Posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:15 AM PST by cainin04
I agree in part with what you're saying, though I don't think that strict creationists are unstable. If you're referring to Dr. Ross, I also don't know if he would class himself as a strict creationist.
Did God use evolution? In some form He did I think. I don't believe that He created the earth in six 24-hour days. I also don't believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. (I personally think that the earth is several billion years old.) I certainly don't believe that life sprang from the muck *unaided* and evolved to the point of man. However, I came to my opinions on this subject after years of study and after looking at the different points of view at length (or at least as much as someone of my non-scientific vocation is able). On the other hand, I find many who argue that evolution is an established scientific fact have very little understanding of the argument, let alone the facts involved. They base their entire understanding of the origin of life on their 10th grade biology teacher.
It's not a simple subject, but I respect the views of those who consider themselves strict creationists. I may not agree with them on every issue, but I understand that they are trying to be true to their beliefs and their understanding of the Bible. I personally believe that God used some forms of evolution in the formation of life on earth, but I also believe that humanity was probably a unique creation. In any event, I reject the idea that God was not involved in the creation of the universe for philosophical AND scientific reasons.
No.
The only people who don't understand that Darwinian evolution is logically incompatible with theism understand neither Darwinian evolution as a philosophy nor theism, let alone Biblical theism.
One can talk to a miriad of evolutionists on any given day who say God doesn't exist because evolution is a fact. Your statement is most incorrect.
I'm still wondering where the humans with four arms or eyes in the back of their heads have gone.
Before you start calling me a liar, perhaps you should do your research.
The quote about evolution being non-directed and random, comes from 1998 highschool textbook (p 658, Miller/Levine, Biology,Prentice/Hall).
LOOK IT UP!!! Before you compare me with Clinton.
Many of you may disagree with me that the public HIGH-schools are attempting to remove God, but my thesis is correct. It has not been that long since I graduated, and I remember how it was taught--it was presented as a fact and that there is no need for God. I personally struggled with this issue for a while, but after reading and doing alot of research my faith grew stronger.
Oh yeah, if you can't find the book, here is what it says:
We can learn a great deal about the nature of life by comparing body systems among invertebrate groups and by tracing the patterns of change as we move from one phylum to another. As we do so, it is important to keep this
concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected."
["Evolution is random and undirected" is in bold in the textbook and Evolution is with a capital E].
Compare me with Clinton, what a joke!
Which GOD ?.... This world is crawling with Gods..
Some Jews have a few, "christians(whatever that means)" have many, and everyone else has their own designer "Gods"..
Even what a "God" is supposed to be; is a nebulous concept..
A better question is I think.. (A)Do people want to know who God is.?. -OR- (B)Do people want some "God" to know who THEY are.?. I think "B" is the answer.. In my experience most could care less about "God's" problems and are concerned with whether "God" cares about "their" problems.. Basically its all about them not "God" at all..
"God" is seems has few friends.. much like a lottery winner..
"God" it seems is either like Santa Claus -OR- like Alex Trebek.. i.e. Pose the answer as a question, correctly and you get a cookie..
Nah!.. Which God is a better question, before you even get to the Darwin thingy... That question answered: pretty much answers the other questions too... I would say..
Are you referring to the problem of death prior to the fall?
Something had to create the matter and energy which then began evolving. Darwinism doesn't exclude some kind of "creator", it just has a different view of the creator and the process.
Depends on what you mean by that. They sure spend a lot of time promoting politically correct "tolerance" as a virtue.
---"When someone says "man evolved from ape", it has only ever meant that modern man evolved from ancient ape. When someone says "man and ape share a common ancestor, it can only mean that modern man and modern ape share an (ancient) common ancestor. The two statements are completely consistent with each other, because modern apes evolved from ancient apes."---
It has only EVER meant...? Interesting claim. Especially since most of the diagrams I saw growing up started with, well, a modern ape. Perhaps this can be explained as a form of a metaphor, yet does such known incorrect knowledge belong posted in the classroom? It sure did then.....because it was held then that modern ape was what our ancestors were.
The "common ancestor" idea came later. Don't make claims that are simply wrong like that it has "ONLY EVER MEANT." It was not always held that man evolved from a different form of ape that was "ancient." Creationists were right to challenge the claim that man evolved from ape, and the ancient ape ("common ancestor") theory came about in response.
The theory of evolution itself is constantly evolving. "Religion" came around when science was able to adequately prove that the Earth was round; it also came around when science was able to prove the sun-centered solar system. If Evolution can meet the same standard, rest assured "religion" will come around.
I resent your comparison to "flat-earthers." It is ridiculous because we have INDISPUTABLE proof that the Earth is round. If we had INDISPUTABLE proof of evolution, Creationists would have no argument.
Yet again, you succumb to the arrogance that nobody could possibly come to an intelligent conclusion that is different from yours. They must be stupid, or zealots, or not have the right information, or liars, etc......
"obsolete conceptions of science," eh?
Full of ourselves, are we? Now you're an authority on all true sciences.....
In all seriousness, I have never met anyone who maintained that position in my hearing, not even after 20 years in scientific academia. Frankly, I suspect you haven't, either.
Wrong, read post 65, and you will see what I am talking about.
And you are ill-informed.
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."
You assert that this text is used in "many public schools". In truth, that text is for an advanced biology course in a university. A quick check at amazon.com found that. Don't you think it is misleading to say that it is used in many public schools?
That's a non-sequitur. Think it through:
I read it and thought it through: it's another attempt to put God in a box, a common habit of partisans on all sides of the false dilemma between faith and science.
It's not so much that we can't believe the evidence, it is more that we can't get comfortable with it.
read post 65!!!
I said earlier that that book was used in college texts, but the other books I cite are highschool books.
You are incorrect. . .and I was not limiting my comment to members of the scientific community, but to believers in evolution as a whole.
I think you're right. I did a google on 'Textbook Futuyma Evolutionary Biology' and got hits for sophomore- and junior-level college biology courses in U. Conn., U. Dallas, and a graduate-level course at CCNY.
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.