The Foundations of the Debate

quote:

---

Evolution does not deny the existence of God, but some creationists deny the existence of evolution, hence the debate

---

Rather, evolution does not deny the existence of God, but some creationists claim that it does, hence the debateAnd also because so many of their "creation science" claims prove to be false and deceptive.

Answers in Genesis posts a interview with Dr. Kurt Wise (been a long time, so don't have the URL handy). He was raised a fundamentalist. One day, he took a pair of scissors to the Bible ([cringe] why must they forsake Jewish tradition so?), cutting out all the parts that, in his judgement, would have to go if evolution were true. He found that there was so little left, that he would not be able to admit that evolution is true and keep his faith. So he explicitly based his decision on that, while at the same time admitting that based on the scientific evidence alone it certainly does overwhelmingly look like evolution is true (that admission was made either in that interview or in his presentation at one of the International Conferences on Creation).So it wasn't that he had been an "evolutionist" and then converted, but rather that he had been a YEC all along.

quote:

---

Or, as I said earlier, the problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God, but that evolution does not need God. Hence the debate.

---

Jar beat me to it.None of the sciences need God to study the natural universe nor to develop explanations of the natural processes involved in the observed phenomena of the natural universe. Nor could they make use of "God did it", because to do so not only explain absolutely nothing but would also destroy scientific inquiry. So then they should oppose all of the sciences?There is absolutely nothing in evolution to preclude a supernatural entity of sufficient potency from creating the natural processes through which the Creation would be brought into being. It is the creationists who create a conflict by insisting that such natural processes could not possibly have been used and, if it should be found that such natural processes had been used, then there is no God. And it should be noted that many non-creationists have taken the creationists' claims at face value and have accepted that the evidence means that there is no God. It is not evolution that teaches that, but rather "creation science".Now, if there is a philosophy that claims that science and evolution deny the existence of God (apparently, this is what is meant by "evolutionISM"), then creationists would certainly have a legitimate beef with that philosophy and so they should address that philosophy instead of wasting their time making contrary-to-fact claims that attack science and evolution and that simply end up being counter-productive to their cause and to their faith.

quote:

---

... every boy and girl since the Scopes trial, HAS grown up with Evolution THEORY, "Drip Fed" as FACT, into EVERY aspect of life, ...

---

suzy, I'm afraid you've been lied to about the Scope's Trial. It was a set-back for the teaching of evolution, not a victory. From my page which was a handout for a presentation I gave at church No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/EarlyBird.html:

quote:

---

[preceding section on the rise of the 1920's anti-evolution movement and reasons for it, including the increasing numbers of children attending high school, the acceptance of evolution by biologists resulting in it covered in the text books, and parents thus encountering it for the first time ever.]

​

- Around 1920, a coalition of conservative evangelical Protestants formed to combat modernism.
-- Their most important leader was William Jennings Bryan, a Presbyterian and a Progressive.
-- Progressives wanted a just and humane society and they believed that legislation could reform or prevent bad behavior.
-- Progressives feared that Darwinism would ruin the moral development of the children and "replace the Golden Rule with the law of the jungle."
-- The populist element of the movement believed that the people should decide what is taught in the public schools, not some intellectual elite; " . the hand that writes the check book rules the school."
-- As a result of their efforts, antievolution bills were introduced into twenty state legislatures during the 1920s:
--- Between 1923 and 1928, the bills became law in Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
--- The Florida legislature passed a non-binding resolution condemning the teaching of evolution as "improper and subversive."
--- State educational bodies banned evolution from public school textbooks in Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana.
--- The California Board of Education ordered that evolution be presented "as a theory only."
-- Elsewhere, pressure was put on the local level. Teachers were forbidden to teach or discuss evolution and some were fired for doing so.
--- In 1941, one-third of the teachers polled expressed fear of accepting evolution publicly.
--- In 1942, fewer than half the secondary biology teachers polled taught anything about evolution to their students.
-- The antievolutionists' case was built on doctrinal moralism and populism rather than on science. They did not want to convince scientists that they were wrong, only to make them irrelevant in determining what was to be taught in public schools. They just wanted to stop evolution.
- The Scopes Trial:
-- After Tennessee passed its antievolution law, the ACLU convinced John Scopes of Dayton to create a test case, with the approval of city hall. The ACLU hoped to carry the appeal of the case up to the US Supreme Court.
-- The trial was held in 1925. William Jennings Bryan helped the prosecution while Clarence Darrow helped the defense. It drew national attention and is still followed today. It has been fictionalized in the play, Inherit the Wind.
-- The outcome:
--- Scopes was found guilty and fined $100.
--- The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the law. However, they threw out the conviction on a technicality, since the fine had been improperly levied by the judge instead of by the jury.
--- The ACLU never had a chance to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
--- The press made William Jennings Bryan look foolish, especially in his cross-examination as an expert on the Bible. In fact, they made the entire movement look foolish, which seemed to embarrass some supporters into silence.
-- When Bryan died a few days later, the movement lost much of its momentum.
-- Both sides tried to claim victory, but in truth a kind of truce existed which favored the antievolutionists.
--- The antievolution movement was no longer visibly active.
--- The "monkey laws" remained on the books until the end of the 1960s.
--- Textbook publishers exercised a form of self-censorship in which they removed evolution from their own books.
--- University teaching of evolution was never threatened and academia paid little attention to what was happening in the high schools. High school textbooks were not written by scientists.
--- High school students were not being taught about evolution.

​

[Followed by sections on how the 1957 launch of Sputnik caused us to put greater emphasis on science education, which led to the adoption of textbooks written by scientists, including the BSCS textbooks which brought evolution back into the high school. This led to Epperson vs Arkansas, in which a teacher was being required to use the BSCS books which would put her in violation of the Arkansas "monkey law" that would have led to her being barred from teaching, for life. This led to the US Supreme Court ruling against the Arkansas law, which led to the striking down of all the "monkey laws". Faced with evolution being taught again and their traditional means of barring that gone, the anti-evolution movement then created "creation science", a legalistic deception to get around the courts and which is the reason why this forum exists.]

---

As for your other "point", you have that wrong too. Evolution is not at fault there, but rather the cockeyed way that religion teaches morality. As gleaned from decades of conversations with believers, rants from believers, and sermons, the practical purpose for morality is completely ignored (OK, on very rare occasions there was a "gee whiz, this stuff really works" kind of comment) and the absolute statement has been repeatedly made and insisted upon fervently that without God there is no reason for morality and someone who doesn't believe in God would feel free to do anything he/she wants.That is what you are describing, isn't it? Please note that it is not evolution that is teaching that, but rather it is the anti-evolution religionists who actively teach it. Earlier, I was wanting to quote a local "creation science" activist in his story of how he had become an "atheist" (actually, he never was an atheist, but was only pretending to himself to be one; he freely admitted praying to God every single night while he was an "atheist" -- having myself been an atheist for over 40 years I can assure you that we don't do things like that). In the ninth grade his hormones were bubbling away, his religious teachers had given him the loophole that atheists don't need to behave themselves, so he took advantage of that loophole. Evolution had nothing to do with it, except that he used his religious teachers' misunderstanding of evolution as his excuse for "becoming an atheist". Who dunnit? His religious training, not evolution. Please place the blame where it belongs.If you want to oppose evolution, fine, only please use truthful claims and arguments. If you are going to use falsehoods to oppose evolution, then you will only succeed in misleading others. You indicate that your theology is different from "Trinitarian Christians". I'm a Unitarian myself, though not of the theistic variety. Tell me, does your theology condone or preach using lies and deception to serve your particular idea of God? Just curious, though it is a central question in this entire creation/evolution morass.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

You specifically named the Scopes Trial. And you specifically made false statements concerning the results of the Scopes Trial. Your claim said nothing of world opinion vs American. Indeed, the only opinion that would have been affected by the Scopes Trial would have been American. So you were yourself restricted yourself to American opinion. If you were not, then you should have said so.And you had been accusing the science of evolution as teaching that we should give in to our carnal desires. That is what I addressed by showing that rather it is the religious teachers who are teaching that, not evolution. That the media should make money by playing to people's interest in sex has no bearing on the matter. Except possibly to making it that more difficult to pretend that sex doesn't exist. And it doesn't matter what your fringe group says is the truth of what the Bible says; what does matter is what the kids' religious leaders are teaching them.And these groups are not Catholic, but rather evangelical Christian. Many of whom would be hard-pressed to consider Catholics to be Christian. Even though the evangalicals have adopted a lot more Catholic teaching than they would want to admit.You still have not stated: does your fringe group have a name? And does your theology condone or preach using lies and deception to serve your particular idea of God?

Another very important document that almost nobody knows about is James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance. Important primarily for three reasons:
1. It directly and clearly addresses the issue of government and religion.
2. It presents the wall of separation between church and state, calling it "the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people."
3. Madison wrote it a few years before he drafted the First Amendment.I've posted a copy of it at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/rel_lib/memorial.html.