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

CMI ^ | April 16, 2009 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

[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...

[wagglebee]

And let's not forget that Darwinism meets ALL of the criteria for a religious system of beliefs.

In the past two thousand years, there have been two religious movements that have sought to destroy Judeo-Christian culture. The first is Islam. The second is atheistic secularism, it started in earnest during the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, and it has continued on with Darwinism, communism, fascism and enviornmentalism (usually these belief systems are interspersed with each other.

All told, secular atheists are responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST ONE BILLION people in the last century alone.

[betty boop]

Oh, thank you so much, GGG, for your kind words of support!

Truly you wrote, "the Bible says that the Universe was created by, is held together by, and sustained by the POWER of GOD’S WORD!" His Word, i.e., the Logos (which is also the etymological root of the word "logic") is the source of the very structure of Reality, of the universal laws of His Creation.

The Holy Book also indicates that God has a purpose in creating and sustaining the universe. Thus, the universe has an "end" in the double sense of (1) end of the physical universe in space and time; and (2) purpose or goal (telos); the reason God made the universe in the beginning. Thus it can never be a purely "random development."

[GodGunsGuts]

Amen to that, dear Betty Boop...Even logic comes from the power of HIS WORD! Praise God!!!

[Marie2]

“You are female correct? I am male - that means - according to the majority of churches 150 years ago that you should not be teaching or correcting me in such a public fashion.

It also means that you - being female - should stay out of politics.”

The Bible does not prohibit political activity, conversation, or teaching by women. It does prohibit my taking authority in the church, preaching, becoming an elder or a bishop, etc. I assure you I have no such plans. We are told to keep silent in the church and submit to the authority of the elders, which I do.

[Marie2]

“After all, it seems pretty obvious that the sun goes around the Earth, doesn’t it? “

Yes, that’s how it appears. But as we pursue scientific discovery and build upon generations of the great insights of truly great minds, we can unfold some of the mysteries of the universe. I am all for it.

I don’t think that the sun going round the earth is a mere happenstance, though, which is where I guess you and I differ.

[Marie2]

"Having "watched" a teenager grow from an embryo, I'm impressed by what cells can produce when they "up and go at it."

Me too. Rather than consider the entire teenager, let's consider just his eye.

The eye is a marvel of design; it is made of a number of parts -- an enclosed sphere; a field of light receptive cells; a transparent, focusing lens; an iris that adjusts the amount of light let in; a transparent cornea to protect the lens and iris; a system of muscles to move the eye in its socket; and a highly complicated section of the brain to process its signals -- that all work in harmony to allow us to see. And to top it all off, we have two of them! How did it evolve?

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter Six: "Difficulties of the Theory", "Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication")

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

But as we pursue scientific discovery and build upon generations of the great insights of truly great minds, we can unfold some of the mysteries of the universe.

I agree. That's how I think we figured out that evolution happens.

I don’t think that the sun going round the earth is a mere happenstance, though, which is where I guess you and I differ.

I assume you meant "the earth going round the sun"? But I'm not sure what you mean by "mere happenstance." If I roll a rock down a hill, where it ends up is happenstance, but it's also inevitable, given all the variables--and if I knew what all the variables were, it would also be predictable.

[pandoraou812]

“You are female correct? I am male - that means - according to the majority of churches 150 years ago that you should not be teaching or correcting me in such a public fashion.

It also means that you - being female - should stay out of politics.”

lmao @ you.

[metmom]

Considering all that you’ve got wrong on this thread, from the bumblebee stuff to your interpretation of Scripture, it’s small wonder that people don’t take what you say at face value.

Or with any value, for that matter.....

If you expect people to believe what you have to say about evolution, you ought to at least get your other facts right first.

[metmom]

Sexists always slip up some how.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Please do me the favor of not descending to taking quotes out of context. That Darwin quote continues

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

And in fact, such "numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor" have been found. Examples in the mollusks, from the limpet to the octopus:

[pandoraou812]

I am just sitting here laughing. Hmmm I don’t see me keeping my opinions to myself ever. When is the comment women should just keep their mouths shut 24/7 coming?

[Fichori]

“I hear lots of complaints about how the scientific method is flawed because of it's reliance on methodological naturalism, but nobody who complains about seems to be able to say exactly what it should be changed to or replaced with. They just complain about it.”

Methodological naturalism certainly has its shortcomings.

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt. […] I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.

– Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

[Fichori]

“Thomas Jefferson said it so well when he said,” [excerpt]

Yeah, well, that doesn't matter because Thomas Jefferson was one of those crazy right wing extremist radicals who started a revolution and so what he said doesn't count. </sarc>

Hey!

Maybe he was onto something!

[hosepipe]

[ God does not "evolve." His Word does not "evolve." ]

As far as I can tell being born again "IS" evolution..
More tangible than the Darwinian tale provides..

"God"(what ever that is) evolves too..
A time for God "the Father"..
A time for God the Son"..
And a time for God "the Holy Spirit"..

The Seven Spirits of God(Revelation) may get their times too..
Well I say.... God Bless them all..

I have a feeling "we" cannot bag God easily..
God (the Body of Christ) is a handful to conceive of itself..
Heck.. Gods "wife" (the Bride of Christ) is a hot number herself..
Who is the moron that can realistically conceive of Gods wife?..
March that poor soul out here ... lets get a look at him...

Does God evolve?..
WHo WEE.. I should say so...

[betty boop]

Does God evolve?.. WHo WEE.. I should say so...

Are you "into" process theology by any chance dear hosepipe?

To say that God "evolves" is to say that God changes, being changed presumably by His interactions with His Creation. (That's pretty much the working definition of "process theology.")

But this would be to say that the Logos itself changes over time. And I believe that would entail that the laws of the universe themselves change over time. But if that were so, in what way could they be regarded as "laws?"

I do not regard the born-again experience as an instance of "evolution." Rather, I believe it is an instance of a person becoming what God has already "designed" him to be. In that sense, nothing has "evolved" at all; man simply finds himself, as he already is, to be "under God." And only the soul or spirit is engaged in the born-again experience anyway.

Or so it seems to me, dear brother in Christ!

[GodGunsGuts]

How could God evolve? First, he is eternal, therefore His identity does not change over time. Second, He is omnipotent, therefore His power does not change over time. Third, He is omniscient, therefore his knowledge does not change over time. And finally, God SPECIFICALLY tells us in Malachi 3:6 that “I the LORD do not change.”

[hosepipe]

[ I do not regard the born-again experience as an instance of "evolution." Rather, I believe it is an instance of a person becoming what God has already "designed" him to be. In that sense, nothing has "evolved" at all; man simply finds himself, as he already is, to be "under God." And only the soul or spirit is engaged in the born-again experience anyway. ]

Interesting observation.. among so many.. by so many..
The word "change" could be many things to many observers..

Does anything ever change or anything ever stay the same..
Pretty much capulates the polarization of america(the world) these days..
What "IS" change.. what constitutes change..
The some whats changed is no change at all..
To others change is perceived in a hundred ways..

Process theology I know.. nothing of..

[And only the soul or spirit is engaged in the born-again experience anyway. ]

Am I soul/spirit or physical?..
Is my body like a space suit(clothing) for my spirit?..
Should I identify with my body or my spirit?..
Which one is "ME"?...

[Marie2]

I apologize if the quote is taken out of context. I did not get it from the original book, but from an essay, where it was quoted.

[Marie2]

“If you expect people to believe what you have to say about evolution, you ought to at least get your other facts right first.”

I posted my proof of the bumblebee stuff.

Show me the Scripture that says I can’t teach a man anything outside of the worship service. Maybe I can learn from you.