Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Creation proponents are distributing thousands of creationist materials and Darwin Bibles to attendees at the National Education Association's annual meeting in San Diego, Calif., this week.

The Creation Science Educators Caucus is hoping to engage public school teachers in friendly dialogue and introduce them to what the group believes are the faults to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Members of the caucus, as well as volunteers from the Answers in Genesis ministry, are also hoping to introduce NEA members to faith in Christ.

Tony Ramsek, spokesperson for the caucus, stressed that their purpose is to reach individual teachers with the creation/gospel message and "not necessarily to change the system."

"We are not there to lobby for policy or political changes within the NEA system, but rather to share the life changing gospel with teachers," he said in a statement earlier.

Conservatives have criticized the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, for supporting a liberal perspective on many issues. The Creation Science Educators Caucus has been attending the association's annual meeting for the past 14 years plastering banners that state "Evolution is Science Fraud" and "Refuting Evolution."

Taking a slightly different approach this year, the creation proponents have gone into the meeting with the banner "For by Jesus Christ all things were created."

"Our goal this week is not to create controversy or hold a revival," noted Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis and a Young Earth creationist. "We simply want to balance the representation of views presented at the conference."

Ham's ministry donated thousands of DVDs and books for this year's outreach.

"I hope that participants will take the time to watch a DVD or read a book that the Caucus is handing out, and that they will see how the Bible is confirmed by observational science," Ham said. "Also, we always welcome a friendly debate with evolutionists!"

For the first time this year, creationists are passing out The Charles Darwin Bible, which was released this year in response to the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species book. The Bible is designed to serve as a tool to share with evolutionists and atheists at a time when many, including some in the Church, are dismissing the book of Genesis as a fable.

Next Story : Be ALL You Can Be

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Professor_X »

Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Darwinism is still Unscientific and Mythical http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com hide
Belhaven »

Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:24 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 2

I'd say the last sentence of this article sums it up: "...at a time when many, including some in the Church, are dismissing the book of Genesis as a fable."

Of course Genesis is a fable. If someone told you they talked to a snake, would you believe them? Be honest. Be truthful. Think about it for a while. Talking snakes and magic apples. You can't honestly expect anyone to take this story literally.
desl49 »

Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:26 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

howdy ladies & gents. so glad to be back. my CP is black hence, couldn't 'read' the article but posts are visible and read through every single one. My oh my! creationism vs. evolution. so very interesting, isn't it. for over 100 years, worldwide, we had been indocrinated with such authoritative scientific 'evidence'. now our technology has caught up and (quite frankly) and is estoundingly 'proving' evolution, old earth is incorrect. we can go tit for tat about facts. what is the bottom line? ultimately, we are dealing with a huge stronghold in post-modern mentality. let us go softly, strongly accumulating truth - moment to moment, glory to glory. to share this beautiful knowledge of Christ eternal with others as we go.
believer »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:34 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hohnson, on the burning away of our sins, please note that I said the offering of sacrifices was symbolic of what Christ would do on the Cross when He shed His blood for the remission of all our sins. I did not mean He would literally burn our sins away but as a result of His shed blood the penalty for all our sins was paid, so our sins were not literally burned away but symbolically all our sins were burned away and literally all our sins past, present, and future were forgiven and the penalty for all of them was paid as well when Jesus went to the Cross in our place.
believer »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes, I believe the "burning away" comment was meant for me.
believer »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hman, when you consider that this wss the only recorded exception to the rule when it comes to ransoms being offered for crimes that called for the death penalty that makes it the only crime that required the death penalty. All other crimes that called for the death penalty a ransom could be substituted in place of the death penalty.
believer »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:22 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hohnson, yes, the aroma was pleasing to God for the fact that His people were repenting of their sin and holding fast to the promise of the Messiah. But He also detested the false sacrifices of His people as well and said they were a stench to His nostrils because it was only a show or filling a square as some might say today, there was no true repentance on the part of those who were offering the sacrifice.
mathetes »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:49 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

PhatD,
No, you don't have to believe in all that, at least not to be saved. See my 5:42 post to Hohnson about what God wants you to believe.
mathetes »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hohnson, Part Deux:

"Otherwise, the only people in God's favor are those Carolina barbecue guys who slow roast pigs all day. (Ok, this last thing is a joke, but I'm not making fun of anyone)
P.S. I suppose that most would find Carolina barbecue to be a pleasing odor (with the exception of some of those PETA people) so God probably does, too."

I think it's fine for you to joke about that last part. In fact, I think if you lived around here, we would probably hang out and laugh at a lot of the same things. After all, you nailed the Bassomatic quote. I'm trying to remember, wasn't that Chevy Chase and Lorraine Newman on SNL? My second guess is it's from a Monty Python skit. Which is it?
mathetes »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:42 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hohnson,
"Burning animals was symbolic of a burning away of sins by Jesus later on?"

Ok, you stumped me with that one. I'm not sure how you got that out of my reply to Bass below. I was tired last night, but I really don't remember writing anything like that; you'll have to help me understand where you got that.

"It says in Leviticus that the aroma of burning animals is pleasing to God. Either God changed or that was never true, I would say."

It might say that (I didn't do a search for it), but the smoke is not what pleases God: it's the obedience. See Samuel's reply to Saul when Saul kept livestock from the battle for sacrifice after being instructed not to: 1 Samuel 15:22, "But Samuel replied, "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."

The laws about sacrifice that God gave to Moses were not sufficient to take away sin on their own; it was the person's FAITH in God's words that made the difference. God had said, "When you sin, do this, and I will forgive you and restore our relationship." The person who sinned had to take God at His word, believing/FAITHing that "if I do this, I will be forgiven and right with God." Then his sacrifice had meaning, because FAITH was exercised in OBEDIENCE.

So what does God want from us today? Sacrifices? No, God Himself has provided the Lamb for the final sacrifice. The New Testament says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." We have to show that same FAITH that, "if I do what God requires, He will forgive me and save me," and then we have to do it (OBEDIENCE), confessing our sins and our inability to save ourselves, and putting our trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus for our forgiveness and justification. Then we are forgiven and made right with God.
Homosexual Man »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:56 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show believer, can we look at this verse together? First you quote: "NUMBERS 35:31, "MOREOVER, YOU SHALL NOT TAKE RANSOM FOR THE LIFE OF A MURDERER WHO IS GUILTY OF DEATH, BUT HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.". And then you interpret that to mean: "This was the only crime that demanded the death penalty" It just doesn't say that believer. Why do you keep repeating this false statement? And if it did, it would not help your case. It would be extortion, as if God were a big mafioso in the sky. hide
PhatDajuan »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:37 am Agree: 8 Disagree: 0

Uh, RIGHT. All of Creation took place about 6,000 years ago. Seedbearing plants were created BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and stars. Human beings walked side by side with dinosaurs. Yeah, we're supposed to believe this.
Hohnson »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:29 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Believer, Mathetes I'm not trying to make fun of anyone. I really do want to know, however I find your explanations lacking. Burning animals was symbolic of a burning away of sins by Jesus later on? Really? This seems to me like you are grasping at straws. It says in Leviticus that the aroma of burning animals is pleasing to God. Either God changed or that was never true, I would say. Otherwise, the only people in God's favor are those Carolina barbecue guys who slow roast pigs all day. ( Ok, this last thing is a joke, but I'm not making fun of anyone) P.S. I suppose that most would find Carolina barbecue to be a pleasing odor (with the exception of some of those PETA people) so God probably does, too. hide
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:57 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes, but now I am off to bed, be blessed brother!!
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes, no sweat brother it's good to know we've got other brothers and sisters watching our backs.
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:30 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

JJ

I don't envy you for the path that is yours. It has not been an easy one for me as my entire family (including extended family) belongs to fundamentalist churches. I love them more than anything in the world so it was difficult for me to come out of the spiritual closet, so to speak. But, in the end, the more I studied the Bible and put it alongside natural, historical and social evidence all around us, I just couldn't lie and say that I actually believed in it anymore. It was in the search for truth that I saw that the 'Truth' wasn't that at all. It's been a tough go, but I am content to have followed my skeptical leanings. Hang in there.
mathetes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer,
Sorry, friend, didn't mean to speak in your place. Well, yeah, I guess I did; I thought you might have called it a night. Eastern time zone, right?
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

hohnson, by the way God doesn't worry about anything and especially since God is in control. And if you would study the Old Testament you will see that God never told His people to randomly kill anyone, there was always a purpose why He allowed for those killings and you will also see that in many cases it was a consequence for their sins against God and God's people.
mathetes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:22 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi jj,

I'll check back on those definitions, but when I find the answer, you may not like it. Back when you were in school (how long ago was that?), did they teach you about the "Theory of Entropy" or Newton's "Theories of Thermodynamics"? What about "Boyle's Theory" relating pressure and temperature? Do you want to go back and brush up on your definitions?

Also, you never answered my question: Do you think it was okay to deny tenure to a well-published respected prof because of his views which never entered into his peer-reviewed published articles?
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes, just saw your answer to hohnson so needless to say we pretty well said the same thing and once again thanks for the back-up.
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:16 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hohnson, apparently you didn't read my mistaking your post for homosexual man's post, so I was speaking to his ranting and not to you. As for your question, God never changed His mind. The sacrifices of the Old Testament were a symbolic picture of the future sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and in fact the offering of sacrifices was the way Jews showed their belief that God would one day send the Promised Messiah who indeed was Jesus Christ. The burning of the sacrifice represented the burning away of all the impurities in our lives that is the forgiveness of our sins that was accomplished by the shedding of Christ's blood on the Cross.
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:09 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

hman, now read real close and in fact I'll capitalize every word for you, NUMBERS 35:31, "MOREOVER, YOU SHALL NOT TAKE RANSOM FOR THE LIFE OF A MURDERER WHO IS GUILTY OF DEATH, BUT HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.". This was the only crime that demanded the death penalty, all other crimes to include the sexual practices of homosexuality could be dealt with by other means and in fact were. But once again we are no longer under the Old Covenant of the Law, but the New Covenant of Grace.
mathetes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:04 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hohnson,
Since believer's probably asleep, may I try to answer your question, sarcastic as it is?

Think about what sacrifice meant/means: giving up something costly. The purpose was not because God likes greasy smoke, but so that the OT Jews would understand the seriousness of sin and the high cost of disobedience (separation from God). Go back and read Genesis 3 - God set the pattern when He made clothes out of animal skins to hide Adam and Eve's shame and guilt. Abel continued this pattern in Gen. 4 by sacrificing his sheep when he sinned, while Cain brought veggies. Did God change His mind later? No, He provided the final sacrifice in the death of Jesus for the sins of mankind.

I realize you'll might make fun of it all, but I thought I would try to answer the question just in case you were serious about knowing.
Hohnson »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:37 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show The line from the skit is actually, "Wow, that's terrific bass." Let us strive for accuracy on this sacred forum. Mr. Believer, the record will clearly show that I have never gone on a tangent about stoning homosexuals. I don't usually comment on anything regarding homosexuals on here other than to say I don't understand the preoccupation with such issues, as I believe that God has more pressing things to worry about such as people starving to death in Africa or people brutally murdering each other wherever, to care much about what Americans do with their sexual organs. My question to you again is when did God change? Why did he love burnt animals at one point in his life and then decided he didn't later. Be honest with yourself. Was there really a time when God thought, "Oh, boy my humans is going to burn me up some animals today. They rock! They really pleased me today. Later on, I'll grow up and it won't be so pleasing."???????????????????????????????? hide
RevShnorrRocks »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:35 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Why was this flagged? PhatDajuan Â» Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:53 pm : 3 : 3 Flag Uh, RIGHT. All of Creation took place about 6,000 years ago. Seedbearing plants were created BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and stars. Human beings walked side by side with dinosaurs. Yeah, we're supposed to believe this. hide hide
jjdiogenes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

bass: I am like you and am a former fundy who is now unsure of his belief in god or any of it. I have a hard time believing that the bible is any more than just a collection of stories and some history (much like Gone with the Wind - its about the Civil War which happened, but Frankly my dear, Scarlet probably didn't!). God clearly changes too much throughout the bible to be true. He kills babies, children and women in the OT, changes his mind a lot and if jesus did come to "fulfill the law, then cleary that includes many of the wacky stuff in leviticus.
jjdiogenes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes: Better brush up on your science definitions. Most scientists don't use the term "law" in a scientific sense (let alone say that a law is higher up than a theory) - they tend to use the word "theory." Yes, Newton used the word "law" when describing gravity but nowadays we wouldn't.
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:45 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

'Mmmm. That's good bass! :-)'

Finally...someone who remembers the skit! Hahaha
Homosexual Man »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:56 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show believer wrote: "don't go back on your tangent about stoning homosexuals since as I've told you repeatedly that according to Numbers the only crime that required the death penalty was murder." You have told me that repeatedly, and you are *not* telling the truth. We've covered this before. The passage you keep pointing to says NOTHING of the sort. And you know what? If it did, it wouldn't make any difference at all. If I were to send an e-mail to the entire world saying "kill all 13-year old girls who have blue eyes or else YOU WILL GO TO HELL," and then a couple of years later say if the 13-year old girl pays me a hundred dollars, then don't kill her, does that work for you? No. It's extortion. hide
Homosexual Man »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show I'm with ya Bass-o. Mmmm. That's good bass! :-) hide
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:19 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hohnson, my apology that last post was for you.
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:19 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hman, my apology that last post was for hohnson.
believer »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hman, "either the Gospels are right or the Old Testament is right". Reality is they both are right since they're each the recording of two separate covenants with God, one the under law and the other under grace. Plus in reality there is no disagreement between the two as you would lead us to believe and in fact many of the teachings found in the Old Testament are still applicable today. Christ Himself said He did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill the Law. He never did away with any laws but rather He corrected the misinterpretation and misuse of those laws. And please don't go back on your tangent about stoning homosexuals since as I've told you repeatedly that according to Numbers the only crime that required the death penalty was murder. And any law that dealt with sacrifice or was realted to the promise of the Messiah were negated once Christ died on the cross and blood and burnt sacrifices were no longer required since they were only symbolic acts pointing to the coming of the Messiah.
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Homosexual Man

My question about how a text is held as sacred despite errors was not so much a question of nomenclature, in the sense that the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran are defined as sacred texts, but more with the notion that any of them are authoritative...that anyone should see them as the actual words of a divine entity... i.e. how could a perfect god author an imperfect text and still be considered a perfect god?
Homosexual Man »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:32 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "either the Gospels are right or the Old Testament is right" I sort of agree. I think Jesus accepted that those in power at that time would kill Him if He spoke His truth outright. Eventually they did. My impression is that Paul, Peter and others who came after Jesus did not follow through on His full message, but to a great extent reverted to the old legalistic ways. In fact they never fully "got it" at all. They tried, but they never completely shook off their superstition. Jesus was constantly talking about the Kingdom of God here on Earth, and they were constantly asking Him how they could get to heaven after they died. Not just that, but they were competing with each other for supposed positions of honor in heaven. They were completely confused. They weren't on the same page with Jesus, and not even in the same hymnal. :D hide
Homosexual Man »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "still be held as sacred" one way of looking at it is how a given text is or was treated (in whatever culture). E.g., I don't interpret the Koran the same way a devout muslim would, but I don't have any problem seeing it as their sacred text. hide
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:22 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

'I think sacred texts have great value if they are understood correctly.'

Absolutely agree. It is when there is the NEED to take them literally that we run into trouble, as logic and truth tend to get thrown out the window in order to do so. But it's still hard for me to understand how a sacred text can be clearly disproven by natural facts and still be held as sacred. Perhaps that is something I will have to be content not to understand.
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:18 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

'Time saving tip for fundamentalist responders- Copy and paste the following:

You're right about one thing, Hohnson. You do have bizarre beliefs.'

Hilarious! I would tend to agree with you on the OT vs NT topic, as I think that the Jesus of the gospels has much to teach us in his humanity toward others. That said, I see the gospels too as just stories, which have clearly been embellished by the writers for desired effect. None of the gospels were written until 60-100 years after Jesus' death and likely weren't by contemporaries. The stories of the birth are rife with pagan symbolism of the time and depending on the intended readers and politics of when the later ones were written, it is clear that much in the way of literary latitude was taken. As such, I see them much in the same way I see the creation myths from the OT: good stories with literary (and some) historical value, but certainly not authoritative enough to commit one's life to. Just my personal opinion though and one that is likely not shared by many on this site, which is fine.
Hohnson »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:06 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Thanks Bassomatic 76, I have bizarre beliefs in that I don't dismiss Genesis or the rest of the Old Testament because of modern science or a disbelief in the supernatural but rather because I believe in Jesus and not the vindictive childish god that the Old Testament portrays. To give just one example, in the Gospels, Jesus says to love your enemies and asks that if you only love those who love you and are nice to you, what merit is there in that? Yet Genesis would have you believe that God drowns the people he doesn't like and their innocent children and babies, too. And so on. I could go on and on. i.e. - You have heard this, but I tell you this, etc. To my way of thinking, either the Gospels are right or the Old Testament is right. They can't both be. And so the reason I believe in Jesus is just because I kind of dig the message he has in the Gospels. It seems true to me. Time saving tip for fundamentalist responders- Copy and paste the following: You're right about one thing, Hohnson. You do have bizarre beliefs. hide
Homosexual Man »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show clarification though, you can probably see that I am using "sacred" differently from the way you are, which is fine, as long as we recognize that. :-) hide
Homosexual Man »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:48 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Cool!! You've read a lot more about it than I have. And yes, I know what you mean. I think sacred texts have great value if they are understood correctly. :-) hide
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Homosexual Man

I have read quite a bit on the connections between the Enuma Elish and the Genesis creation story. It would appear that the latter was based on the former, particularly when you consider that the Enuma Elish was believed to have been recorded several centuries prior and given the dominence of the Babylonians over the Isrealites at the time.

It is for such reasons, among others, that I see the Bible has a historical book and not a sacred one. Full disclosure: I asked the question because when I could no longer see the Bible as a sacred text, to believe in the God who supposedly inspired it became impossible...so, I am always curious to hear from those who have gone through the first step of skepticism but who haven't ended up an atheist like me.
Homosexual Man »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:17 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Basso wrote: "Genesis creation story as a myth ... it is hard to believe that when those stories were written down the authors meant them to be figurative" There is some fascinating info about how the Genesis account evolved from previous Babylonian myths. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish linguistically, the word "tehom" translated as "the deep" may actually be "the goddess Tiamat." In Babylonian myth, the earth was created from her body. Darkness was upon the face of the deep... cool eh? Even in English we hear the rhythm and power of the words. I think the stories were valued then as they are now, and not taken literally then any more than they are now. hide
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hohnson

Good, thoughtful and informative post. I am always curious though when someone dismisses the Genesis creation story as a myth but continues to believe in the God of Abraham and Jesus, because while many mainline denominations put the term 'not to be taken literally' on the portions of the Bible that can no longer be, in an effort to be able to hang onto their faith and not ignore scientific facts, it is hard to believe that when those stories were written down the authors meant them to be figurative. And if that is the case, it would seem that they were simply wrong about things, which, for me, removes all credibility that the scriptures may have once appeared to have.

So I guess I am curious to know how you have maintained your faith in a god whose supposed 'inspired' word is clearly errant.
Hohnson »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show It has always been my understanding that a scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. A true scientist looks for evidence and then goes wherever this evidence takes him or her. If a biologist for instance, ignores or suppresses all scientific evidence or findings they encounter that don't fit with the idea of evolution because they love evolution so much and they want it to be right, they are not really scientists. I don't think that happens very often. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution and I think they do so because that is where the evidence leads. The idea that the majority of the world's scientists accept evolution because they are brainwashed, are frauds, or are involved in a giant conspiracy to rob fundamentalist Christians of their faith seems absurd. Herein lies the problem with the creationist people. They are not objectively looking at evidence, they already have what they are looking for, namely the Jewish scriptures. They feel the only way they can defend Jesus is to defend the literalness of the Jewish scriptures and the way to do that is to attack evolution. This is not science. It is religion. It is right to attack evolution. As I stated in my first sentence. Scientific theories stand until proven wrong. That doesn't mean that you put forth your religious beliefs as an equally valid scientific theory and say, "Hey, teach my religion's creation myths as science. If evolution is so right, you should be able to compare the two." It doesn't work that way because the scientific community has already proven the idea of a young earth,etc. to be wrong. You don't have to agree with them but it might be more suited going to live in an Amish community where it's easier to ignore modern science and technology. I accept evolution and believe in God and Jesus. You can believe both. The mere existence of a single thing is the miracle that is inexplicable except as an arbitrarily willed act. Creation is not something that was done thousands of Jewish years ago, or scientists' billions of eons ago, but something that has to be occurring at each instant, now, for anything to exist. Without the continual flow of creative energy from God, the entire cosmos would blink out in an instant. hide
mathetes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:24 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

jj,

Sorry for the slow reply.
I guess you missed the previous discussion by a biologist and an opthamologist showing the flaws in the suggested developmental pathways of the flagellum and the eye. Wish I could repeat them but they should be in the archives.

No assumptions, huh? I think you probably should ask an honest scientist about that; s/he would disagree with you.

"When you were learning about gravity, did they teach you that it was only a theory, that it has problems, that it has weaknesses? I doubt it."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! (see how silly that sounds...) My teachers did talk about gravity as a law but one that doesn't always stay constant. That's what got me interested in physics; wrote my first paper on Einstein and relativity in 8th grade. It wasn't much, but the point is: hearing that there was still things we didn't know spurred me (and two friends) to explore it and fill in the gaps. Evolutionists blame creationists for filing in the gaps with God and stifling the desire to learn, but they do the same thing when they teach theory of evolution as a proven facts.

As I said, it's still got problems, counterevidence and gaps; so let's drop the academic snobbery and quit acting like it's airtight. Do you think it was okay to deny tenure to a well-published respected prof because of his views which never entered into his published articles?

I'll check this afternoon for your reply .
mathetes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

jj,

Sorry for the slow reply.
I guess you missed the previous discussion by a biologist and an opthamologist showing the flaws in the suggested developmental pathways of the flagellum and the eye. Wish I could repeat them but they should be in the archives.

No assumptions, huh? I think you probably should ask an honest scientist about that; s/he would disagree with you.

"When you were learning about gravity, did they teach you that it was only a theory, that it has problems, that it has weaknesses? I doubt it."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! (see how silly that sounds...) My teachers did talk about gravity as a law but one that doesn't always stay constant. That's what got me interested in physics; wrote my first paper on Einstein and relativity in 8th grade. It wasn't much, but the point is: hearing that there was still things we didn't know spurred me (and two friends) to explore it and fill in the gaps. Evolutionists blame creationists for filing in the gaps with God and stifling the desire to learn, but they do the same thing when they teach theory of evolution as a proven facts.

As I said, it's still got problems, counterevidence and gaps; so let's drop the academic snobbery and quit acting like it's airtight. Do you think it was okay to deny tenure to a well-published respected prof because of his views which never entered into his published articles?

I'll check this afternoon for your reply .
mathetes »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:33 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

bass,

I meant theory in the strict sense, not general. Gravity is usually called a law, a higher order than a theory, something we can observe in the present and about which we are more sure. Yet it does not explain every circumstance, so we should be even less cocky about evo theory.

As for observing one kind of animal become another kind (not speciation but macroevolution, as some say), it has not been observed. Also, please note: I have not brought God into our discusion; you did. bass, I've enjoyed our discussion; another time perhaps.
Bassomatic76 »

Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:27 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Mathletes

The problem with teaching that evolution is a 'theory', in the non-scientific definition of the word, is that it gives the impression that it is something that hasn't been adequately tested. If you read the publications put out by NAS, they clear this up explicitly. It states that in the scientific community, the theory of evolution has been tested so extensively and found to be true over the course of 150 years, that it is viewed as fact, much in the way that the 'theory' of gravity is. Sure, we are advancing our knowledge of the theory and further testing its limits, but it has long since left the realm of theory that runs the risk of being debunked.

The two gaps you bring up started as attempts by Creationists to poke a hole in the theory (as if that would legitimize the scientific validity of creation). They have, and particularly the idea of irreducible complexity, been analyzed and discarded by the community. The fact that a handful of scientists, who not so coincidentally nearly all adhere to the same religious dogma, are dissenters doesn't negate the fact that the overwhelming conclusions backed by observations on the other side. Teaching the views of the religiously-biased scientists who perhaps represent less than 1-2% of the entire scientific community makes no sense.

Finally, we are talking about elementary and high school-level science classes here. You suggest putting opposing views out there for the students to hash out and come up with their conclusion. This is impossible. They are being taught the building blocks and, therefore, would not have the tools to make these decisions. It is precisely at this point that they must be given the basic facts. And the most highly respected groups of scientists (the NAS, among others) are not the least bit ambiguous about what these basic facts are...and, more importantly, what they are not: Biblical ideas of creation.
believer »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:46 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

jj, credentials can also include where these people are employed such as being professors in accredited colleges and universities. To get hired in these positions required them to not only have a degrees but to be credentialed to be qualified to take these positions in various college science departments.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story