Should intelligent design be taught alongside the theory of evolution? Please answer this Poll.

Onenownews ^ | 10-11-08 | Onenownews

[OneVike]

This is just a short note to get this poll going in the direction it should be moved in

Question
"Should topics such as creationism or intelligent design be taught in public schools alongside the theory of evolution?",/P>

Right now the poll has had 26224 responses
Yes ---- 35.08%
No ---- 64.43%
Undecided ---- 00.48%

[tpanther]

Your mistake is the view that science in general or evolution in particular are dogmatic, when in fact science follows the evidence and theories will be dropped or modified readily on good showing. No one is more aware of the dangers of blindly following scientific theory in the face of countervailing evidence than are good scientists.

---

No, that’s not my mistake; I, in fact have been on record in multiple posts in multiple threads, that I don’t have a problem with evolution AS THEORY.

But what I also know is that NON-scientists who have a godless agenda, have hijacked evolution, not for the sake of science but to enforce their secular humanist godless liberal socialist worldview on children.

I think YOUR mistake is discounting these scientists asserting that they’re somehow not “good” scientists!

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

[allmendream]

Yes, as well as shady and Unconstitutional actions making teaching of evolution in Science class illegal, putting a “warning” sticker on the theory, trying to instruct students that somehow Incompetent Design (I.D.) is an alternate explanation in Science class, along with perjury.

[tpanther]

I voted no, as well. Looks like you and I are just a couple of godless liberal atheists. :D

---

Looks like you’re in the minority and if you’re not a godless liberal then you’re just conveninetly ignoring you’re on the side of godless liberals on this issue, who have hijacked science to suit their ends. Much like they’ve done with the hot air cultish man-made global warming issue.

[OneVike]

Try as you may, you cannot accept that God did not punish us for sin by death. Death is the result of sin. Where in the Scriptures do you read that death is NOT!

You can rewrite the scriptures all you want, but it does not make you a Christian. Jesus taught everything that was in the OT. Now He fulfilled all the sacrificial and ceremonial laws but he codified all the others. But if you do not believe that death entered the world dues to sin then you disagree with Paul and Jesus. And if so then you deny the sufficiency of His blood and death for our sins.

And so it is written, "THE FIRST MAN ADAM BECAME A LIVING BEING." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.
As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 1 Corinthians 15:45-48

Paul also said as I stated previously.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

[tpanther]

The “warning sticker” was because godless lunatics have hijacked this THEORY as they have no other, presenting it as fact.

And people understand that.

[OneVike]

You are an idiot. How many more ways can I say this?

When Jesus spoke about Adam and He spoke of Job and He spoke about all the things He spoke of. He was speaking as one who was there. He is GOD he created the universe and all that is in it. Believe me He knows that He created it and not through some evolutionary way. Why would he need to do that. HE IS GOD!

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in the spirit world?

[allmendream]

Many of the people who brought suit against the “warning label” on a Scientific theory were God believing Christians like myself. So “godless lunatic” right back at ya.

[tpanther]

SeekAndFind wrote:
The question really should be — should we allow science teachers to present whatever view they believe to be correct to the classroom without fear of persecution ?

My answer to that would be yes.

---

Meanwhile school boards/NEA/ACLU rush to hijack the courts to exclude other theories as supported by SCIENTISTS.

[BillyBoy]

I did not rewrite the scriptures at all. I said they are NOT meant to be taken literally and you refused to address that point. You are demanding we take the events of Genesis about the first man and death as absolute fact of what happened 6000 years ago and not consider the possibility that it may use poetic or figurative langauge.

Therefore, I ask you again: Do you believe human beings are LITERALLY made of the "salt of the earth"? I am using the exact quote that Jesus said in the bible.

Based on your OWN logic, you CANNOT be a Christian unless you ACCEPT the "scriptures" teaching that humans are made of salt.

Do you? Yes or no?

Psalms 137 LITERALLY reads "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Do you believe God wants us to bash infant's skulls so we shall be happy? Yes or no? If not, how can you call yourself a Christian and DENY what's written in the bible?

[BillyBoy]

>> Do you believe in the spirit world? <<

Yes I do. Do you agree with what Psalms 137 instructs you to do, or no?

[OneVike]

The first two articles you referred me to are "Sorry, the requested document does not exist on this server."

Sorry I must have made a mistake with my link. If you really want then paste this into your URL and check out the article. But if you don't then do not bother discussing the matter anymore.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/skull_1470.asp

And then there was

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html

I just checked both places and they do exist, it's just that I am sketchy on my HTML abilities

[tpanther]

How about this one:

Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Posted by Robert Crowther on September 2, 2008 3:16 PM | Permalink

[dan1123]

1. There’s the Cambrian Explosion. Some evolutionists admit that evolution really ‘took off’ during that time.

2. The beginning of life itself. Wickramasinghe and Holye mathematically concluded that even billions of years can’t justify the extreme odds of enzymes randomly forming into life.

I would like to add:

3. We discovered that 93% of the human genome is transcribed (made into RNA) changing the long-held belief that DNA consists of large stretches of random or cast-aside junk separated tiny bits that actually did anything.

4. Even just accounting for a blistering expansion of information, the phylogenetic tree is being reduced to a bush. Essentially admitting that an evolutionary tree is impossible to construct, and common descent is on shaky ground.

[tpanther]

I don’t think so, I think most God believeing Christians recognize that God can no more be removed from science than He can be removed from anything else.

[AndyJackson]

Forcing chidlren to learn evolution free of dissent is so important that ‘smart’ folks will vote for Obama.

You have no idea how true that statement is. Almost all scientists and a large fraction of engineers vote democratic because they cannot abide theocratic and unscientific control of what they are to think.

Evolution is not a religious belief, like creationism. It is a scientific theory that is based on an evidentiary record. Like any scientific theory, to the extent the evidentiary record conflicts with older interpretations of the theory it is modified to accord with the evidence.

The counter to a scientific theory is not a religious belief, but factual evidence that calls that theory into question.

[dan1123]

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—Romans 5:12

I'd call that an interpretive stretch to say that included animals and plants. Especially since he says "death spread to all men" rather than "death spread to all creation" or something similar.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

So we’re part of an evolutionary bush? You don’t mean, we’re all related to GW ? What would the leftists think?

[tpanther]

You have no idea how true that statement is. Almost all scientists and a large fraction of engineers vote democratic because they cannot abide theocratic and unscientific control of what they are to think.

Evolution is not a religious belief, like creationism. It is a scientific theory that is based on an evidentiary record. Like any scientific theory, to the extent the evidentiary record conflicts with older interpretations of the theory it is modified to accord with the evidence.

The counter to a scientific theory is not a religious belief, but factual evidence that calls that theory into question.

---

Uh-huh....the TRUTH is the NEA, throwing ever more money at failed education knows who greases their skids!

Conservatives understand that godless liberalism is a failure in our schools, and this has absolutely NOTHING to do with a so-called Theocracy...because when prayer WAS “allowed” in schools, godless liberalism came to power, FAR from Theocracy.

Nice try, but that’s failed too many times to count in too many threads to count!

Besides, if the ‘scientists’ were actually debating the science, how come school administrators have to hijack the courts to silence dissent of darwinism?

[OneVike]

Based on your OWN logic, you CANNOT be a Christian unless you ACCEPT the "scriptures" teaching that humans are made of salt.

Jesus said we are to be the salt and light.

Like salt we are to be truth and thus irritate those who would be silly enough to ask stupid suggestions that truly are meant to distract from the facts. So yes I am made of salt as I am definitely irritating you.

We are to be light as Jesus was the light of the world leading men from darkness. Those who will not believe all His words and all his precepts are dark and thus I am light as I am truth when I profess His truths. I am light when I lead you from the darkness and into the truth because all lies are dark and those who practice lies are lost in that darkness. So yes I am light just as He is light.

Psalms 137 LITERALLY reads "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

You obviously do not like reading the whole psalm do you?

I will defer to someone better then I when it comes to explaining the psalmThe Treasury of David by Charles Spurgeon says it perfectly;
Page 1401

This plaintive ode is one of the most charming compositions in the whole Book of Psalms for its poetic power. If it were not inspired it would nevertheless occupy a high place in poesy, especially the former portion of it, which is tender and patriotic to the highest degree. In the later Psa_137:7-9, we have utterances of burning indignation against the chief adversaries of Israel, - an indignation as righteous as it was fervent. Let those find fault with it who have never seen their temple burned, their city ruined, their wives ravished, and their children slain; they might not, perhaps, be quite so velvet-mouthed if they had suffered after this fashion. It is one thing to talk of the bitter feeling which moved captive Israelites in Babylon, and quite another thing to be captives ourselves under a savage and remorseless power, which knew not how to show mercy, but delighted in barbarities to the defenceless. The song is such as might fitly be sung in the Jews' wailing-place. It is a fruit of the Captivity in Babylon, and often has it furnished expression for sorrows which else had been unutterable. It is an opalesque Psalm within whose mild radiance there glows a fire which strikes the beholder with wonder.

[slnk_rules]

The unfortunate hermeneutic of “taking the bible literally” does not belong to the history of Christian theology...., ever. It is a latecomer to the Church. The Reformation taught, rather than “literal when possible” that “The bible interprets itself” (for those historical and theologicial vivisectionists, yes, I know the phrase is Latin and literally means “scripture interprets scripture”). The bible best tells us how to interpret itself. Sometimes it is clearly historical/literal, sometimes allegorical, sometimes pedagogical, and sometimes, to be frank, unclear.

The “literal whenever possible” has gained acceptance in American fundamentalism (I am an “evangelical” — which is kind of like a fundamentalist except I am not mad at anyone about it) with the rise of the unbiblical and historically unsupported school of theology called “dispensationalism.” The reason for this is the insistence that “Israel” in the OT must be taken “literally”, rather than let the New Testament say what it says and tell us that WE are “Israel” and the inheritors of the promises of God to the Jews. It leads to a wooden literalism and some of the most silly silly silly “interpretations” of the Bible in the name of preserving orthodoxy...., not to be limited to the first chapter of Genesis.