - at least on an operational level.

Again, I just 'needs to know' ... we never studied "ID" of electricity nor do I believe we ever covered that in Bible study ...

287 posted on 08/08/2009 9:24:53 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: goodusername; count-your-change
I guess I need to back up a bit

Yes, back to post 50, where you asserted that there is no conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design.

In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed

Mayr uses the phrase "intelligent design" here...

[Darwin] presented some fifty or sixty biological phenomena easily explained by natural selection, but quite impervious to any explanation under special creation, and equally inexplicable to so-called intelligent design.
He's obviously not talking about the Discovery Institute. Moreover, Mayr says that Darwinism eliminates final causes and teleology from nature. In short: no purpose, planning, design, foresight, meaning, goal or intention -- none of that sort of thing. He also says that "cosmic teleology" (purpose, intent, design of the universe) does not exist.
288 posted on 08/09/2009 12:21:46 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Then the obvious question for “goodusername” is, How did Mayr use ““intelligent design” in the way I’m pretty sure he did”?

Yes, it's an obvious question. Despite "goodusername"'s so-called previous explanation and backpedaling, Mayr says that "cosmic teleology... does not exist". However, "goodusername" feels that this is compatible with the notion that the "universe and its laws have an intelligent Creator and purpose."

It seems that it is not only some theists who go into metaphiscial contortions to accomodate evolution with the rest of their ideas, but atheists as well.

289 posted on 08/09/2009 12:40:47 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
I can hardly imagine that after reading Mayr’s writings, however truncated that reading, anyone would conclude that he gave credence to the ID crowd or that he would propose the existence of an intelligent designer, or even a god of a benign and indifferent nature as Carl Sagan put it.

And the theists will continue to perform whatever contortions necessary to make such accommodations since Darwinism will never return the favor, It is the theists that feel the need to work Darwinism into their reality construct not vice versa.

290 posted on 08/09/2009 3:23:36 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
A simple question: If there no conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design (lower case) why don't Darwinists accept it as a reasonable and logical explanation?
291 posted on 08/09/2009 4:18:10 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

From the polls I’ve seen, it would seem that most do. Atheistic Darwinism seems to be a minority position. Even among scientists, where it probably is a majority position, theistic Darwinism is a large minority.


292 posted on 08/09/2009 5:38:27 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

It’s simple when you just divorce yourself from all logic...

a) No truer words were ever spoken.
And,

b): So that’s how you do it!


Evolution is an undirected process directed by God.

A purposeless process with purpose.

A random, accidental process unguided process, that’s really not...so...ummmm random and...not...exactly an accident and oh yeah....all guided by God.

And an undesigned process, DESIGNED by God...

but best of all an unitelligent process...well you get the picture...

it’s kind of fun imagining someone trying to explain themselves when before God and He asks, “What did you mean by UNitelligent anyway junior........”???????? LOL!!!


293 posted on 08/09/2009 6:42:19 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Evolution is an undirected process directed by God. A purposeless process with purpose. A random, accidental process unguided process, that’s really not...so...ummmm random and...not...exactly an accident and oh yeah....all guided by God. And an undesigned process, DESIGNED by God...

You summarize "theistic Darwinism" quite well.

294 posted on 08/09/2009 6:46:22 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
I questioned how many viewed intelligent design as a reasonable and logical explanation.
Organizations like the AAAS and NAS have come down foursquare against it while supporting evolution.
295 posted on 08/09/2009 7:07:27 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
A purposeless process with purpose.
Hmmm ... sounds the same could be said of gravity: "A purposeless process with purpose".
296 posted on 08/09/2009 7:08:05 AM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“I questioned how many viewed intelligent design as a reasonable and logical explanation.

—If you mean it in the sense of the “ID Movement” and the DI, than very few. If you mean it in the sense that God created the universe with purpose and design, than quite a few.

“Organizations like the AAAS and NAS have come down foursquare against it while supporting evolution.”

—They have come out against Creationism and ID, and should. Many of those coming down foursquare against ID are themselves Christian. I haven’t seen anything from them to suggest that they are against the idea of an “intelligent creator” or God creating the universe however.

Here’s what I was able to to find on those organizations talking about intelligent design in any form:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
In this article from the AAAS, they are so cautious that they refer to what they are talking about as the “intelligent design theory”, with quotes, every time.

From the NAS, I found this letter from the president. He uses “Intelligent Design” in caps:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution

And this from the NAS, which argues against “intelligent design theory”, in quotes:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024
It also contains these quotes:
“Science cannot comment on the role that supernatural forces might play in human affairs. But scientific investigations have concluded that the same forces responsible for the evolution of all other life forms on Earth can account for the evolution of human beings.”
“Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.”

So far I haven’t found anything arguing against God or design, only specifically the “ID Movement” and Creationism.


297 posted on 08/09/2009 10:22:37 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

NATURE’s poll showed only a 5.5% belief in a personal God amongst biololgical scientists so I’s m not sure how you define “quite a few”.


298 posted on 08/09/2009 11:10:35 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“NATURE’s poll showed only a 5.5% belief in a personal God amongst biololgical scientists so I’s m not sure how you define “quite a few”.”

—That was a survey of only NAS scientists. While the % of scientists that believe in God is certainly much lower than among the general public, even among scientists the NAS stands out as being rather atheistic.

Here are some other results...
Here’s a story saying that (surprisingly) MOST scientists believe in God (perhaps even among biologists):
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

This one says a 1/3:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

This one says about 40% of scientists (and 40% of biologists) believe in God:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/contrib/clari.txt

So it’s telling that even from among the most atheistic of science organizations (the NAS), I can’t find anything that says that Darwinism is against an intelligently designed universe or God. In fact, here’s a story about both the NAS and AAAS reaching out to the religious community to say that evolution is compatible with Christianity:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080109/pro-evolution-book-says-science-and-god-compatible/index.html

If you found something different from the NAS or AAAS I’d like to look at it.


299 posted on 08/09/2009 11:51:27 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

Hmmmm...sounds to me like seeing purposelessness where there’s purpose.


300 posted on 08/09/2009 3:47:15 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-320 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson