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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-258 next last
To: Jaime2099

*I don’t feel the same way about the theories of physics; it’s an actual science. *

You brought up physics up at post 61.


81 posted on 04/16/2009 8:12:45 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Well we are rather hard on those who say germ theory is wrong, the Earth is in the center of the universe, the Earth is 10,000 years old or that the Sun goes around the Earth.

And theories are questioned all the time - that you will not take the time and effort required to read the journals in which such debates take place isn’t something that anyone can fix for you. You will have to take it upon yourself to do independent research which is something I am not sure you are willing to do.


82 posted on 04/16/2009 8:15:54 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: metmom

How did I get pinged?


83 posted on 04/16/2009 8:23:59 PM PDT by mbraynard (You are the Republican Party. See you at the precinct meeting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
I’d be satisfied if the teachers/textbooks would not state the most current theories as facts, but as working hypotheses

Well, there's a difference between facts, theories, and hypotheses. I certainly wouldn't mind a science course that covered those differences and said that most of what we think we understand about how the universe works is theories. It's singling out evolution that I object to.

a few paragraphs detailing the most common objections to evolutionary theory and the most popular creation science arguments. These could be presented as theories, as well. I think that would be perfectly fair

It sounds fair, but objections to a theory and popular arguments do not themselves make a theory--they're not even hypotheses. Hypotheses are derived from observations, not from forcing observations to fit into a pre-existing belief.

84 posted on 04/16/2009 9:10:24 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
By way of explanation, I quote Jennifer F., of Conversion Diary, also a former atheist:

I'm happy for Jennifer. But someone getting butterflies in their stomach is not a basis for science instruction, and her assertion about information is just that. It's of no more use than my saying "Can too!" would be.

The fact that I teach that God created it and is the Designer of it doesn’t take away from the scientific facts necessary to work with DNA.

One might say the same thing about evolution, seems to me.

85 posted on 04/16/2009 9:13:57 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 56newblog
KEEP religion “OUT” of public schools.

The problem is, a religious viewpoint ALWAYS will be put forth in school - whether it's a Christian denominational view or secular humanism or something else. It's unavoidable. So, as long as there are schools run by the government and thus funded by the taxpayers, people will have this debate over religion in schools.

The only solution is for all education to be bought and sold in the free market/private sector. That way, people can choose (and pay for) schools that support their own religious faith, whatever it may be.

86 posted on 04/16/2009 9:43:25 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; snarks_when_bored
GGG:I’m happy to report that Maxwell was a Christian creationist: http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_3.htm#maxwell

From your link: Clerk Maxwell opposed any philosophy (like the new Darwinian evolution) that exalted itself against the God of creation...

But there's no citation or actual quote... and it would seem odd that one of the greatest 19th Century scientists would hold the same simple-minded beliefs of modern American creationists...and he didn't.

Maxwell was in fact a devout Christian who had deep interest in and sophisticated knowledge of the theological issues and controversies of his day, he took science seriously, and was not about to limit scientific investigations or conclusions into anyone's "literal" scriptural beliefs. He refused multiple offers to join the Victoria Institute, the more high-toned Victorian version of today's A.I.G. or D.I., saying,


87 posted on 04/16/2009 11:50:50 PM PDT by Inappropriate Laughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“getting butterflies in their stomach is not a basis for science instruction,”

Yes, I don’t think “butterflies” qualifies. Recognizing an Intelligent Designer rather than chaos does, though. No butterflies required, just admitting the obvious.

When I see a wristwatch, it would be ridiculous for me to think the components all assembled themselves. But somehow we are supposed to believe the human eye, the ecosystem, photosynthesis, and every other intricately designed system or item in the universe just up and went at it.

And yes, I can be taught about DNA from an evolutionary thinker and still learn something. I don’t deny it.


88 posted on 04/17/2009 12:08:50 AM PDT by Marie2 (The capacity for self-government is a moral quality. Only a moral people can be free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

“Passing off 30 year old information as current fact borders on the dishonest - especially when a 5 minute search would show that you got them wrong.”

I was taught evolutionary theory all through my childhood. Mentioning a couple of examples from my junior high and high school classes is not dishonest.

“It would be the same as if I tried to pass off 150 year old Biblical interpretations as correct.”

There would be nothing dishonest about that. Basic Christian doctrine has not changed.


89 posted on 04/17/2009 12:10:43 AM PDT by Marie2 (The capacity for self-government is a moral quality. Only a moral people can be free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“Hypotheses are derived from observations, not from forcing observations to fit into a pre-existing belief.”

There are plenty of observations that form creation science, not Scripture alone.

You may not agree with the creationist interpretation of the observations, and I may not agree with the evolutionist interpretation of the observations. But observations galore exist in both schools of thought.


90 posted on 04/17/2009 12:12:19 AM PDT by Marie2 (The capacity for self-government is a moral quality. Only a moral people can be free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Here I am apologizing for the fact that scientists figured out all about bumblebee flight without telling me, and I become curious. I start searching around to see the explanation and lo and behold: "Finally, Dickinson discovered that wake capture—the collision of the wing with the swirling wake of the previous wing stroke—assists in the flight of insects. Each stroke of the wing leaves behind a complex of vortices. When the wing reverses direction, it passes back through this churning air. A wake contains energy lost from the insect to the air, so wake capture provides a way for the insect to recover energy. Scientists still do not know every intricacy involved in the flight of bumblebees and other insects. REFERENCES Dickinson, Michael (2001), “Solving the Mystery of Insect Flight,” [On-line], URL: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EE5B1-DCA8-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21. Macphee, Kona (2001) “The Buzz on Bumblebees,” [On-line], URL: http://pass.maths.org.uk/issue17/news/bumble. Peterson, Ivars (1997), “Flight of the Bumblebee,” [On-line], URL: http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathland_3_31.html. Segelken, Roger (2000), “Bumblebees Finally Cleared for Takeoff,” [On-line], URL: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_Wang.hrs.html.
91 posted on 04/17/2009 12:17:37 AM PDT by Marie2 (The capacity for self-government is a moral quality. Only a moral people can be free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jaime2099
Since when does something being religious stop scientists from using it? Human Evolution is a false religion, yet somehow it is science. What a joke.

The joke is presenting Genesis as scientific fact.

92 posted on 04/17/2009 4:04:07 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 56newblog

“There are very “wise” reasons why the founding fathers saw the need for separation of church and state.”

Time to further your education on this point. The founding fathers never included the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ into any official documents, and although the majority of law schools now teach it a fact nothing could be further from the truth.

You might want to re-read the constitution and amendments before you go spouting off again. Congress is not allowed to make any laws favoring nor limiting any religous teachings. Most of the founding fathers held some very strong religous beliefs and in spite of what Obama recently stated our heritage is very deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values. WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION - that is what makes us unique among nations and where most of our people draw their strength and inspiration.


93 posted on 04/17/2009 5:11:58 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

Maybe because all of the other realms of science are comprised of more science rather than conjecture and wishful thinking.


94 posted on 04/17/2009 5:15:08 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
MY question is if you allow Christian beliefs taught in the schools, what about the Hindus or the Buddists, or any other religion that doesn't reflect any belief in a 'creationism' world?

The fact is, we are a parasite on this rock, fortunate enough to have a brain to develop technologies to improve our lives. And that existence will end not by some etheral entity but by some cosmic catastrophy that has visited this planet before. We have seen what that might entail right here in our own solar system with Hale-Bopp.

Those innovations, the use of tools, the ability to create, the knowledge of fire, and the ability to think in abstact terms, seperates us from most other inhabitants of this planet.

The pleasant poetry of Genisis only simplifies what has been a continuing, complex and evolutionary change for man.

95 posted on 04/17/2009 5:48:21 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 94 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Marie2
I certainly wouldn't mind a science course that covered those differences and said that most of what we think we understand about how the universe works is theories. It's singling out evolution that I object to.

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.

The ToE is the only theory that raises this kind of ire when challenged.

96 posted on 04/17/2009 5:56:16 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
MY question is if you allow Christian beliefs taught in the schools, what about the Hindus or the Buddists, or any other religion that doesn't reflect any belief in a 'creationism' world?

The bigger question might be, why teach religious beliefs in a science class at all? Perhaps a curriculum on Comparative Religion has a place in a History or Humanities or Classic Literature class and could be very instructive and worthwhile if done correctly and with respect that not everyone believes the same thing.

But an even bigger question might be if Fundamentalist, YEC, Christian beliefs such as those promoted by AIG and CMI are taught, is it to the exclusion of the beliefs of many other Christians? Or Jews for that matter?

http://creation.com/what-we-believe

There are even Creationists who do not believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. So which “doctrine” (oops, I’m mean “alternative theory”) gets taught? Some of them? All of them?

My mother was Catholic and grew up in Harrisburg PA and attended public school during the 1930’s. She told me about an elementary school teacher she had who would often make disparaging remarks in the classroom about Catholics, calling them “Candle Burners” and “Idol Worshippers” and not in a joking or ribbing sort of way and egging on other students to pile on. She also told me how some of her Jewish classmates and friends were treated. She also had an aunt who lost her teaching job only because some parents complained that she was a Catholic.

The simple fact is that AIG, CMI, The Discovery Institute, etc., et all, are not interested in science or in honest debate. They want their religious POV taught and nothing more.
97 posted on 04/17/2009 6:31:04 AM PDT by Caramelgal (When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

And evos wonder why nobody takes them at face value about the ToE.


98 posted on 04/17/2009 6:39:57 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Still think it hasn’t changed?


99 posted on 04/17/2009 7:05:29 AM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

We know more about the ToE then we do gravity.


100 posted on 04/17/2009 7:06:09 AM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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