Here, just for you, the grammar police...
Posted on 06/13/2009 9:29:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“Likewise, since evos reject the truth of the Bible, we can assume that they don’t go to church or pray. “
—Interesting, I know a LOT of evolutionists who do.
I'm not so sure about that, that most Christians are Darwinists. Considering the numbers that keep showing up in polls, belief in creation is still ahead of belief in evolution.
And especially within the realm of scientists, the number of Christian Darwinists vastly outnumber the Creationists.
As a movement, Darwinism is atheistic. Darwins own works lend credence to that, as referred to in other posts GGG has posted.
Not all who ascribe to the ToE are atheists, but all atheists are, of necessity, evolutionists.
It’s the same reasoning as assuming that people who don’t accept the ToE interpretation of the fossil record don’t go to doctors, or are hypocrites if they do.
Rejection of the current interpretation of the fossil record (that it demonstrates speciation) does not equate to a rejection of science as a whole.
Acceptance of the creation account in the book of Genesis does not equate to rejection of science as a whole.
Those evos who try to force Christians/creationists into a corner through what they consider logic, or accusing them of hypocrisy, are never going to succeed because they are starting out witht eh wrong premise to begin with.
If you reject the ToE then you must reject all science as a whole, is not logic, it’s just wishful thinking.
>>Going after creation, which isn’t even taught in schools any more without threat of lawsuit, is like trying to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer.<<
You’re right.
Abandoning thread.
Maybe we’ll meet up on a AGW fad science thread (which I suspect we agree on).
Here, just for you, the grammar police...
“From Darwinism’s earliest days to today, many of the top Darwinist scientists have been Christian. Also, most Christians are Darwinists, and most Darwinists are Christian. And especially within the realm of scientists, the number of Christian Darwinists vastly outnumber the Creationists.”
I don’t know what the source of this information is, however is not very accurate in the following way. Was the designation of Christian defined, were these scientists Christian through a born again faith in Jesus Christ or were they Christian by heritage. There is quite a bit of difference. If the data you draw this claim from was not properly parsed it would be misleading.
“If you can’t get your facts right, at least get your grammar right.”
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Maybe in socialist, post-Christian Europe, but certainly not in the United States. And note, these Gallop polls pertain to all Americans. The numbers who believe in biblical creation goes way up if you just count regular church attenders.
| Belief system> | Creationist view | Theistic evolution | Naturalistic Evolution |
|
Beliefs-->
Year |
God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. | Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. | Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. |
| 1982-JUL | 44% | 38% | 9% |
| 1993-JUN | 47 | 35 | 11 |
| 1997-NOV | 44 | 39 | 10 |
| 1999-AUG | 47 | 40 | 9 |
| 2001-FEB | 45 | 37 | 12 |
| 2004-NOV | 45 | 38 | 13 |
Why would Darwinism not suffer from the biases, prejudices and systemic errors as does AWG?
An even more pointed question would be how many archaeologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and all the other “ ‘gists” who confidently say evolution as fact can no longer be questioned also accept the same thing about AWG?
And those who do? What does this say about their ability to judge what is factual, what is scientific?
“I’m not so sure about that, that most Christians are Darwinists. Considering the numbers that keep showing up in polls, belief in creation is still ahead of belief in evolution.”
—If we are talking about America, I would agree it’s a close call. Depending on who’s doing the poll (hard to say why, either bias of those doing the poll, or perhaps how the questions are worded) the percentage of those who espouse Creationism wavers between 40-60% (with it usually being closer to 40%).
But worldwide it looks like the number of Christian Darwinists have a large edge of Creationists.
“As a movement, Darwinism is atheistic. Darwins own works lend credence to that, as referred to in other posts GGG has posted.”
—I’m not familiar with that movement. Do you mean the effort to keep Creationism out of science class? Many of the top leaders of that movement are Christian - such as Kenneth Miller (who testified as the Dover trial), Keith Miller, and Francis Collins (who was head of the effort to sequence the human genome, and is currently probably the biggest opponent of DI).
Darwin was an atheist, but so what? It’s not as if Darwinism would be Buddhist if he happened to be Buddhist. One of the earliest Darwinists, and one of Darwin’s closest friends and confidants, and the leading Darwinist in America, was Asa Gray - and was a very open devout Christian.
“Not all who ascribe to the ToE are atheists, but all atheists are, of necessity, evolutionists.”
—I will admit that atheists who aren’t evolutionists are extremely rare (I have run into one or two over the years) - but you’ll much sooner find an atheist non-evolutionist than an atheist geocentrict. And geocentricists aren’t that rare - I’ve been to literally hundreds of geocentric websites (that was one of my favorite things to do upon first getting on the Internet) and there are geocentric organizations. And (AFAIK), they are ALL Creationists. I have never seen an atheist geocentricst.
(There’s almost nothing on the Internet that would shock me anymore - but an atheist arguing for geocentricism might still do it.)
Does this thus mean that heliocentricity is atheistic?
"This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9968
Amen, gscc
Refresh my memory Goodusername. Didn’t you claim to be an atheist on a different thread?
==And especially within the realm of scientists, the number of Christian Darwinists vastly outnumber the Creationists.
That’s because most of them have never even seriously considered the Creation/ID alternative, as the vast majority of scientists who started out Darwinists and then changed their minds will attest to. It should also be noted, that the vast majority of scientists have been brainwashed with Temple of Darwin propaganda from the time they enter grade school all the way until they earn their PhDs. As such, it really shouldn’t be all that much of a surprise that Christians who become scientists take Darwinism for granted. However, when they take it upon themselves to compare Darwinism to Biblical Creation, many scientists conclude that Darwinism is both unbiblical and unscientific. And while their is a wide variety of opinions in ID with respect to God and the Bible, ID scientists also hold that Darwinism is unscientific.
And given the implications of Darwin’s atheist creation myth, it really shouldn’t be surprising that the higher a scientist climbs the ranks of science, the more likely they are to be an atheist:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
Conversely, those scientists who openly doubt Darwinian evolution, and point to the massive amount of evidence that points to a higher intelligence are generally punished and/or driven from the profession by intolerant Temple of Darwin fanatics:
http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/index.php?p=20case_studies
Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This is the first and foremost apologetic. If a person stumbles on this one profound truth, a lifetime of doubt and confusion lies ahead for him, full of uncertainty about the ultimate purpose for being alive. But when a Christian attempts to alter this ultimate statement of reality to fit the compromising philosophies of men--even scientifically-trained professionals--then woe to him for his unbelief and, even graver still, for teaching others that unbelief. The following article by the late Dr. Henry Morris, published some years back, contains a timeless warning about the failure of Christian scientists who compromise the truth. Today, the names of Christian leaders who advocate compromise in the Genesis record are different, but the precipice on which they stand is just as dangerous. -- Lawrence Ford, Executive Editor
The basic conflict of the ages is between the two worldviews of evolutionism versus creationism. In its most explicit form, this conflict comes down to biblical revelatory creationism versus evolutionary humanism. The only book even claiming to deal authoritatively with this supernatural creation of the space/time cosmos is the Bible, and there the Creator personally inscribed His explicit summary of creation, as follows: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11; see also Exodus 31:15-18).
Evolutionary humanism, on the other hand, purports to explain the origin and development of the cosmos entirely by natural processes innate to the universe itself. In its current form, evolutionism says that the cosmos came into existence as an evolutionary accident, a "quantum fluctuation of some pre-existent state of nothingness." From this remarkable beginning, it evolved through a stage of cosmic inflation, then explosive expansion and eventual formation of elements, stars, planets, animals, and people--all by natural evolutionary processes.
The road of compromise looks attractive at first, but long experience has proved it to be a one-way street. The evolutionists at the end of the road are never satisfied until their opponents travel all the way to the atheistic void at its end.
Charles Darwin set the pattern. Starting out as a Bible-believing creationist, he first became enamored of Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism and his "progressive creationism." Soon he abandoned the Bible and creationism altogether, moving on into the domain of theistic evolutionism. Eventually he became an agnostic and finally an atheist.
Many others in his day followed this compromise road. Darwin's chief opponents, in fact, were scientists, not the theologians of his day.
Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, it is widely believed that the church was a bitter opponent of evolution.1
Whole denominations and their religious colleges and seminaries were teaching evolution during Darwin's lifetime, and multitudes of more fundamental Christians were accommodating the evolutionary ages of geology by their "gap theory," "local flood theory," and other devices of artificial biblical exegesis.
But did such compromises ever persuade the evolutionists to meet them half way? The present state of the schools and colleges and the intellectual community in general is the obvious answer.
Science and religion are dramatically opposed at their deepest philosophical levels. And because the two world views make claims to the same intellectual territory--that of the origin of the universe and humankind’s relation to it--conflict is inevitable.2
Despite the attempts by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are antithetical concepts.3
Despite these lessons of the past, most modern Christians seem oblivious to the fact that all their different accommodational schemes were discredited a hundred years ago and that none of them ever budged the evolutionary establishment from its base of total naturalism.
A good modern example is found in the writings of Davis Young. As a beginning graduate student, Dr. Young originally believed in a literal six-day creation and flood geology. Under the guidance of his Princeton professors, however, he converted to "progressive creationism" and the venerable "day-age theory" of Genesis. This position he strongly advocated in two influential books.4, 5 He did acknowledge, however, that the "natural" interpretation of Genesis, as well as the teaching of the early Christians and the Protestant reformers, was the literal interpretation. He had simply decided this had to be abandoned because of its supposed geological difficulties.
His progressive creationism did not even satisfy his theistic-evolutionary colleagues at Calvin College, however, let alone his geological peers at the secular universities. So how far was he willing to travel down this road?
I further suggest that both literalism and concordism have outlived their usefulness, and that these approaches should be abandoned for a newer approach that does not try to answer technical scientific questions with biblical data.6
By "literalism," Young means taking the six days of creation as literal days and the flood as worldwide in geological effects, the position advocated by most scientific creationists. By "concordism," he means any theory (gap theory, day-age theory, etc.) that attempts to develop a concordance between the creation record in Genesis 1 and the geological ages.
I suggest that we will be on the right track if we stop treating Genesis 1 and the flood story as scientific and historic reports.7
This approach is essentially that advocated by Christian "liberals" a century ago and now taught in most mainline seminaries.
Also consider the reception accorded the 48-page booklet Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, first published in 1986 by the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) and distributed free to over 60,000 science teachers. The booklet accepts the geological ages and much of evolution, but argues that the process was designed by God, advocating progressive creationism and/or theistic evolutionism as a compromise approach that should satisfy both creationists and evolutionists.
The response of the academic community was almost totally negative. Biologist William Bennetta edited a collection of essays "from leading evolutionists" reviewing the ASA publication, and they all attack it as viciously as they do the strict creationism of ICR.8 Lynn Margulis says:
The result is treacherous. Authentic scientific and didactic principles have been put to nefarious use, for the writers' ultimate purpose is to coax us to believe in the ASA's particular creation myth.9
Stephen Gould, Niles Eldredge, Douglas Futuyma, Michael Ghiselin, and others all contributed bitterly negative critiques to this collection of reviews. The anti-creationist Committees of Correspondence also came down hard on the booklet,10 followed by a rather plaintive response by Walter Hearn, one of the booklet's co-authors, complaining that the ASA was merely trying to defend evolutionism against the scientific creationists.11
This is ironic. The compromising creationists are attacked as viciously as the strict creationists, by those with whom they are trying to compromise. And in the process, they are rejecting the plain teaching of the Word of God. Even the secular evolutionists can see this.
Cheer Number One goes to the creationists for serving rational religion by demonstrating beautifully that we must take the creation stories of Genesis at face value….Many Christians have taken the dishonest way of lengthening the days into millions of years, but the creationists make it clear that such an approach is nothing but a makeshift that is unacceptable biblically and scientifically….Creationists deserve Cheer Number Two for serving rational religion by effectively eliminating "theistic evolution." …Creationists rightly insist that evolution is inconsistent with a God of love….Three cheers, then, for the creationists, for they have cleared the air of all dodges, escapes, and evasions made by Christians who adopt non-literal interpretations of Genesis and who hold that evolution is God's method of creation.12
The road of compromise, however attractive it seems, is a one-way street, ending in a precipice and then the awful void of "rational religion," or atheism. Our advice is to stay on the straight and narrow road of the pure Word of God.
References
Isa. 5:21. See post #29 and buy that man a mirror!
I worship God. I do not worship dead Darwin or what passes for science in gummint skewels and the lame stream media. Nor shall I in this lifetime or ever. However God decided to handle creation is fine by me. If God's creation were able to be repeated in man's laboratory, then man would be God. Our scientific patheticos are disappointed since they cannot create in their laboratories as God created in reality. They conclude that there must be no God since they themselves are manifestly and provably not God.
My belief structure does not rest on the fantasies of such people gullible enough to reject the existence of God as though that rejection were "scientific" dogma. The beliefs of such folks are manifestly ridiculous, irredeemably irrelevant and unworthy of consideration by anyone rational enough to accept the existence and primacy of God. If science is not a search for TRUTH, then it is a search for the opposite. God is TRUTH. The Darwins, Hawkings, and Sagans are not as Sagan and Darwin, being dead but experiencing the afterlife that they rejected in life, are now fully aware. If you want to believe in the Darwinian "faith", feel free. The First Amendment protects your devotion to the failed Oxford theology student cum "scientist" Darwin and all his works and all his pomps, who and which are an ongoing embarrassment to his addled love slaves, as much as it protects orthodox belief in the One True God.
As to who constitutes the majority, I hope you are not a betting man. If you are, don't bet the family homestead on your eccentric theory and hobby.
“Refresh my memory Goodusername. Didn’t you claim to be an atheist on a different thread?”
—Yes, I am. I don’t think I said anything to imply otherwise.
“That’s because most of them have never even seriously considered the Creation/ID alternative, as the vast majority of scientists who started out Darwinists and then changed their minds will attest to. It should also be noted, that the vast majority of scientists have been brainwashed with Temple of Darwin propaganda from the time they enter grade school all the way until they earn their PhDs. As such, it really shouldn’t be all that much of a surprise that Christians who become scientists take Darwinism for granted.”
—That’s a poor attempt at mind reading and psychology, as well as a silly ad hom (and - if I may play psychologist for a moment - probably a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance of realizing that the very people who you think SHOULD be Creationists, the professionals who study nature, are precisely the people who are the very least likely to be Creationist.)
Did Darwin have descendants??? If so............
LOL...that may be the problem...he has fallen in love with what he sees.
Judges 17:6
Proverbs 14:12
Jeremiah 17:9
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.