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 ...
Yes, I did mean “earth going around the sun.”
I think it’s designed. I think gravity is designed. I think there is a Designer. I think it’s the God of the Bible.
Oh duh, Metmom, I responded to the wrong person, as they say in “Clockwork Orange,” appy-polly-logies.
Thanks for acknowledging that. It's just that it's one of the most frequently mined quotes that anti-evolutionists use to discredit the theory. You didn't say where you found the essay, so I don't want to jump to conclusions. But just FYI, almost every time I've followed up on a quote found on an anti-evolution website that appears to be from a mainstream scientist finding fault with evolution, the quote turns out either to be massively out of context or completely made up. Not all of them, but enough that I find it's worth checking.
Can you imagine the reaction if a bunch of Christians today, got together and advocated the succession of different states on the basis of them feeling that God led them to do, instead of the more commonly accepted idea that the government is just plain corrupt?
We’ve heard plenty of cries of *theocracy* and *Dark Ages* from people who are more than willing to live under a form of government that was established along such lines.
The Founding Fathers appealed to the Judeo-Christian God and belief in Him, in establishing the government of this country. But these days, if any men got together and proposed what happened then, they’d be branded as right-wing extremists. It seems hypocritical to me for some to be willing to live in the freedom provided by such a belief, and at the same time, condemn those who think the same way today.
I think evolution, which led to human beings, was designed in the same way I think gravity, which led to the earth's position around the sun, was designed.
That’s OK. That happens with courtesy pings sometimes.
I doubt you’ll be learning anything from some people anyway. At least nothing accurate.
Well, you can preach that in your church. As for Free Republic, us females are free to speak politics as often as we’d like. Please do not tell us how and where to conduct ourselves. We are not part of your theological teachings.
“I think evolution, which led to human beings, was designed in the same way I think gravity, which led to the earth’s position around the sun, was designed.”
Well then, we get to where I always land, which is, the Bible says it happened differently. Six days, and all very good, etc. No millions of years of evolution.
Were there no Biblical account of man’s and indeed the universe’s origins, I’d find evolution about as plausible as any other theory. However, it contradicts Scripture, and ultimately, that’s why I reject it.
I think that’s why so many people buy into it. They want a no-God explanation, and without God, there’s no Scripture to tell us otherwise.
So, rejecting God, you’re right, it’s as good an explanation as any. Except that it’s wrong, because the Designer told us what He did.
For an eye to serve any purpose at all it has to be connected to a brain. Anything you find resembling an eye in any sort of mollusk or anything else which doesn’t have a brain has to be evidence of experimentation in past ages and not of evolution.
And that's fine with me, on a personal level. That's not an issue for me, but I'm not interested in talking you out of your beliefs. I just don't think agreement with Scripture can be the determining factor for what gets taught in public school or for how science is conducted.
I don't understand your point. First of all, what makes you think mollusks don't have brains? What do you think they're doing with the nerve impulses from those light-receptive cells?
And I don't get the distinction you're drawing between "experimentation in past ages" and "evolution." Evolution is, in a sense, the process of experimenting with different forms over time.
The determination of what gets taught in the public schools should rest with the local taxpayers and the local board. It should not be based on some other arbitrary factor, such as agreement with the latest scientific consensus, forced on unwilling parents and students just because someone else thinks that they know better what is good for everyone and forces it on them through litigation.
I just don't think agreement with Scripture can be the determining factor for.... how science is conducted.
That makes no sense. The scientific method is a valid methodology for examining the world around us, whether your philosophical position is methodical naturalism, or design and creation. Neither world view is superior for the actual practice of science. It only influences the interpretation of the data.
Evos whole determination of whether *real* science was done or not is based on whether the scientist in question comes to the *proper* conclusions or not, not whether the use of the scientific method was sound or not.
“The determination of what gets taught in the public schools should rest with the local taxpayers and the local board.”
Amen. The concept of local control seems to have been almost totally abandoned these days.
And it does, up to the point where it violates the Constitution. And when you insist on teaching Scripture-approved science, guess what?
The scientific method is a valid methodology for examining the world around us, whether your philosophical position is methodical naturalism, or design and creation. Neither world view is superior for the actual practice of science. It only influences the interpretation of the data.
That's true as far as it goes. However, many whose philosophical position is creation insist that the data be interpreted to fit that position--in other words, they start with the conclusion and force the data to fit. That ain't the scientific method.
What? You can't seriously be ready to tell me that Scripture has no place in public education? Teaching creation is not establishing a religion, it is not Congress passing a law concerning religion.
Whatever happened to the free exercise part of the First Amendment?
EXACTLY what secular humanists and atheists who practice science do.
That ain't the scientific method.
Then it applies to both sides of the debate.
You can't make good little socialists with it in the mix.
lmao @ you.
Be quiet, woman!
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.