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

To: narby

The problem exists because science teachers are specifically stating, via their definition of evolution (pure natural process without any supernatural), that God was not the Creator..."But there's simply no evidence" that the universe and everything in it simply evolved by chance and pure natural processes. Evolutionists accept this belief by faith and they want students to do that as well just "because your science teacher said so".


15 posted on 06/06/2005 4:14:41 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: pby
The problem exists because science teachers are specifically stating, via their definition of evolution (pure natural process without any supernatural), that God was not the Creator..

Did God make the sun come up this morning? Or was that just a purely natural process of mass in motion and orbital mechanics?

God is all around us. Including in evolution, even though you can't imagine a God powerful enough for such a thing.

Explaining that God is all around us is not the job of science. It's the job of church.

You really don't want what you appear to want. Public schools teaching about God. You may not get to choose the particular interpretation of the Bible that gets taught. They might teach my interpretation of Genesis, that understands a God powerful enough to work 3 billion years at His creation.

22 posted on 06/06/2005 4:26:38 PM PDT by narby (Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: pby
The problem exists because science teachers are specifically stating, via their definition of evolution (pure natural process without any supernatural), that God was not the Creator...

Really? The theory of evolution specifically excludes the possibility of supernatural invervention? I thought that it simply declined to address matters of the supernatural, being as such matters are outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.
35 posted on 06/06/2005 5:37:39 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: pby
The problem exists because science teachers are specifically stating, via their definition of evolution (pure natural process without any supernatural), that God was not the Creator...

There are a couple non-sequitors in your comment, but they're related and I've underlined the main one.

To give systematic, even exclusive, consideration to the "natural" is not to deny the "supernatural," especially in the context of considering a bounded subject matter like natural science. It simply does not follow. It's like claiming that baseball, because of it's rules and equipment, "denies" the existence basketball.

There's an additional problem with your assumption (which you attribute to "science teachers" but appear to accept as valid) that something which is "purely natural" is ipso facto in no fashion "supernatural"; that to the extent a phenomena is "natural" any scope for the "supernatural" is eliminated to the same extent. (In my view this assumption is not merely probably false, but almost certainly so if a Creator does indeed exist. In addition I don't even think it's a theistic view but rather a deistic one. If the Creator is crowded out by the "natural," then He is at least occasionally, if not usually, absent from nature, and a God who is only occasionally present to or active in the world is the core characteristic of deism.)

In fact even staunch creationists, although they likewise apply your argument to the teaching of evolution, effectively admit (if tacitly) that the same logic doesn't apply in other exactly comparable instances. For example most creationists would affirm that God is their individual Creator, not just the Creator of their species. And certainly the Bible affirms that God creates human individuals -- and creates bodies, not just "souls." See the list of verses typically cited against abortion and you'll find a variety of affirmations that God is personally, intimately and actively involved in the creation of individual humans. He "forms [their] inward parts," "knits [them] together of bone and sinew," and the like.

But in spite of this I'm not aware of a single instance of anyone complaining about human embryology being taught as descriptive of a "pure natural process without any supernatural," even though it certainly is. Indeed if anything it's probably taught as more strictly naturalistic than evolution, if only because no one thinks of there being a conflict or need for accommodation. And yet the applicable logic is (or should be) exactly the same, especially if God is assumed to be our Creator and not just the Creator of Adam and Eve. If it follows that affirming a natural process in the creation of the species denies the Creator, then so does the same assertion regarding individual persons.

106 posted on 06/07/2005 10:01:22 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: pby
..."But there's simply no evidence" that the universe and everything in it simply evolved by chance and pure natural processes. "

You are confusing evolution with Cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics and Abiogenesis (and a few I've probably forgotten).

Cosmology is the science that says the universe started with a bang.

Astronomy is the science that says the universe is 15byo.

Astrophysics is the science that says stars evolve.

Abiogenesis is the science that says life evolved from chemical processes.

It appears that it will be necessary to remove all those sciences and more to meet your standards.

112 posted on 06/07/2005 10:32:25 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

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