Posted on 08/05/2009 11:15:25 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Today’s top-selling biology textbooks present evolution as the only scientific view of the history of life. Often these textbooks use faulty or deceptive evidences to support evolutionary ideas. Fortunately, students can easily equip themselves with free materials that dissect textbooks and reveal the truth...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Glad you admit that. There is no good reason to bring the Spanish Inquisition into the crevo debates.
Bringing it in makes the one who does it just as much a loser in the debate as the first one to invoke Hitler.
Creationists: 1
xcamel:
And no evo has ever provided one shred of evidence to the contrary.
All we get is *Public school kids are better for having evolution taught because I say so*, *It HAS to be better because God is not invoked.*
And when asked for evidence it's........ *crickets*.....
“they need to be equipped to understand why evolution fails as a scientific theory and how it directly contradicts the truth we find in the Bible. “
The ‘truth’ is that the earth is flat. Does the guide include how to combat the teaching that the earth is not flat?
So when they grow up, they are smarter than you.
And you have never provided one shred of evidence that teaching creationism is a significant factor in the performance of homeschoold kids.
On that note, let's have a reading from the Scopes trial textbook, Hunter's Civic Biology.
"...anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage..." -- Hunter, Civic Biology, pg.195And here is something from the popular pre-WW2 textbook Applied Eugenics by Darwinians Popenoe and Johnson:"Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families are very severe. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money... They take from society, but give nothing in return. They are true parasites. If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading..." -- pg.263
To-day, how is it? The inefficients, the wastrels, the physical, mental, and moral cripples are carefully preserved at public expense. The criminal is turned out on parole after a few years, to become the father of a family. The insane is discharged as "cured," again to take up the duties of citizenship. The feeble-minded child is painfully "educated," often at the expense of his normal brother or sister. In short, the undesirables of the race, with whom the bloody hand of natural selection would have made short work early in life, are now nursed along to old age.Click here to learn the truth about evolutionary scientistsThe social heritage of the Negro has been described at great length and often with little regard for fact, by hundreds of writers. Only a glance can be given the subject here, but it may profitably be asked what the Negro did when he was left to himself in Africa. If the number of original contributions which it has made to the world's civilization is any fair criterion of the relative value of a race, then the Negro race must be placed very near zero on the scale. As a result of the careful measurement of many skulls, Karl Pearson has come to the following conclusions: "There is for the best ascertainable characters a continuous relationship from the European skull, through prehistoric European, prehistoric Egyptian, Congo-Gaboon Negroes to Zulus and Kafirs. The indication is that of a long differentiated evolution, in which the Negro lies nearer to the common stem than the European; he is nearer to the childhood of man."
I think you’ve outdone yourself this time.
I can’t grasp your weird pretzel logic about how since god has been removed from science class that that is now the reason Americans are underperforming in science class?
This was particularly awesome: “BEFORE the evo-cultist godless liberals hi-jacked education, you know, once upon a time when God wasn’t forced out via political correctness...???? Science flourished just fine. In fact, better than ever.”
Indeed. Science “was fine” in your world when we thought evil spirits caused the flu and fire was magic.
It’s a shame, really, because I think we agree on the liberal takeover of public school curriculae. However, since science is science and not supernaturalism, you’re still nuts.
Please explain the intelligence of creating the horsehair worm?
The ID movement was invented to say that not all of evolution was 'unguided'. They try to insert certain examples (the eye for one) that they say was too complex to have evolved. It always amazes me how YEC'ers buddy up to the ID'ers when they are incompatible tenents.
"Now it is easy for some advocates of Darwinism to say that the law of Natural Selection, as defined by Mr. Darwin, is in some sense, a God-ordained law, and directed by Him in its general working... But Mr. Darwin tells us that the use of the words "plan of creation" or "unity of design" are marks of ignorance. In other words, there is no "plan of creation," there is no "unity of design" in the Darwinian hypothesis." [Charmichael, Design and Darwinism, 1880]Get them here."it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main element of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes... and yet retain his faith in Christ." [Hodge, What is Darwinism, 1874]
—As an atheist myself, I’m not advocating intelligent design; but I will say I don’t see a conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design. Darwinism merely says that species arise through natural forces. Thus Darwinism is no more an argument against God or intelligent design than, say, theories of how rainbows or snowflakes form naturally.
Some more viewing for your list:
The Case for a Creator
and
The case for Faith,
and I think also
The Case for Christ,
all by Lee Stroebel.
Your search - projectoillogic - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Well, thinking that monkeys change into people by accident and that everyone is a fortuitous meat-byproduct of mindless processes, is not much of an improvement.
“You’ve already posted all the evidence I need”.
Well, honestly everyone knew that...and not just me, but dozens of people have illustrated evidence for you on the most elementary of terms; now if you’d simply embrace it.
For just once.
But then again, if we were being honest, evidence has never ever been the issue anyway.
What?
What is this, tit for tat?
I’ll go one better with comparable(?) numbers of children actually attending school (it would be interesting to see how many children are enrolled in school in Afghanistan and this hellishly failed U.S. liberal city):
Detroit.
Where your way has resulted in 26% of kindergarteners actually graduating H.S., or with a less than 50% literacy rate for adults.
And this is a place where girls ARE allowed to go to school.
With a “stable” govt. (I know, I know, it’s a stretch but...) where the girls aren’t owned like property, with a relatively decent food supply, etc. etc. etc., all the obstacles, or most anyway removed...for the most part, and where inner city ‘troit kids aren’t living in the 7th century.
Are you sure you want to go down this road?
“Perhaps I’m missing that part of Darwinism that allows or raises the possibility that other than entirely naturalist forces produces evolution.”
—Why would saying that evolution is a natural (or even entirely natural) process preclude design or purpose? To do so, Darwinism would have to somehow preclude design and purpose from the laws of nature, which of course it doesn’t. Darwinism says nothing about where the laws of nature came from, it’s merely a theory as to what occurs as a result of those laws. In this sense it’s no different than any other scientific theory.
“And perhaps I missed Collin’s statement on Christ’s being an evolutionist, too. Where did he say that?”
—Oh, that part I don’t know about. I’m guessing he’d say Jesus was, but I’m not sure if he ever mentioned that.
“Indeed many advocates of intelligent design do not see any conflict between that belief and Darwinism but they also carefully avoid the identification of the intelligence with a god such as the Bible describes. I understand their reasons for so doing.”
—Collins is very open and vocal that the God of the Bible is the Creator and used evolution. So are many other leading Darwinist scientists, such as Keith Miller, and Kenneth Miller (who like Collins wrote a book on the subject, “Finding Darwin’s God”).
“If there were no conflict between the teachings of Christianity and evolutionary theory or explanation for human origins then I would think there would be no need to develop something like NOMA to simply say, in a bit more polite terms, “mind your own business and stay out of ours”.”
—I think the idea of NOMA is silly myself. Just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean that they have to bud out of religious matters; their religious thoughts are worth no more or less than anyone else’s. And if someone’s religious beliefs happens to include ideas that are contrary to what most scientists believe, such as that atoms don’t exist, or that the moon is cheese, I don’t think crying “NOMA” is going to convince them to remove those beliefs from their canon. NOMA wasn’t specifically created for the Creation/evolution controversy (although I’m sure it helped spur it) as the conflict (or perceived conflict) between religion and science hardly started with Darwin, it goes way way back before then.
“As an atheist, could you personally believe in an intelligent designer and be an atheist at the same time? It is that sort of dichotomy I see between Christianity and Darwinism, neo or oldo.”
—By definition, as an atheist I don’t believe in God, and so there is a dichotomy there, but someone doesn’t have to be an atheist to believe in Darwinism. In fact, from the polls, I wouldn’t be surprised if MOST Darwinists were not atheist.
Thanks for the link!
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.