Skip to comments.How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?
Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinisms tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
What would you expect from HYPOCRITES ... They PREACH the GOSPEL according to DARWIN, and then they create Government WELFARE Programs designed to THWART DARWINISM at Every turn.
A Darwin post that mentions Hitler in the first paragraph. You can’t get more FAIL than that.
Evolutionary theory is the only theory that never evolves.
How much longer can they sell Darwinism?
Pretty much as long as logic and good sense remain at least a portion of the thinking capacity of Americans and others.
Besides which, the price is right. It’s kinda like the cost of believing that the Earth is not flat, and that it goes around the sun.
Evolution changes constantly with each new discovery and each new theory. Creationism has remained static for 2000 years. Or should that be 6000 years?
Darwinism is just as sound as man-made Global Warming.
Can’t you see that.
As a practising Christian I really don’t see why people have their knickers in a twist over “Darwinism”.
Evolution an Creation are ideas that comfortably coexist. Evolution explains how things happened, and Creation explains why.
Replace the seven literal days with seven epochs, and adjust Noah’s flood to be a large-but-local event, and replace the “by chance” aspect of the Evolutionary methodology with “by the Holy Ghost” and everything makes perfect sense.
Moreso. Darwinism is just as sound as eugenics. Now there's a sound science.
But it’s for the children!
The believers in the religion of Science will never be convinced that their pernicious world view is just as destructive as Islam.
What a world we will live in when all that governs the affairs of men is the doctrine of the “survival of the fittest,” better stated as “the law of the jungle.”
Nonsense. Evolutionary theory today is far advanced from what Darwin originally proposed. Just to mention one item, Darwin had no concept of DNA analysis showing how closely various species are related.
Bottom line remains the same: the theory of evolution is science. "Creationism" (or whatever you guys call it these days) is not. End of discussion...
(See my Tagline)
Please tell me that in this forum, no one believes that human beings began life on this planet when God put Adam and Eve in a garden.
It never changes because it is based on presumptions that are never questioned. Creationism also never changes because it too is based on the opposite presumption that the world was created.
Although both have unquestioned presumptions, only one theory’s adherents are honest about adopting a presumption that is not questioned.
The Evolutionists are always looking for the missing link and missing it.
If man evolved fom apes, why are there still apes?
What a world we will live in when all that governs the affairs of men is the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, better stated as the law of the jungle."
Pure nonsense. The evil that rules some men's souls existed long before Darwin came along, and would still exist if Darwin's theory were somehow proved wrong.
The Bible says God created the heavens, earth and all its creatures. It does not say HOW He did it. Science, including Darwin, have been workking to understand that.
Bottom line: science is not a "religion," but "creationism" certainly is, and is NOT science.
I too held your belief rather strongly but my view is beginning to change and I found it interesting that a theologian who I respect deeply has changed a lifetime belief concerning the 6 day creation:
A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.
R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:
For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.
The framework hypothesis was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a framework into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged facts of science.
“Evolution an Creation are ideas that comfortably coexist.”
I could not agree more.
BTW, life w/o twisted knickers is preferable.. ;-)
Some people think UFO’s are real too if it sells pimp it.
Science is not wrong when it is true. Truth is God created the world.
"Survival of the fittest. And I get to decide who is fit."
Facts are the worlds data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einsteins theory of gravitation replaced Newtons, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwins proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
[...] Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould, Hens Teeth and Horses Toes
What about this sort of evil?
Evolutionary theory has changed from simple gradualism in Darwin's day to punctuated equilibrium as the most accepted interpretation today. Evolutionary theory is in the process of replacing concepts of probability and randomness with concepts of game theory and the assumption that behavior is a driving force in evolution. I'd say the theory has "evolved" considerably since Darwin's time.
Creationism itself has changed over time from the simplistic "God did it" hypothesis to incorporate mechanistic concepts like the largely discredited "irreducibility" theory. The truth is, creationism is evolving too.
People can close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and chant "Darwinism's coming to an end, Darwinism's coming to an end..." until they're blue in the face. If the science is still good they won't get anywhere.
Paleontologists are the folks who dig in the earth to find fossils of creatures long extinct. They also classify the bones according to families, genus-es & species. Based on their findings, they tell us that something like 99% of all species which ever existed have gone extinct.
I don't know the number of extinct species they've identified, but it's at least hundreds, probably thousands.
And EVERY ONE OF THEM could, in some sense, be called a "missing link." Of course, now that it's found and identified, it's no longer "missing" is it? ;-)
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted,
no sooner are they sown,
no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.
25 “To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.
Truth is not provable but it is knowable.
Very interesting. But, if apples can’t rise, how do they get up on the tree?
And besides that; if applesauce is true, why are there still apples?
But it has create two "missing links" on either side of it. "missing links" are increasing twice as fast as they are discovered. Take that, Darwin!
Eugenics is an example of what happens when politics misuses science, not that science is evil.
The truth is, both religion and science have been used as an excuse to destroy the hated other.
Why not say that it is an example of evil scientists? And, by the way, it was the scientists who were pushing for eugenics laws. Not the state pressuring the scientists.
Attempts to link evolution with Communism should be posted with a Keyboard Alert.
None of my ‘crevo’ friends would dare attempt that argument. Indeed, I suspect that were such an argument to be advanced, they would join me in calling the psychiatrist treating the person advancing the argument and ask that said persons’ meds be adjusted STAT.
“Evos = Commies ? ? ? ? ?
The key is to understand what presumptions we are accepting. As an individual and as a group (whether scientists, political, religious) we hold presumptions both consciously and unconsciously.
These presumptions establish the basis for our reasoning. These presumptions can lead to truth or they can lead to error.
We can arrive at a proof yet the proof can untrue because we have started with untrue presumptions.
The potential that science and religion have for arriving at untruths is they are both unaware of their presumptions and that changes in these presumptions will bring about different proofs.
The major presumption that creationists adhere to is the 6 day creation. One that is debatable. The major presumption that evolutionists use is that all creation cannot be the product of God or any other intelligence.
They want activism and unatural subsidy of their politics in the name of natural selection... indeed.
This is the essence itself of witchcraft and its evil yoke. “Natural” remedies at a high price.
Sadly, the practice of weeding out the unfit goes back to ancient times. One thinks of the Greeks exposing their children, or of Spartan military training, where only the fittest survived boyhood.
And sadly, the practice of exterminating whole families, tribes, nations & races goes back to the beginnings of history, if not before. Technologies & ideologies change, but the results were the same.
Mankind didn't need Darwin to practice evil.
Of course, which is why I am posting on a thread about Lamarckism.
On the other hand:
"The influence primarily responsible for the modern eugenics movement was the establishment of the doctrine of organic evolution following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859."
- Samuel J. Holmes, Human Genetics, 1936, chapter 25.
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.