Skip to comments.Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom
Posted on 07/05/2008 5:23:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
I applaud the Governor for his stand to allow all to be taught, as free people in a free nation.
When I a freshman took a course in Geology in the fall of 1953, I was astonded that the order of evolution was in harmony with the Bible’s order of creation, at the time I thought this was reasonable.
About 7 years later (1960) In my research, I read “Enspiration vs Evolution” by Dr. W. B. Riley, (copywrite 1923). He pointed out that in Darwin’s Theory it is stated over several hundred times, “we may well assume.” In the Holy Scriptures it is stated over and over, “thus saith the Lord.” (Shall we live on assumptions, or by every word of God?)
Dr. Riley also taught the results of teaching evolution as a fact, and the results of teaching creation. He said, those that are taught evolution, in lieu of creation, would turn to Athesism, Communism,and Anarcy. And that has, and is happening.
God’s word, and His creation have lasted thousands of years,
and our children (as well as adults) are taught “In the beginning God” and the the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and he became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)
Yes, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” (Psalm 33:6)
A blessed result of teaching creation (God’s word) is given in Proverbs 16:6, “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”
I do not think we should teach religion in science class in public schools and I do not think that churches should have to teach anything they don't want to.
My point was that there are many competing religious beliefs and scientific facts that contradict Genesis. Based on your logic of academic freedom, churches logically should have to offer competing ideas too.
You objected, not on academic freedom grounds, but suggested that support from taxpayers was the determining factor.
I demonstrated that churches ARE supported by taxpayers and you agreed.
Therefore, logically, both churches AND schools should be forced to offer alternatives or NEITHER should. I prefer neither, but since you promote creationism in schools, you logically support evolution in churches
Some churches do, but it not ordained to do so. The church
was founded for and by the Lord Jesus Christ. He said, “I will build My church” and It is written, “Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” And He promised to “present it without wrinkle and without spot.”
As to teaching in other nations, I would allow them to teach here, as they allowed us to teach in their countries.
If they will not allow us to teach, neither should we allow
(and some are even subidized by and established by our taxes)them to teach in our nation.
The claim that there are no transitional forms is creationist propaganda. They refuse to see those transitionals, hence they don't exist.
This is an example of a transitional:
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Now that teachers can't be disciplined for critical thinking and objective discussion there is nothing to prevent them from critically examining religious beliefs.
A young earth and the global flood should be among the easiest to apply critical thinking and objective discussion to.
There is no credible scientific evidence supporting either belief, and teachers will now be free to state this. And there's absolutely nothing the fundamentalists can do about it because of the silly law they just got passed.
Yes. And then the class would discuss these theories and find them to be false. That's called "critical thinking," my friend.
Now I'll go in the corner and shut up, as you'd like.
If that were so, why has the theory of evolution changed (dare I say evolved) over the years as more fossil evidence has been gathered? Darwin provided examples of slow continuous evolution and that was mainstream evolutionary theory for years. However, the twentieth century theory of punctuated equilibrium better explains much, but not all, of later fossil finds.
This is how the left wins the public argument - by appealing to people’s sense of emotion - i.e sympothy. Emotion wins everytime - this is how we have homos, minorities and women dictating policy to the majority. Rather than a colorblind society we have race, sexual preference and gender based discrimintion.
IF the right wants to win the cultural war they will unfortunately have to engage people from an emotional (ie. sympathy) level. People are sheep and for the most part idiots. In fact the more educated one is, the less common sense they have.
We agree on both of these points. I *think* where we differ is what is being advocated here. I do not believe that "religion" is being required to be taught in science class. I do believe, though, that the weaknesses and strengths of any theory, or belief system, should be taught when that theory or belief system is taught.
Part of the teaching the weaknesses of evolution could include (NOT "should"), religious beliefs of various peoples. While this part would not be science, the exposure of the theory's weaknesses would be the science being discussed.
Only if you referee doesn't know the difference between school district taxes and tax exmpt institutions. By your reducto ad absurdum, we could put the tax exempt ACLU in the same camp and start regulating it, and I am sure you wouldn't want that, 'cause then they wouldn't have the fund to sue taxpayers who do not vote they way they like.
Every single one of your examples can be shown as nonsense by repeatable experimentation in the here and now. Evolution, as a theory of what happened in the (very) distant past, cannot be directly tested by repeatable contemporary experimentation, in the good old here and now.
As a theory of history...not at all subject to direct observation and experimentation, (and by it's own hypothesis actually pre-historic...) Darwinism is unique in science, in that so many scientists hold to it as firmly as gravity, and yet unlike gravity, and practically everything else in science (since it is claimed evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years), no one can directly test it.
It's no wonder that the most ardent evolutionary scientists are atheists, and, virtually all atheists are evolutionists. All religious beliefs have a philosophy of history, and Darwinism is no exception.
Maybe that is the reason the Dr. Provine is at Cornell,instead of Harvard or Yale. Knowing the founders of Harvard believed that “All knowledge without Christ was vain.” And yet still on the college seal the motto, “For Christ and the Church.
And Yale had a primary goal of, “Every student shall consider the main end of his study to wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly, sober life.”
Would to God these were true today, at all our Universities, we would have worthy goals and purposes.
I didn’t use taxpayer support as a determining factor, my opponent did.
The weaknesses of scientific theories including evolution IS being tought in science class. Darwin did it himself. You cannot offer religious objections in schools unless the religious objections can be argued based on scientific evidence. ID offers no proof at all; no evidence. It isn't science so teach it in church
Ive seen this example provided by you in a previous thread. If I remember correctly, you never replied to my refutation. To illustrate the inadequacy of this example, I would ask you how many genetic mutations were involved in the evolution of this species from the previous one, and what are the corresponding phenotypes?
This one questionable example of yours is like trying to stop a hurricane with a single bag of sand.
In order to give a minimum amount of credibility to evolutionism, fossil evidence of transitional forms must be found at least in the tens of thousands, but preferably in the tens of millions.
I challenge you to provide just ten separate examples of transitional forms.
If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found.
-Duane T. Gish, in his book The Fossils Still Say No.
More from Gish:
Errol White, an evolutionist and expert on fishes, in his presidential address on lungfishes to the Linnean Society of London, said: But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing Later he went on to say, I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.
If you read Gishs book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms. Not just transitional forms between fish and amphimbians, but also between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and all the countless species between which transitional forms must have existed in the path of commmon descent if evolution is true.
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.