teach ID instead of just the atheist rich propaganda associated with naturalism.
It really isn't propaganda...it's quite necessary to view science from a naturalist perspective because without it, there would be some pretty bizarre answers to the questions posited by nature. Please bear with me with out attributing me to writing "atheistic propaganda" for a moment as I take you on a tour of science.
In nature, scientists make observations. They try to forget about all preconceived notions and instead take note of the obvious facts without adding any judgment to them. This is their methodology--they simply observe and keep track of their observations, and philosophy must not be allowed to skew their observations. As an example, a psychiatrist must not tell a patient "you are obviously possessed by a demon" because that is a preconceived notion. Instead, he or she must sit and continue listening until whatever is being rambled from the patient becomes a puzzle where everything suddenly makes sense to the psychiatrist...instead of attributing the patient to demonic possession, he may realize there is a common theme in the stories of the patient, which can then be attributed to something in the patient's past or fear of the future. If he had originally assumed demonic possession, then the problem would never be known and a solution could not be found. Things like that are why naturalism must be used in the scientific method as opposed to Christian philosophy. (I hope the definition of philosophy from an earlier post allows you to see that it is a philosophy...naturalism is a philosophy as well, but it just tends to be the one used with the scientific method.)
When a naturalist sees a bunch of fossils in layers of rocks, he or she takes note of them. Instead of saying "look at all the creatures God created," he may only make the observation and take note of them. Back at the lab, after looking at the recorded observations, he may make deductions...if he sees a gradual progression from simpler creatures, which have often times completely died off from the creatures we know today, to more complex creatures with larger brains (as an example), it is possible to make the inference that, perhaps, we have also come from a simpler ancestry.
Assuming after years of dedicated observations, the idea that we came from a simpler ancestry continues to grow. More is added to the theory as more fossils are found that show the progression from common ancestors. The fossils continue pouring in, and after dating them, it is revealed that the skeletons of ape-like creatures gradually become more human-like through the time progression. What could this mean? To a naturalist, it becomes more and more evident that evolution really did take place. To someone who isn't a naturalist, it could mean anything or nothing at all...it could even be Satan who implanted the fossils to make it
seem as though something took place. That isn't scientific methodology at all, though, and any scientist who disagrees should probably find a different job.
Is it just me or don't schools and evolution in general spend a long time trying to pound their belief that humans evolved from monkey's, as if they are trying to disprove the bible in some way? (could be just me
No, it definitely isn't just you...there are many like you who believe the same thing. However, if someone's intentions were to disprove the Bible, why wouldn't they simply say "the Bible is wrong...now, on to our next subject: cancer research." Why would they need all of that "atheistic propaganda" to prove their point?
Darwinian evolution is possible maybe regarding bacteria and plants, but yeah not on the scale that evolutionists propose
Why not?
Scientists willingly concede that the origin of life is a problem, and that it is miraculous that life arose.
That is true. There is a problem understanding the origin of life. However, that doesn't end the search for answers from the naturalist/scientific/ "atheist propaganda" perspective. They simply need to ask nature some more questions and delve further into the past, like a psychiatrist listening to a patient, without interjecting Satan or ghosts or aliens or goblins or UFOs to force the puzzle together...they look instead to curious chemists, biologists, geologists, and archaeologists for their answers.
)
.
