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 ...
“I can’t find anything that says that Darwinism is against an intelligently designed universe or God”
You're going to keep repeating that despite how Darwinists define and explain Darwinism?
But I can understand that an intelligently designed universe might not conflict with Darwinism understood as an allegorical myth devised to explain what cannot explained except as a historical narrative, “an imaginary scenario”.
Hmmmm...sounds to me like seeing purposelessness where there’s purpose.Um, noooooo, you would be wrong on that one.
“You’re going to keep repeating that despite how Darwinists define and explain Darwinism?”
—Sure there are atheists that describe Darwinism in atheistic terms - but you can find atheists that do the same with all scientific theories; heliocentricity, atomic theory, gravity, germ theory, etc. There’s no reason to single out Darwinism; if you’re going to use that argument you may as well say that all of science is incompatible with God.
“But I can understand that an intelligently designed universe might not conflict with Darwinism understood as an allegorical myth devised to explain what cannot explained except as a historical narrative, “an imaginary scenario”.”
—Which part of Darwinism would need to be allegory to not conflict with intelligent design? The chemistry involved in mutations? Does chemistry need to be allegory? Or does the commonly seen differential survival rates of members of a population need to be allegory, something that even most Creationists don’t dispute is factual? You mention historical narrative; perhaps Gnathostomata evolving from Agnatha during the Silurian somehow disproves an intelligently created universe with purpose?
how so?
If there no conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design (lower case) why don't Darwinists accept it as a reasonable and logical explanation?
The men who formulated and explained Darwinian theory, Darwinism, namely Darwin, Huxley, Mayr, and Gould (neo-Darwinism), others I haven't bothered to note, all rejected any kind of intelligent designer in evolution, Huxley saying,
“evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention.”
Darwinism and intelligent design are not compatible as Darwinism excludes an intelligent designer in its workings.
Wallace had suggested man's intellect and moral
“could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and… , therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them” and for this kind of thinking, Darwin chided him.
So you see its Darwinists describing Darwinism as incompatible with divine design, intelligent design, supernatural intervention, whatever.
From one of the Christianpost links you gave:
“This really doesn’t have to be a debate. We don’t pitch science against religion,” said Leshner. “Over and over, religions that see the Bible as an allegory, as a description of an overall process that isn’t tied to literal day by day, those religions seem to understand better how science can co-exist with a religious belief or even a biblical belief. It’s the literalist point that has tremendous problems.”
As long as the religious folks are willing to agree that anything in the Bible that seems to disagree with Darwinism is allegorical fine, they understand science unlike those pesky people that find something literal in the Bible.
Of course Darwinism is sacrosanct and fact so its not going to bend a single degree to fit the Bible.
“Which part of Darwinism would need to be allegory to not conflict with intelligent design?”
Hmmmm.....that all of life as we know came about without the need of an intelligent designer? That chance is the designer?
“You mention historical narrative; perhaps Gnathostomata evolving from Agnatha during the Silurian somehow disproves an intelligently created universe with purpose?”
Sounds like a good example of the “imaginary scenario”. I guess the latest narrative is they're sisters not grandma and grand daughter.
Lame ineffectual insults.....nothing more. As such, they are to be ignored.
Not being one, I don't know what liberals demand.....I know that science-related folks such as myself demand that science be taught in a science classroom....not religious beliefs that have no basis in any science.
, the idea that evolution can not and never ever will be properly questioned
It can....scientifically, not through false conclusions from a religious website and not by using a flame-thrower or by talking about dinosaurs living with Man.
, along with liberalism stomping God not just out of science class
God does not belong in a science class in order for liberals to stopmp Him out.....God belongs in an elective religious studies class or a history class of some sort.
, but school in general
God in an elective religious studies class or even as talked about with reference to how religion has shaped the world in some form of history class is fine with me. AND, imagine that, I have no problem with religious kids having prayer sessions in school if they so choose. OMG, I have no problem with the Pledge of Allegience either.
, has resulted in abject failures across the board, both morally and academically in UNITED STATES public schools
False conclusion with no causality evident....but a false conclusion is necessary if you want public schools to indoctrinate kids to YOUR religion.
Lemme guess how you'd take it if they started teaching all about the Qu'ran and Allah and the Prophet in your kid's schools. That's right...they're not talking about YOUR God, but I'm sure you'd welcome it wholeheartedly, right.
In addition, I take it you actually WANT our kids to be learning their morals from the State through the public schools.......so long as it's YOUR morals, eh? Here I thought morals and such were supposed to be taught by, I don't know, PARENTS!! NOW, you want the State to control the morals of your kids? What're ya, a liberal?
The rest of your nonsense is lame ineffectual insults.....nothing more. As such, they are to be ignored.
how so?Well, how would you qualify it, is it a 'natural law'?
And the cause, or reason for gravity, seems almost (until perhaps recent times) hidden.
It has been described thusly:
One of the reasons gravity seems so mysterious is that if one goes to physics text books the dynamics of gravity are always well defined but the causes are conspicuously absent.
Gravity: arbitrary and capricious (as a so-called 'natural' law) or:
A purposeless process with purpose.?
“My original question was:
If there no conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design (lower case) why don’t Darwinists accept it as a reasonable and logical explanation?”
—And my answer has been - some do and some don’t. The same as with other scientific theories.
“As long as the religious folks are willing to agree that anything in the Bible that seems to disagree with Darwinism is allegorical fine, they understand science unlike those pesky people that find something literal in the Bible.
Of course Darwinism is sacrosanct and fact so its not going to bend a single degree to fit the Bible.”
—Can you think of any scientific theory that was changed or bent to agree with the Bible?
no.
“The men who formulated and explained Darwinian theory, Darwinism, namely Darwin, Huxley, Mayr, and Gould (neo-Darwinism), others I haven’t bothered to note, all rejected any kind of intelligent designer in evolution”
—Actually, the four most important figures in the field of evolution in the 20th century are probably Ronald Fisher (probably Dawkins’ biggest hero), Sewall Wright, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky (the “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution” guy).
The only atheist in that group is the aforementioned Mayr. Dobzhansky’s quote mentioned above is famous, but he also said: “I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s, method of creation.”
Even Henry Osborn (famous for the discovering and publicizing “Nebraska Man”) was a devout Christian: “Nothing should be more clearly or more emphatically taught to our youth than that the Bible is a story of the spiritual and moral progress of man.”
Gould, of course, was an atheist but he didn’t believe that Darwinism was atheistic: “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs.” (Gould isn’t responsible for neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is usually said to be the synthesis of genetics with Darwinism early in the 20th century by people like Fisher and Wright, but is sometimes said to be the “modern synthesis” which was slightly later and created by people like Mayr and Dobzhansky. Punctuated Equilibrium itself is really just Mayr’s allopatric speciation applied to paleontology.)
Of course, one could find a bunch of athiest scientists to argue the other way, and back and forth. But I said before, the very fact that so many knowledgeable Darwinist scientists can have this disagreement is because Darwinism itself takes neither side.
Hard to see any reason to believe it’s not designed or has no purpose though.
“God of Wonders” is a great movie that you might want to view. Purpose and design is all around for all to see, but God won’t force it to be seen.
Why exactly would Darwinism, the Theory of Evolution, Evolutionary Biology.....ever find the need to “bend a single degree to fit the Bible.”
You think that’s how science works? “Hey, I just read this Bible thing and it says ‘God did it’.....so stop everything and re-educate yourself to belieeeeeeeeve that dinosaurs lived with Man and that all those dating methods are 99.974% off.”
Slow day for everyone without GGG posting NEW nonsense to fluff him over?
Is here something you want to say?
Wow...you really do make a science out of obtusely getting things dead wrong.
Here I thought morals and such were supposed to be taught by, I don't know, PARENTS!! NOW, you want the State to control the morals of your kids? What're ya, a liberal?
Yes, parents saw fit to impart their morals on children around the clock and that's how it worked in this country uintil you liberals saw fit to indoctrinate all children with YOUR godless religion of NEA secular humanism.
And lookie how that's working out!
Newsflash! The same could be said of teaching your morals as well, but in reality, the state is already teaching morals in public schools.
Education is not morally neutral. If you are under the delusion that moral education should only be taught at home by the parents, they you are supporting the teaching of morals in public schools, because teaching a system that you think it *amoral* is in reality, teaching morals, just a different moral system. There is no such thing as no morals. It's always a matter of which morals.
I know he’s talking to us. It’s like he’s trying to say something......
He’s really cute, you know.....
I’m sure it’s every bit as important as all the rest of his.......what to call it? Noise? Generously, noise.
Well said!
What exactly ARE "my morals"? After hearing a thousand times that one cannot have morals without religion....without a basis for the morals set in stone by the Bible and the belief in God and the Lord Jesus Christ your Savior and Heaven and Hell.....NOW, I can have a-religious morals?????? You know.....lame arguments you've heard before like:
Atheists make this argument all the time, that people can be moral without believing in god. While this may be true on an intellectual level, the fact is that without some belief in a higher power there is no denying that there is simply no logical reason to be “good”. Anything you think you can get away with is fair game in such a belief system. In fact the definition of what “good” even means is based on nothing other than personal opinion for such people and is therefore without meaning.
Mayhaps y'all should get together and discuss my areligious non-theist morals so you can all be on the same page.
Education is not morally neutral.
Really? What morals did I learn through public schooling that I did not get in the home prior to schooling? How do morals enter a math or science class? Metal shop? English? History? Typing?
If you are under the delusion that moral education should only be taught at home by the parents
I am under no such delusion.....that would be one of them uber-religious issues when y'all are whining about the schools teaching sex-ed, Timmy has 2 daddy's, Gina has 2 mommies, and such frightful things such as evolution and other sciences that go against the belief that Man walked with dinosaurs...........which is why I made the comment to begin with......NOW tpanther wants the State to teach HIS morals to the kids? What if the State decided to teach Islamic Sharia law types of morals to the kids?
, they you are supporting the teaching of morals in public schools
Lemme get this straight....if I deludedly believe that morals should only be taught in the home by parents......then I support teaching morals in the schools by the State. You get dropped on your head or something?
, because teaching a system that you think it *amoral* is in reality, teaching morals, just a different moral system.
Teaching calculus without moral indoctrination.......is teaching morals? Teaching small engine repair without teaching morals....is teaching morals? So you WERE dropped on your head. This must stem from the asinine argument that "atheism is a religion" or "the belief in evolution is a religion" nonsense.
There is no such thing as no morals.
That's why we have words for "without morals".....you know....a-moral...of COURSE it's a comparison to societal norms and different groups in societies have different norms...but to rape, mutilate, murder and eat a child is a-moral behavior pretty much everywhere.
...and that's why many many religious Freepers have argued continually that one cannot have morals without religion?
It's always a matter of which morals.
Well, I've been saying that all my life.....but religious Freepers keep telling me I cannot have morals without religion because there would be no basis for my morals without them coming from a religion......no actual reason for me to HAVE morals.
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.