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.
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
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.
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.
Looking at "Evolutionary Biology" it's pretty clear that if it's used as a textbook at all, it's in college.
You sort of imply that the books quoted from are used in high schools, etc. I'd bet about a million dollars that none of the books you've quoted are used as textbooks below the college level. I've never heard of a high school with an entire class on "evolutionary biology." I'd really like to see all of the titles and authors.
Not that I can tell.
Which public schools are using your references?
Darwin was a sideshow. The atheistic revolutionaries were everywhere fomenting rebellion and a lot of the rebellion was against the authority of the Church. Some of it justified, no doubt. But Darwin was hardly the sole reason or even a major reason. Even now Darwin is a strawman.
Too many of both, actually. A highly evolved pox on the lot of them.
Some misguided folks think they are wise and insightful by adopting a middle ground: "God used macroevolution."
That's a non-sequitur. Think it through: http://boundless.org/2002_2003/regulars/office_hours/a0000798.html
On a related note, proponents of the Intelligent Design Theory like Behe and Dembski are Catholics.
As Catholics, they are theologically free to accept macroevolution.
As acomplished scientists, they did so, without question, for many years.
Until they did what all scientists purport to do, but many rarely do: Take a full and objective look at the evidence.
Public schools have long been out of the business of teaching morals and virtues as well as supporting Judeo-Christian religious belief.
Although I happen to believe in the Creator, Christianity is more concerned with matters of salvation. Fortunately for all of us, public schools have yet to botch that issue.
Parents need to instruct their children in their own faith and to explain, contradict or resolve information provided by the schools. Churches need to do more to reach out to the children of the unchurched.
No. Darwinism itself says NOTHING about Religion. It is only hateful, ignorant people, driven by their personal agendas, that hope to supplant God with Science.
Likewise, it is only hateful, ignorant people, driven by their personal agendas, that hope to supplant Science with God.
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..
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.
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?