Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churches urged to back evolution
British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland

Churches urged to back evolution By Paul Rincon BBC News science reporter, St Louis

US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hit out at the "intelligent design" movement at its annual meeting in Missouri.

Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren, it said.

Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own.

As the name suggests, intelligent design is a concept invoking the hand of a designer in nature.

It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other Gilbert Omenn AAAS president

There have been several attempts across the US by anti-evolutionists to get intelligent design taught in school science lessons.

At the meeting in St Louis, the AAAS issued a statement strongly condemning the moves.

"Such veiled attempts to wedge religion - actually just one kind of religion - into science classrooms is a disservice to students, parents, teachers and tax payers," said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn.

"It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other.

"They can and do co-exist in the context of most people's lives. Just not in science classrooms, lest we confuse our children."

'Who's kidding whom?'

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep evolution in public schools, said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle between science and religion.

Some have already heeded the warning.

"The intelligent design movement belittles evolution. It makes God a designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory.

"Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really identify - but who's kidding whom?"

Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact.

Dover school administrators had pushed for intelligent design to be inserted into science teaching. But the judge ruled this violated the constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and state.

Despite the ruling, more challenges are on the way.

Fourteen US states are considering bills that scientists say would restrict the teaching of evolution.

These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools.

I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design Teacher Mark Gihring "The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design," biologist Kenneth Miller, of Brown University in Rhode Island, told the BBC News website.

Dr Miller, an expert witness in the Dover School case, added: "The advocates of intelligent design and creationism have tried to repackage their criticisms, saying they want to teach the evidence for evolution and the evidence against evolution."

However, Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to intelligent design, told the BBC: "I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design.

"[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and the value of life... if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society."

Economic risk

The decentralised US education system ensures that intelligent design will remain an issue in the classroom regardless of the decision in the Dover case.

"I think as a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead. That does not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead," said Ms Scott.

"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve."

Among the most high-profile champions of intelligent design is US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.

But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design will deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.

"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm

Published: 2006/02/20 10:54:16 GMT

© BBC MMVI


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: bearingfalsewitness; crevolist; darwin; evolution; freeperclaimstobegod; goddooditamen; godknowsthatiderslie; idoogabooga; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; liarsforthelord; ludditesimpletons; monkeygod; scienceeducation; soupmyth; superstitiousnuts; youngearthcultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 2,301-2,341 next last
To: Dimensio; Always Right
 
So what in affirming acceptance of evolution denies a creator?
 
Well, it doesn't.  But the CHRISTIAN veiw of this 'creator' is quite different than the one Evolution allows one to believe in.
 
 



 
Isa 48:3 ... I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] SUDDENLY, and they came to pass.
 

Indeed!!

Genesis 1
 
 1.  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 2.  Now the earth was  formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
 3.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
 
 
This is a GOD who creates by speaking; but; how LONG did it take?
 
Now Jesus was a man who had God-like powers.  Was HE God?   The Book says so.......
 
 
 
 
NIV Colossians 1:13-17
 13.  For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
 14.  in whom we have redemption,  the forgiveness of sins.

 15.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
 16.  For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
 17.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
 
 
NIV Revelation 4:11
 11.  "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
 
 
NIV Revelation 10:6
 6.  And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!

 
Notice that when this man speaks, things happen RIGHT NOW!   Not after some times passes and the body heals itself.
 
 
 
NIV Matthew 8:2-3
 2.  A man with leprosy  came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
 3.  Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured  of his leprosy.
 
 
NIV Matthew 21:19
   Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
 
 
NIV Mark 1:41-42
 41.  Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
 42.  Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.
 
 
NIV Mark 5:41-42
 41.  He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
 42.  Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.
 
 
NIV Mark 10:51-52
 51.  "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.   The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
 52.  "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
 
 
NIV Luke 5:13
  Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And Immediately the leprosy left him.
 
 
NIV Luke 5:24-25
 24.  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."
 25.  Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.
 
 
NIV Luke 8:44
  She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and Immediately her bleeding stopped.
 
 
NIV Luke 13:12-13
 12.  When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity."
 13.  Then he put his hands on her, and Immediately she straightened up and praised God.
 
 
NIV Luke 18:42-43
 42.  Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."
 43.  Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
 
 
NIV Acts 9:33-35
 33.  There he found a man named Aeneas, a paralytic who had been bedridden for eight years.
 34.  "Aeneas," Peter said to him, "Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and take care of your mat." Immediately Aeneas got up.
 35.  All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.
 
 
NIV Matthew 8:13
 13.  Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.
 
 
NIV Matthew 15:28
 28.  Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.


 
Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant;  how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???


401 posted on 02/20/2006 1:37:32 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Can a public employee, any public employee (Professors are not yet a protected group) announce that they will withold personal recommendation for advancement based on race, religion or gender?

As I understand the laws of this country, yes.

As long as it is a "personal" reccommendation.

I'm in IT. I sometimes write letters for folks whom I've worked with, to help them get jobs.

I could decide to only write such a letter to a white, stacked, beautiful young woman, if I so chose. And I would have broken no law.

402 posted on 02/20/2006 1:38:29 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
The oddest thing about creationism is that to accept it, you can't believe a dog and a cat are more closely related than a dog and a boa constrictor.

Huh??

403 posted on 02/20/2006 1:38:50 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Do you disagree with my claim that nmh lied?


404 posted on 02/20/2006 1:39:10 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
What's wrong with bias? Everyone is biased. Aren't you?

Of course, but there are some who like to wear a mantle of being 'balanced and fair'.

405 posted on 02/20/2006 1:40:44 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
I've been following this a bit and it sounds to me that your position is that a state employee is not permitted to make a 'personal' recommendation at all, at least not in any meaningful way.

Not if the recommendation is based on race or religious beliefs and the person making the recommendation is a state employee using his title and letterhead of the state run university. I don't see what is 'personal' about that. If he wanted to make a recommendation unrelated to his state job and without using his state given title, then it is his choice. But as it is, he is using his title to give credence to this recommendation, so it is not 'personal'.

406 posted on 02/20/2006 1:40:50 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Hey! it's 44° in Beaumont.

Boo Hoo!

Come up to Indy, where it was 8 last night!


(Now you REALLY northern folks can chime in ;^)

407 posted on 02/20/2006 1:42:39 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
most closely resemble

Um, so your entire complaint then is that the wording he used "closely resembled" an oath?

Again, I don't agree. Looking these things up in the dictionary, your definition for 'affirm' as an oath didn't even show up.

If I *affirm* that Prez Bush is a good man, that is not an oath. It means I *believe*, I *agree*, I say *affirmative* to, that statement.

You're trying very hard to manufacture a complaint where none exists. And the thickest irony is, he would be well within his rights to say he only gives letters to someone who *swears an oath* that they believe in Darwinian evolution before agreeing to write a personal letter.

I'm very sorry, I just don't see any validity to your point so far.

408 posted on 02/20/2006 1:43:17 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
I would not employ a physician who thought that the body parts that were beyond his concept of usefulness must some how be vestigial organs that can be simply disposed of.

Or one who believes he really is God and maybe you should be euthanized for your own good, lol

409 posted on 02/20/2006 1:43:25 PM PST by zeeba neighba (Onward into the fog, dear evolutionaries, there's tapioca just ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Creating the physical properties of the universe that allowed the planets to form, life to emerge and species to evolve based upon shifts over time in environmental conditions also resulting from those created physical properties.

But the ToE is like Forrest Gump - "You never know what yer gonna get."

410 posted on 02/20/2006 1:44:24 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

A literal interpretation of a 6 day creation may sound lidicrous, but then so does evolution. Teach both and let the students make their own choice. What's the harm?


411 posted on 02/20/2006 1:44:41 PM PST by Jo Nuvark ((Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Not if the recommendation is based on race or religious beliefs and the person making the recommendation is a state employee using his title and letterhead of the state run university. I don't see what is 'personal' about that. If he wanted to make a recommendation unrelated to his state job and without using his state given title, then it is his choice. But as it is, he is using his title to give credence to this recommendation, so it is not 'personal'.

Apparently, you think that it is okay for the state to regulate the 'personal' recommendations of state employees.

412 posted on 02/20/2006 1:45:32 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
It derives from my conviction that the underpinnings of medicine are scientific, and that you cannot reject science without rejecting the foundations on which medicine is based.

I daresay that anyone can graduate with honors and STILL not believe that EVOLUTION got us to where we are today!

413 posted on 02/20/2006 1:47:22 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I could decide to only write such a letter to a white, stacked, beautiful young woman, if I so chose. And I would have broken no law.

Stacked and beautiful you could get away with. Where you would run afoul is the white young and woman. There is no way one can twist this as personal. It is his position in the university and his job as the student's professor that gives the letter of recommendation credence. You can't separate the letter from his job. This guy would be toast in court.

414 posted on 02/20/2006 1:47:40 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Christianity doesn't make sense to me.

Why not?

415 posted on 02/20/2006 1:48:27 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Your argument is garbage.

Can the head of a Biology Department at a public university refuse to write recommendations based on race, religion or gender?

Yes or no will do.

416 posted on 02/20/2006 1:48:49 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I daresay that anyone can graduate with honors and STILL not believe that EVOLUTION got us to where we are today!

No doubt. I'm not going to help them on the way to a career where their irrational beliefs will damage people, though.

417 posted on 02/20/2006 1:49:03 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: csense; Right Wing Professor
Bad Doctor, or Incompetent Doctor?

It is a scientific FACT that 50% of our doctors graduated in the lower half of the class!

418 posted on 02/20/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
A literal interpretation of a 6 day creation may sound lidicrous, but then so does evolution. Teach both and let the students make their own choice. What's the harm?

Students would then have a poor understanding of what science is.
419 posted on 02/20/2006 1:50:32 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

because the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.



Really? Look around you. Who created it? Humans are still finding things out about the universe to their amazement. They will never know it all or understand it all as much as they try. They try to make themselves SUPREME with 'their' knowledge. It WILL NEVER HAPPEN. There is only ONE SUPREME BEING and that is Our God, Our Creator.

They cannot accept what they won't confront and they won't confront that they don't know (nothing). So they make things to fit their 'own' knowledge and understanding. To some it is quite laughable - it's almost like 'Intelligence Envy. They HAVE to be more intelligent than The ALMIGHTY. It's a dead end road, it will never happen. But don't tell them, let them spin their wheels. Who knows, they may come up with a better shape for a wheel. ;)


420 posted on 02/20/2006 1:50:35 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It is his position in the university and his job as the student's professor that gives the letter of recommendation credence. You can't separate the letter from his job. This guy would be toast in court.

Unless something changed recently, I believe you're just clearly, obviously wrong on this.

I can openly state I only write personal letters of reccomendation for white women.

It is *personal* cuz he isn't doing it as an agent of the University.

He almost certainly win in court, after spending his time and money, and dealing with the frustration.

Altho you *never* know about courts . . . it is possible you'd find some sympathetic jury that would ignore the law, as happens on occasion!

421 posted on 02/20/2006 1:51:20 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Really? Look around you. Who created it?

This implies that the world was created. You are loading your question.
422 posted on 02/20/2006 1:51:21 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

What is PAT saying?


423 posted on 02/20/2006 1:51:26 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
If I *affirm* that Prez Bush is a good man, that is not an oath.

Again you fail to take in the context. Saying 'truthfully and forthrightly affirm' is more than an assertion. Oath is a more appropriate substitution in that usage. Ignoring the context, you can make the case that an affirmation can be a simple assertion. In the context, you can not.

424 posted on 02/20/2006 1:52:16 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Unless God came to you directly and told you personally that the Bible is his word, you are putting your faith in the word of other men.

Just like going on trial!

425 posted on 02/20/2006 1:52:41 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Oh... unless you're OJ


426 posted on 02/20/2006 1:53:03 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Unless something changed recently, I believe you're just clearly, obviously wrong on this.

No sane man would test it. I can't imagine a court finding in his favor. But he would most definitely go broke trying.

427 posted on 02/20/2006 1:54:16 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
JMO, but I think this is what many fundamentalists think has happened to them.

You are right, but He also speaks in many other ways....

428 posted on 02/20/2006 1:55:06 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Can the head of a Biology Department at a public university refuse to write recommendations based on race, religion or gender? Yes or no will do.

Again, legally, clearly, YES.

I've said YES like 10 times clearly now.

He would not face any prosecution if he did so.

Now his *employer* might act, and fire him. But he would not have violated the constitution.

I'm sorry if I have been in any way obtuse on this. I am trying to state what I believe to be the obvious, as clearly as I am able.

429 posted on 02/20/2006 1:55:07 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It is his position in the university and his job as the student's professor that gives the letter of recommendation credence. You can't separate the letter from his job. This guy would be toast in court.

Everyone's a constitutional lawyer on FR.

As far as I know, there is no case law at all on this matter. But, for example, Michael Levin at City College of New York has written books about the genetic inferiority of blacks. No doubt his status as a professor gives those books legitimacy. CCNY tried to prevent Levin from teaching required courses; Levin took them to court, won, and got costs.

430 posted on 02/20/2006 1:55:29 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
JMO, but I think this is what many fundamentalists think has happened to them.

You are right: and crazy folks who off their kids ALSO 'hear voices'!

(One must be selective on who to listen to, as the little cartoon of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other is quite correct!)

431 posted on 02/20/2006 1:56:50 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; editor-surveyor

But the nice thing about having a faith that is so easily adapted to change, is that you can have modern prophets giving speeches and making money teaching and publishing. Plus, if you can make it a State religion, you get a nice thing going, for a long time, and nobody can ever contradict you, because you tell them what to think, and it's illegal for them to think otherwise if they want to buy and sell, in the marketplace. You can also label all dissenters as whacko crazies and put peer pressure on them to conform.


432 posted on 02/20/2006 1:57:23 PM PST by zeeba neighba (Onward into the fog, dear evolutionaries, there's tapioca just ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; DaveLoneRanger
I believe human morality is inherently logical

Logical, or (closer to my own view) pragmatic?

Time has got away from me this evening, it's late here, but you have both hit a topic of particular interest, and I think the topic that is the source of a great deal of (perhaps unnecessary?) friction in the debate. Will endeavour to address the same soon, if not on this thread than another. I strongly suspect we all share very similar core values and standards of morality; if we differ about our perception of the source of morality, that difference (I earnestly hope) need not be an acrimonious one.

433 posted on 02/20/2006 1:58:22 PM PST by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You choose a church which, in effect, interprets scripture so that it's in conflict with the physical world.

Maybe...


You choose a church which, in effect, interprets scripture so that it's in conflict with the SPIRITUAL world.

DEFINITELY!

434 posted on 02/20/2006 1:58:25 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

This implies that the world was created



It was created by Our Creator, The Almighty.


435 posted on 02/20/2006 1:58:28 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Yes or no will do.

He was fairly clear that he thought 'yes'.

436 posted on 02/20/2006 1:58:40 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
I believe human morality is inherently logical.

And what about the im-morality?

437 posted on 02/20/2006 2:00:26 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; ToryHeartland

"Not really. The Catholic sect of Christianity is the largest in America by a fair amount."

I believe that about 22% of Americans are Catholic, but over 65% of Americans are Protestant. The numbers vary, depending on where you look, but they move around those axes. There are between two and three times as many Protestants as Catholics in the US.

Now, it is true that the largest single denomination is Catholicism, but that is because the various forms of Protestantism are divides into smaller sects. If you add together the various Evangelical sects and you've got a huge number of people.


438 posted on 02/20/2006 2:00:31 PM PST by Vicomte13 (La Reine est gracieuse, mais elle n'est pas gratuit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Oath is a more appropriate substitution in that usage.

You're just incorrect, I'm afraid.

In fact -- look at the next defintion in Dictionary dot com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=affirm

af·firm

v. intr. Law

To declare solemnly and formally but not under oath.

"But Not Under Oath".

"Solemnly and formally".

So it just means an affirmative answer that you "mean". Not said lightly, not just for fun, but you mean it solemnly and formally. But *not* an oath!!!

Now, if you wish to keep saying it's an oath, please show me some definition somewhere that agrees with you.

439 posted on 02/20/2006 2:01:40 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I have to contradict you here because this is not really an ipse dixit game.
As I said in a previous post (and Dimensio as well) science deals with evidence. Because the origin of life took place such a long time ago and left so few traces it is very hard to reconstruct the exact OOL event.
A common claim by creationists is that the OOL couldn't have happened naturally, so all scientists have to do to counter this claim is to show a possible pathway of how life could have started (this doesn't have to be the actual process).

So no matter what creationists claim, if we have more conclusive data on abiogenesis all that will be presented in science class will be how life could have originated and not that it must have occurred that way.

The problem with creationism/ID on the other hand is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. The creator of CRE/ID isn't constrained in any way whereas naturalistic processes are.

440 posted on 02/20/2006 2:02:20 PM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13; jwalsh07; ToryHeartland

It's improper to refer to the Catholic Church as a "sect of Christianity".


441 posted on 02/20/2006 2:02:54 PM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Americans are Puritan Roundheads

Your posting continues to reverberate with me, thanks again. If your analysis is correct (and I certainly find it intriguing), there are many ironies here. Today, it is the British Left which claims descent from the tradition of Cromwell and the Roundheads; the Labour party (socialist) claims Methodism as much as Marx among its roots.

442 posted on 02/20/2006 2:03:25 PM PST by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
As far as I know, there is no case law at all on this matter. But, for example, Michael Levin at City College of New York has written books about the genetic inferiority of blacks. No doubt his status as a professor gives those books legitimacy. CCNY tried to prevent Levin from teaching required courses; Levin took them to court, won, and got costs.

One lower court ruling under a bit different circumstances. There was no individual claiming they were damaged by his discrimination, which might have changed the outcome of that case. Interesting that he won though. Letters of recomendations have been the grounds for many lawsuits in employment circumstances. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to try it in todays environment.

443 posted on 02/20/2006 2:06:27 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
"Creationism, as discussed on this forum says God created Man (along with other life on Earth) and it evolved from there."

The more hardcore creationists will claim that no change has ever or will ever occur. Everything we see now, have ever seen, or will ever see is precisely as God created it per Genesis. Of course, one can show this to be wrong on its face with some very simple lab experiments, but that never stops those who are hardcore in whatever they believe.

"didn't have a problem with evolution UNTIL it tried to justify that initial creation."

The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the creation of life; only how life has changed over time and why.

"I know for a fact we were taught the first life on Earth 'slithered out of the primordial ooze' in science class."

The theory of Abiogenesis is a seperate and different theory than the Theory of Evolution. An argument against Abiogenesis is meaningless in a discussion of the ToE. It'd be like trying to disprove the theory of Theory of Evolution by poking holes in Quantum Mechanics.

That's 80% of the problem in this whole argument; few seem to even understand the argument itself. Admittedly, part of this stems from the fact that even some self-proclaimed ToE supporters don't understand the theory. Those of us who are truly interested in science have no problem with the Theory of Evolution being taught in schools as just that: a theory (in the scientific meaning of the term, not the common usage). However, I don't wish to see religious beliefs injected into science classrooms anymore than I wish to see physicists sitting in religion classrooms tearing religious beliefs apart.
444 posted on 02/20/2006 2:06:29 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

them on the way to a career where their irrational beliefs



Those that believe in God and His Creation don't need your help with their career. God is their source, not you.


445 posted on 02/20/2006 2:07:14 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
No sane man would test it.

It would be a PR nightmare, surely. But you would face no legal sanctions, likely, in the end.

I'm curious, are you aware of any such case? I've never heard of anyone being successfully sued for their personal reccommendations.

Do you know of any cases?

446 posted on 02/20/2006 2:07:48 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
He almost certainly win in court, after spending his time and money, and dealing with the frustration.

Given that his declaration was discriminating against religion he would lose in court since he was a state paid employee announcing on a state paid for web site his intentions to discriminate based on religion.

Give it a shot.

447 posted on 02/20/2006 2:09:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest; Dimensio
...never want to share God's email address with the rest of us!

Not true!!



NIV 1 Chronicles 28:9
 9.  "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.
(This works for us commoners, too)
 
NIV 2 Chronicles 15:1-2
 1.  The Spirit of God came upon Azariah son of Oded.
 2.  He went out to meet Asa and said to him, "Listen to me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you when you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.
 
NIV 2 Chronicles 20:4
 4.  The people of Judah came together to seek help from the LORD; indeed, they came from every town in Judah to seek him.
 
NIV Psalms 10:4
 4.  In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
 
 
 
NIV Luke 11:1
 1.  One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
 
 
NIV Acts 17:27
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
 
NIV Hebrews 11:6
 6.  And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

448 posted on 02/20/2006 2:09:59 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

Not constitutionally.


449 posted on 02/20/2006 2:10:56 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Then he is wrong.


450 posted on 02/20/2006 2:11:29 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 2,301-2,341 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson