" The newsletter reports that this question was followed by a "dramatic pause," after which the teacher replied with what it called a "baffled 'No.'" The reporter for commented: "I would have expected a more rapid answer, but the battle between her curriculum and her beliefs had a few more moments of unrest left to settle." The appearance of that story coincided with the release of a new Gallup Poll, reporting on the state of American opinion regarding evolution and creation.According to this survey, approximately 47 percent of Americans can be described as creationists, in that they say they believe that God created mankind in pretty much our present form sometime within the last 10,000 years.Tags: Interpersonal Problem SolvingResearch Paper Example PdfEssay Of Environment PollutionUk AssignmentsToo Blue Langston Hughes EssayGood College Application EssayTerm Paper Writing Service ReviewsNursing Inics Research Paper
Darwinists assiduously promote the notion that the only possible alternatives are six-day Genesis literalism on the one hand, and fully naturalistic, neo-Darwinistic evolution on the other.
Given such an understanding of the alternatives, anyone who suspects that the cosmos may be billions of years old, or that life may have been created through some long-term process of development, becomes an "evolutionist" who by definition rejects "creationism." Under Darwinist auspices, science education, in the media as well as the schools, consequently aims to enlighten such persons about what evolution really means, and to wash the lingering effects of creationism from their minds.
Theistic naturalism is more often implicit than explicit in religious discourse-as befits a philosophy so dominant in intellectual circles that people hardly ever have to think about it in any detail Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Diogenes Allen's 1989 book provides a particularly thorough and thoughtful explication of theistic naturalism.
Allen explains the division between the realms of science and theology by saying that there are questions a naturalistic science cannot purport to answer.
, which is published by an organization calling itself the San Francisco Bay Area Skeptics.
These self-styled skeptics take a very dim view of anyone who suggests that the Darwinian theory of evolution might be an appropriate subject for skeptical inquiry, and on that account their editorial ire is sometimes aimed in my direction.
(The wording of the question did not rule out a long period of animal evolution before the appearance of man, however.) Another 40 percent agreed with the following statement: "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." Only 9 percent of the sample said that they accepted the naturalistic view of evolution, which in Gallup's wording was that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, with God having no part in this process.
Against that background of public opinion, we can see why the voice from the audience was asking exactly the right question, and also why we might expect a science teacher at a Christian institution to take a deep breath before answering in a quavering voice.
What the situation requires is a critique of evolutionary naturalism that puts aside the biblical issues for the time being and concentrates on the scientific and philosophical weaknesses in the established Darwinist orthodoxy.
Unfortunately many of the most influential Christian intellectuals have themselves been so strongly influenced by naturalistic philosophy that they have tried to baptize it.