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

Skip to comments.

Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?
CMI ^ | April 16, 2009 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

Posted on 04/16/2009 8:59:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?

by Russ Humphreys

Published: 16 April 2009

This year, as has been happening every year for several decades, various U.S. states are introducing legislation encouraging public-school students to examine scientific evidence against Darwinism. And again, anti-creationist lobby groups, such as the National Center for Science Education,[1] are pushing the panic button, claiming that such efforts aim to introduce Christianity into government-run schools.

This year, however, the anti-creationists seem to be pushing the button harder, saying that such bills “are multiplying out of control”.[2] Perhaps that is because more states now seem to be involved. Bills are pending or currently passed in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, while more are sprouting in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina. As usual, one tactic the anti-creationists are using is to label such efforts as “creationist” and therefore “religion”, even though the bills only propose teaching more science evidence...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aartbell; aconspiracy; answersingenesis; creation; evolution; godophobes; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; jihads; religionofatheism; science; spontaneousgenerator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-258 next last
To: Inappropriate Laughter

I read a good portion of the long, tortured diatribe you posted which attempted in vain to rescue Maxwell from the creationist camp. Your diatribe failed. Maxell was a creationist. Here is a Maxwell quote taken from your own link!:

“They continue this day as they were created — perfect in number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist.”


101 posted on 04/17/2009 7:54:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
Recognizing an Intelligent Designer rather than chaos does, though. No butterflies required, just admitting the obvious.

But what's obvious to one person is, um, not obvious to another. Having "watched" a teenager grow from an embryo, I'm impressed by what cells can produce when they "up and go at it." (The problem with your analogy is that watches aren't living things.) I didn't see any place a Designer intervened in that process, which seems every bit as complicated as evolving an eye.

The point is, though, that what seems obvious to you or me isn't a basis for science instruction either. After all, it seems pretty obvious that the sun goes around the Earth, doesn't it?

102 posted on 04/17/2009 8:21:02 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
There are plenty of observations that form creation science,

No, there are plenty of observations that can be crammed into creation science. But creation scientists start with what they believe to be true and look for observations that support it, or (more usually) twist others' observations to fit it. Real science starts with the observations and tries to come up with the best explanation for them, whatever it may be.

For example, geologists came up with an old age for the Earth by looking at rock formations and trying to figure out how they were formed and how long that would take. They were shocked by the answers they came up with, but they eventually had to accept them. Creation scientists, on the other hand, start with a target date they have to wind up with and invent the processes necessary to make the observations fit that date. It's a completely different approach, not just a difference in interpretation. Putting the word "science" in the latter's name doesn't make it scientific.

103 posted on 04/17/2009 8:30:28 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: metmom
It's the evos that single out evolution. The rest of us want it taught just as the rest of science is, that the ToE is a theory, just like the rest of science holds.

That is, let's just say, not in accordance with the facts. Nobody is asking for the "strengths and weaknesses of the germ theory" to be taught in science class, or for stickers to be put in astronomy books saying that "the theory of star formation is just a theory" or trying to get teachers to announce that there's a book in the library that claims gravity is based on pushing, not pulling. The political assault is on evolution--so far.

104 posted on 04/17/2009 8:35:02 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Marie2; GodGunsGuts; tpanther; Fichori
Creationists aren't the ones using the judiciary and litigation forcing out competing theories of origins. The political assault started with the Scopes trials.

Stickers *singling out* evolution were only implemented because evolution was singled out in the first place by evos, atheists, and the ACLU, to be untouchable and taught as fact, which it's not.

In teaching the rest of science, it's taught as theory. The only theory addressed differently is the ToE, where no dissent is allowed. Reminding people that evolution has the same standing in science as any other theory should not be a political issue that demands legal protection.

Thomas Jefferson said it so well when he said, "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." (--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222 )

105 posted on 04/17/2009 9:45:56 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

How much is known of macro-evolution? Zero!

Oh and don’t even bother w/ the ring species story.
It’s still the same kind of organism on all the parts of the ring.


106 posted on 04/17/2009 9:51:26 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

What a sad hopeless world you live in.

BTW I have not advocated teaching christianity in school
but I’m a big advocate of teaching all of the problems with macro-evolution.

The Bible is the world number 1 ‘selling’ book for a reason - you should try reading it with an open mind. Might I suggest the New Testament 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) as well as Acts and Romans being the best place to start. You simply can not refute it’s in-errancy nor simple beauty but mostly try refuring it’s prophecies (Psalm 22 written about Jesus on the cross approx 1,000 years before His birth).


107 posted on 04/17/2009 9:59:16 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Creationists aren't the ones using the judiciary and litigation forcing out competing theories of origins. The political assault started with the Scopes trials.

Oh really? So it wasn't creationists who were responsible for the law at issue in the Scopes trial, which read

That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
No, no political assault on evolution there. Of course not.

evolution was singled out in the first place by evos, atheists, and the ACLU, to be untouchable and taught as fact, which it's not. In teaching the rest of science, it's taught as theory. The only theory addressed differently is the ToE, where no dissent is allowed.

You have evidence for this, I suppose?

108 posted on 04/17/2009 10:14:16 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I read a good portion of the long, tortured diatribe you posted which attempted in vain to rescue Maxwell from the creationist camp. Your diatribe failed. Maxell was a creationist. Here is a Maxwell quote taken from your own link!:
“They continue this day as they were created — perfect in number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist.”

You should have kept reading Petzold's essay, which provides the historical facts about creationist claims regarding Maxwell's "creationist" beliefs... And for your own little attempt at "quote-mining," They continue this day as they were created ..., the "They" are, as is obvious in context, molecules, not biological species.

Maxwell is a "creationist" who accepts that the world is "untold ages" old, accepts Darwinian evolution, and refused to join the Victoria Institute, founded to defend “the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture,” because he would not limit scientific inquiry to religious dogma.

If Maxwell is a "creationist" then modern evolutionary biologists, who are also Christians, including Ken Miller, are also "creationists."

109 posted on 04/17/2009 10:24:54 AM PDT by Inappropriate Laughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

macroevolution is simply microevolution repeated over and over.


110 posted on 04/17/2009 10:48:04 AM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Excuse me? The ability to THINK is the reason we rise above the other animals. To believe that only one religion is above all others is ignorance on a grand scale.

I asked a question of teaching other religious beliefs if you start allowing one-sided creationist views into the schools as 'science.'

The Bible is a good book, but it is not the only book. If you cannot allow tolerance of those with other views, you have totally missed the lessons you claim to profess.

111 posted on 04/17/2009 10:51:32 AM PDT by Pistolshot (The Soap-box, The Ballot-box, The Jury-box, And The Cartridge-Box ...we are past 2 of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 56newblog; Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts; tpanther; Sopater; WKB; wagglebee
The government is forbidden to prevent the free exercise of religion. It cannot be kept out of the public school system. By forcing it out, you are indeed forcing YOUR religious views on someone else. It's interesting that you object to someone other than yourself's views being forced on others, but have no objection to forcing others to believe and live as YOU think they should. The hypocrisy of your position is staggering.

Well said, metmom. Great essay/post!

112 posted on 04/17/2009 11:22:29 AM PDT by betty boop (All truthful knowledge begins and ends in experience. — Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 56newblog; metmom; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts; tpanther; Sopater; WKB; wagglebee
There are very “wise” reasons why the founding fathers saw the need for separation of church and state.

Yes, the Founding Fathers were so wise that they OMITTED the notion altogether from the Constitution.

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

There has NEVER been an "official" religion in the United States and the United States has NEVER prohibited the free exercise of religion.

There is absolutely NOTHING here about separating ANYTHING.

The ONLY national constitution that I am aware of that specifically mentions separation of church and state (and church and school) is the 1977 Constitution of the Soviet Union. Many Darwinists feel affection for the Soviets, people of faith thank God that the Soviet Union was destroyed.

113 posted on 04/17/2009 11:37:25 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

Uh no - that has not been proven and micro-evolution is actually micro-devolution since the mutations result in a loss of information.

The problem is you’re side of the fence thinks they can repeat the same mantra over and over again and somehow the rest of us will simply start agreeing with you.

You gotta show us some proof to be convincing!


114 posted on 04/17/2009 11:39:59 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

We are ‘above’ the other animals because we were created in God’s image. You can try to equivocate all the other religions if you want (but me thinks you truly don’t believe any religion cept for evolution), but eventually you’ll realize you can NOT dis-prove the uniqueness of the Bible from all other books.


115 posted on 04/17/2009 11:43:01 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

*devolution since the mutations result in a loss of information.*

That is an incorrect statement - a quick live.com search will provide you with more details.


116 posted on 04/17/2009 11:46:30 AM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Talk about reaching. Other religions have a creation story involving MANY gods, do you think the Bible is unique because of it? Do you dismiss other religions because they do not conform to your narrow interpretations?

Your IN-tolerance is showing, that much you cannot admit.

As for your other assertions as to my beliefs, those, quite frankly, are none of your business.

We are above other animals because we can THINK. If that were not the case, we'd still be wearing skins for clothing, or as Adam and Eve, leaves to cover ourselves.

117 posted on 04/17/2009 11:52:59 AM PDT by Pistolshot (The Soap-box, The Ballot-box, The Jury-box, And The Cartridge-Box ...we are past 2 of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: 56newblog; GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl; xzins; metmom; hosepipe
Creationism is a fundamental “religious” belief.

Arguably, so is Darwinism. :^)

You wrote: "There is NO scientific evidence to support fundamental creationist beliefs. LET your religion “EVOLVE” as we as a earthly human Life Form have."

There is also no scientific evidence that can refute them either.

And a religion that "evolves" is a religion that has nothing to do with God. A whole lot of modern-day "second realities" (e.g., materialism, Darwinism, progressivism, Marxism, etc.) are religions of this type: fundamentally atheist.

God does not "evolve." His Word does not "evolve." His Word — the Logos — is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End (or purpose for which Creation was made); and it is eternal.

118 posted on 04/17/2009 11:58:04 AM PDT by betty boop (All truthful knowledge begins and ends in experience. — Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Excellent, excellent point Betty Boop! I would hasten to add for any lurkers, that the Bible says that the Universe was created by, is held together by, and sustained by the POWER of GOD’S WORD! Think about that for a moment!!!


119 posted on 04/17/2009 12:01:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; 56newblog; metmom; Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts; tpanther; Sopater; WKB
There has NEVER been an "official" religion in the United States and the United States has NEVER prohibited the free exercise of religion.

You would think people wouldn't need to be "reminded" about such patently obvious facts (obvious to anyone who knows anything about American history and culture, that is. But hey, the public schools basically don't teach these subjects anymore).

Thank you for your fine essay/post wagglebee!

120 posted on 04/17/2009 12:04:51 PM PDT by betty boop (All truthful knowledge begins and ends in experience. — Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-258 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