Posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:15 AM PST by cainin04
Over the past days there has been a great discussion about the role of the theory of evolution and whether it alone or the thoughts on Intellegent Design should be taught in schools.
I made the argument that Darwinsism attempts to replace God. "If you have Darwinism there is no need for God the Creator." But many of the Free Republic members disagreed.
Read the text from this recent text book used today in public schools and draw your own conclusions. I found this in Lee Stroble's "Case for a Creator."
Futuyma Douglas author of "Evolutionary Biology"--page 3--"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superflous."
The book "Sign of Intellegence" cites several of the other popular text books. The writers cite the terms used to describe evolution; "evolution is random and undirected,"without plan or purpose,"Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than the supernatural creation."
Stroble also cites an article from Time Magazine, "Charles Darwin didn't want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did."
One can read text book after text book, they all come to the same conclusion--Darwin replaced God.
Why then is a theory that has so many holes in it, still being taught as "fact?" Many excuses could be listed, but I would say it is just part of the liberal establishment trying to remove God from our schools and our country as a whole. In history class we can't read the "Declaration of ID" or say the Pledge of Allegiance, because they mention God; in English we can't read a story from the Bible, because that is seperation of church and state--yet we CAN read other religous materials as long as they are not Christian; and of course in science class we can't mention ID because that would include God.
Americans are going to have to stand up. We can not sit back and watch these atheistic liberals have every mention of God removed from our country. If we do stand up, not only will we produce children who have no understanding of our country, our history, or our values, but we will also see our nation fall into a great moral decline.
However, I do not think we are going to allow that to occur. In this last election we had a clear choice between a man of God--a man with values--and a man with little or no values. We chose the man with values. The fight will continue and Patriotic-God loving Americans can never give in. Read what is in your child's text books and if it attempts to remove God, speak out against it. Your voice matters--it matters not just for your child's sake, but for the sake of all America's citizens.
No.
The only people who think that Darwinian evolution is an attempt at replacing God are religious people of little faith.
The election was about Iraq and terrorism, not Creationism and Intelligent Design. Now if you want to post vanities, that's OK. But remember that this matter is your obsession, and that very few people care about your opinion.
Did you read the article? I am not saying that they will be successful--because I do not think they will be--but they are certainly attempting to remove God.
If you do not realize that fact, you must be sleeping under a rock.
It doesn't replace anything, it only explains what had occurred, not how it occurred. So, perhaps God still was responsible for HOW...
You posted a quote from one person. So what?
1) Science deals with the tangible, the observable. Science can make no claim about a God one way or the other.
2) Claiming that "evolution attempts to replace God," shows you don't understand either topic very well.
3) Evolution is a fact. You'd better get used to it. The "Theory of Evolution" is the body of thought science has gathered to explain HOW allele frequencies in populations change over time. If you still doubt that this happens, you might ask why we keep having to come up with new flu vaccines every year.
good post
Please don't adopt liberal talking points.
It is entirely possible for intelligent people with full information to come to different conclusions.
Don't go Dem on us. Please don't adopt the idea that because someone disagrees with you (is a Creationist/Evolutionist) they must not fully understand, or they must not be all that smart, or they just don't grasp the evidence, etc.
It is possible to be an intelligent "Creationist." Sometimes people just read the evidence differently.
It is not a "vanity." I cited text books that are used in the schools today. And the fact that the previous post on this subject has over 600 replies, I'd say it is a subject that people care about.
This election was a large part about Iraq and terror, you are correct. But it was also about morals. Americans are tired of atheists attempting to remove any mention of God.
The story about the Declaration being a sepeartion between church and state was a lead story on several news programs last night. So I don't think it is a vanity. You may not care--but many Americans do!
Just become an evolutionary creationist. This is the belief that God started the life process, and laid out all the conditions for evolution of species. After that,"Nature took its course," as they say. Simple, no?
I recommend that anyone seriously interested in looking at all sides of this argument to check out anything by Dr. Hugh Ross. He is a brilliant astro-physicist and author and he takes a look at creation and evolution from a scientist's perspective. His book "The Genesis Question" is highly readable and informative. More information on Dr. Ross can be found at www.reasons.org.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
I appreciate the spirit of the original post, insomuchas its attempt to codify the point about the takeover of atheist thought in science. But...
As science learns more and more, I believe it actually reveals the hand of the Creator to the willing perception of those who choose to investigate. But as you point out, science cannot prove the existence of God. Nor, conversely, can it prove the non-existence of God. So...
Scientists with atheistic opinions may color their work that prejudice, but the body of their work either stands up to the scientific process or it does not. For this reason, I think that we are safe from bad science in the pursuit of atheism.
Yeah, I have no understanding of evolution--even though alot of my studies are on that very subject.
I would like to mention that many of the top scientists today disagree with evolution and also many of them believe in God.
A few examples of these scientists are:
1.Henry F. Schaefer--3rd most cited chemist in the world.
2. James Tour--Rice University Center for Nanoscale Sience and Technology
3. Fred Figwoth--professor of cellular and molecular biology at Yale Graduate School.
How about the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry and scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton. How about the director of the director of the National Museum of Natural History, how the hundreds of other acredited scientists who disagree with the theory of macro-evolution? Are they all stupid hicks too?
Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection does not, IMO, constitute a replacement for God.
But that does not mean that the leftist education establishment would not use it in that way. There's a difference there.
This was a reply to you, not me, I messed up the first time:
Yeah, I have no understanding of evolution--even though alot of my studies are on that very subject.
I would like to mention that many of the top scientists today disagree with evolution and also many of them believe in God.
A few examples of these scientists are:
1.Henry F. Schaefer--3rd most cited chemist in the world.
2. James Tour--Rice University Center for Nanoscale Sience and Technology
3. Fred Figwoth--professor of cellular and molecular biology at Yale Graduate School.
How about the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry and scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton. How about the director of the director of the National Museum of Natural History, how the hundreds of other acredited scientists who disagree with the theory of macro-evolution? Are they all stupid hicks too?
It still started with God.
FMCDH(BITS)
Like when they thought the earth was flat.
Ok, I realize there are people out there who believe in both. But that is not how it is being taught in our schools. They texts are actually attempting to say there is no need for God. That may not have been Darwin's intent--that is up for debate--but it is certainly the attempt of many of the text book writers.
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.