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 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 2,301-2,341 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
We have lots of fossil and lots of genomic evidence.

That even evolutionists 'interpret' in various ways.

451 posted on 02/20/2006 2:12:21 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.

Tell me, are you aware of any case in which someone has been successfully sued over their personal criteria for letters of reccommendation?

Unless you can point me to an example, this concept sounds like just a fantasy in your mind.

452 posted on 02/20/2006 2:12:26 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Not said lightly, not just for fun, but you mean it solemnly and formally. But *not* an oath!!!

In the legal world an affirmation has a different meaning than an oath. But this was not in a court of law.

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

Right here.

affirm - establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts;

2. affirm - to declare or affirm solemnly and formally as true; "Before God I swear I am innocent"

And here

3. affirmation - (religion) a solemn declaration that serves the same purpose as an oath (if an oath is objectionable to the person on religious or ethical grounds)

453 posted on 02/20/2006 2:13:24 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
so vehement in their assault on science

The first thing to understand is that those who "assault" Darwinism are not assaulting science, despite the fact that many scientists have embraced Darwinism. Both Creation and Darwinism are, fundamentally, religions. Christian Creation cannot be proven, though an excellent case can be made that it takes less faith to accept Creationism than it does to accept Darwinism.

Darwinism cannot and has not been proven. The fossil record does not support a slow morphing of species into each other and the timelines that scientists parrot at every opportunity are sheer speculation. The process of carbon dating relies on assumptions that are unscientific and unproveable, besides unlikely like: the rate of carbon depletion is constant, the rate of carbon depletion is unaffected by external conditions, there are no traces of the daughter element to be found in the original specimen. These are all unproveable and highly improbably, generally speaking. To sum up: Darwinism is unscientific, ergo attacking Darwinism is not attacking science.

It should seem rather self-evident why this is such a heated topic. It is heated because there is infinitely more at stake here than mere origins. It is a fundamental clash of creeds. Whether we are humans created in the image of a merciful, fearful, loving, merciful, just, all-powerful God granted human equality with others of our race and endowed with the dignity due a being made in God's image or a chance smattering of atoms, whose very existence under the cosmology of the average Darwinist is a more bizarre mystery than the Trinity, a developed ape and the universe's joke is a broader issue than simply "where did I come from?". It is the root of philosophy. If you were created in God's image (and I would assert that you were), then equity, justice, honor, duty, and sacrifice have logical origins. If not, then none of these can be justified in the worldview that Darwinism must logically imply. Rather, the only just government is an anarchy where only the fittest may survive. Justice is an illusion and honor is a dream. Self-sacrifice is for fools and duty is for the naive. Yet none of this is relevant if it is true (it would be a fallacy to assert otherwise)--but the implications of that truth are far reaching.

This is not intended to give you an impulsive emotional response to Darwinism, but to explain what is really at stake in the debate.

I admit that my position is based on faith which, in and of itself, is far more intellectually honest than the Darwinist who cannot accept that he does not know that of which he is absolutely sure. I freely admit that I cannot prove my position--but he (the Darwinist) cannot prove his either. Furthermore, I would argue that we can never definitively, imperically prove how the world began as none of us were there and the experience is not reproducible. Even if, tomorrow, you were to go ahead and show in a labratory that everything the Evolutionist believes is possible, you cannot show that it actually occurred in pre-history.

If, then, all we have is faith then you must look around you and decide which is more plausible. I firmly believe that the Creationist account of the world requires less faith than the evolutionists'. If you are interested any further, I would recommend http://www.answersingenesis.org/ I do not agree with everything written on that site, but it is, overall, quite good.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." John 1:1-5

I have spoken my piece and, while I don't expect to convince you of anything, I hope I have shed more "light than heat."

454 posted on 02/20/2006 2:13:26 PM PST by Seņor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Slow DOWN!

Y'all are postin' fastern I can reed!

455 posted on 02/20/2006 2:13:53 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Levin can write all the books he wants he just can't post on his state paid for website that he will discrimiante against blacks. If he does that he will lose in court.


456 posted on 02/20/2006 2:14:07 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

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

I doubt that God is in conflict with His creation. I also doubt that scripture -- when properly understood -- is in conflict with creation. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable in a church that claimed such conflicts exist. But that's just me. Unlike others around here, I don't claim to be an authority on God.

457 posted on 02/20/2006 2:14:14 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

LOL!


458 posted on 02/20/2006 2:14:19 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

no change has ever or will ever occur



Explain what you mean by change. Like animal to human?


459 posted on 02/20/2006 2:14:25 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I'd love to see his position on this if 2/3 of the country turned Wiccan and wanted schools to teach "Mother Earth Theory".


460 posted on 02/20/2006 2:14:34 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Wouldn't you know it....a government employee.

And you KNOW how well off we ex-employee's do in retirement!! ;^)

461 posted on 02/20/2006 2:16:17 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

Actually Catholicsm is growing as a share of American Christianity. About 24% now. But that misses the point. Catholics are NOT a distinct minority. Atheists and Buddhists yes, but not Catholics and conservaitve Catholics, conservative Protestants and conservative Jews are aligned in the culture war.


462 posted on 02/20/2006 2:16:37 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
The threat is that Christian churches are Biblically illiterate and do not know how to defend Creation.

AMEN!

Spoken like a SS teacher!

463 posted on 02/20/2006 2:17:00 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I'll tell you why I am comfortably with Intelligent Design, although I will expect you're really NOT going to like the analysis.

Here's the truth: I hear the two words and take them literally. "Intelligent Design", as in, "God made everything"?
Sure. I have no problem with that.

So, Darwinian natural selection was the way by which God made his choices. "Chance" evolution happens, how? Some gene mutates. Why that gene? A cosmic ray hit it by chance. Why? God did it.

Darwinian evolution and natural selection are completely compatible with a very traditionalist Catholic view of the will of God, which sees in luck and "random" chance itself the purposeful CHOICE of God. (God CHOOSES the lottery winner, because what looks like chance to US is, of course, under the command of God). So, from our perspective, there is what science calls entropy, disorder and randomness. But from a traditional Catholic religious perspective, these are just the inscrutable parts of the natural universe where God makes His choices and decisions.

And when looked at through those very Catholic eyes, there is full compatibility between random Darwinian natural selection over eons of years, and the active will of God...because random luck events are in fact directed decisions of God, operating in override of the clockwork of natural laws.

"Chance" does not exist. God directs the outcome of every throw of the dice. That's intensely Catholic, mystical and medieval.

And obviously if you hold THAT view of cosmology, then Intelligent Design and random Darwinian Natural Selection are utterly and perfectly congruent, and there is no conflict between them, because "random" mutation is, in fact, the conscious decision of God, somewhere, somehow, and so "random" mutations are intelligently planned, and the result is intelligently designed.

Catholicism is a mystical religion. And that's how Catholics look at those words "Intelligent Design". Press a Catholic, and he'll tell you that God chose the Nebraska lottery winner, which would mean that God chose the balls to fall as they did in the lottery draw. Lottery outcomes are intelligent design.

That's why Catholics don't have any problem with the concept of intelligent design. They're nice words, and they fit perfectly well within the Catholic view of the universe. I support Intelligent Design, because I have decided that's what those words mean, and most Catholics are like me.
Have I actually READ what Intelligent Design proponents say? No. I'm not even interested, because I already KNOW how life evolved and how we got here, like most Catholics do. God made the world and life and people, evolution is how he did it. All science can do is give us details about something we already know.

This is an utterly MADDENING viewpoint...to the perspective of folks outside of it who are pressing an agenda. Catholics support "Intelligent Design" in the sense that they look at those two words and apply them literally to what they already believed, in precisely the fashion I have mentioned. That's what I think (know) "Intelligent Design" means, so I support "Intelligent Design." Of course I have never taken the time to actually read any of the pamphlets or any other material published by either intelligent design theorists or very much creationist stuff either.

This is probably the most maddening thing about religious and philosophical differences in general, and Catholics in particular. They'll take the same words and apply them to mean what THEY mean by them, and will take no care at all to try and use the words in the way that the original users meant them.

Catholics support "Intelligent Design" as I have described it. If that's not what Intelligent Design theorists mean by intelligent design, then they'd better adopt some new words, because that's what Catholics mean by it, and Catholics never change their vocabulary, or anything else, to suit social norms. (Of course, changing the terminology to something like "Directed Development" or, really, anything else, won't resolve this issue either, because Catholics will just adopt those words and graft them onto their pre-existing belief set without further ado. That's how we got Christmas trees, after all.)


464 posted on 02/20/2006 2:17:29 PM PST by Vicomte13 (La Reine est gracieuse, mais elle n'est pas gratuit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Yes, Dini. He edited his state paid website.


465 posted on 02/20/2006 2:17:34 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: joseph20
Do you believe that God cannot operate out of Time?

I'm quite certain God is independent of time, but here's the problem with that: the Bible is written to man, from God, through the inspired writing of men. It would make no sense for God to give us the Bible from his POV. Understanding our own world is hard enough without piling on more about a world we literally can't comprehend. Always remember, that He is not the author of confusion.

I understand that it's desireable to reconcile evolution to the Bible. It neatly removes cognitive dissonance, but Genesis, and for that matter, the rest of the Bible, is intended to cause cognitive dissonance in the mind of the reader.
466 posted on 02/20/2006 2:18:04 PM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Now this is interesting: The definitions you put in your post are *not* on the site you linked to . . .

The site you linked to said *exactly the same thing* as the one I linked to. And you even changed added an example to suit your needs that they never had.

af·firm Pronunciation (-fûrm)
v. af·firmed, af·firm·ing, af·firms v.tr.
1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm.
v.intr. Law
To declare solemnly and formally but not under oath.

So, nowhere does it say, "oath". In fact, your link says, "NOT UNDER OATH".

Again, do you have any link to any definition supporting your idea of 'affirm'? If not, then I believe you lose this point.

I'm sorry, but you can't just say, "Blue means red".

467 posted on 02/20/2006 2:18:51 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Those that believe in God and His Creation don't need your help with their career

Good. Then they won't be asking me for recommendation letters.

468 posted on 02/20/2006 2:19:03 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: joseph20
Do you believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken absolutely literally?

I don't.

What guideline do you use to tell the difference??

469 posted on 02/20/2006 2:20:34 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13; ToryHeartland; jwalsh07
Thanks for the very interesting posts. I am a Christian and a creationist but I do not take all of the Bible literally. There are parts that are clearly poetry and analogy. Now I know that some will accuse me of compromise or picking what I want to believe to suit myself but recognising different types of literary styles doesn't mean that I'm picking and choosing. I believe that the Bible is absolutely true but that is different from believing it literally.

That being said, for all my involvement in a couple different churches over the years and with different homeschooling groups, I could not tell you what any of the people I know believe on evolution. As matter of fact, while I know what my kids think of it, I couldn't tell you what my own family thinks of it; the subject simply never comes up for discussion.

Contrary to what appears on these threads, I also don't see it as an issue that is dividing the conservatives in this country as it is not a moral issue as significant to most people as abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, etc. The issues that are important are moral ones as jwalsh listed. I do agree with jwalsh07 with his observations in post 319.

The ToE simply does not come into play in peoples everyday lives. I don't make any decisions about who I associate with or do business with based on their belief or acceptance of the ToE. The only time it seems to be an issue is in regard to public education and that's not because evolution IS being taught but that there is such a concerted effort to keep creation from being taught. As far as I've noticed, there is not the effort by the creationists to keep the ToE out of the schools as by the *evolutionists* (or whoever) to keep creation out of school.

470 posted on 02/20/2006 2:21:04 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Good. Then they won't be asking me for recommendation letters.

LOL

471 posted on 02/20/2006 2:21:46 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

That's irrelevant to the Dini case. Dini never said he would discriminate against anyone. He said he would require a belief in a scientific theory of human origins, something that is an entirely defensible requirment for a career in medicine.


472 posted on 02/20/2006 2:22:07 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

[...Students would then have a poor understanding of what science is...]

Don't start yelling until you finish reading. I don't think evolution is good science. No, I'm not a scientist, but that doesn't mean I can't put two and two together.

In grade school, I went to a museum and saw an exhibit with a tooth or jawbone and then there was this long line of human/ape looking creatures up to "modern man". Except for the tooth, on each one it said "Artists Concept".

Even as a grade schooler, I could see there was a huge gap in evidence filled in with wishful thinking and artistic imagination.

I don't have to PROVE God. He proves Himself. Evolution is another story.


473 posted on 02/20/2006 2:22:18 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 419 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Yes, Dini. He edited his state paid website.

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.

Do you know of any successful court cases like this? "Successful", meaning the court found against the person who wrote letters of reccommendation?

Unless you can point to one, then the suggestion that this is unconstitutional and illegal seems to be unfounded.

You will lose this point unless you can show prior examples.

474 posted on 02/20/2006 2:22:33 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Hi Elsie...

Never taught Sunday School, but I have written a lot of Christian material including musicals, plays and Bible Studies. Just staying sharp in the Spirit.

Are you a teacher?


475 posted on 02/20/2006 2:24:37 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 463 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I'm not going to help them on the way to a career where their irrational beliefs will damage people, though.

How will they 'damage' people?

476 posted on 02/20/2006 2:24:46 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

There is plenty in the Bible that is not truly comprehensible to the mind of Man. There are many examples. We can't fathom how God can be three yet be one at the same time. Also, we can't fathom how Jesus can be truly Man and yet truly God at the same time.

Nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly and simply state that God is a Trinity. Yet this is something that we understand through the teaching of the Church. There are clues and pieces that when studied and interpreted correctly, lead the conclusion that God is a Trinity.

So why do you insist that the story of the 7 days of creation and the story of Adam and Eve must be take on the most simplistic, face-value, and absolute literal level?


477 posted on 02/20/2006 2:26:24 PM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Really? Look around you. Who created it?

This implies that the world was created. You are loading your question.

Is this any better?

Really? Look around you. How did it create itself?

478 posted on 02/20/2006 2:26:41 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

For example: giving out antibiotics like candy because you don't believe bacteria can evolve 'new' capabilities to detoxify them. Using tissue or proteins from less-closely related animals because you don't believe in the mammalian tree of common descent. Etc.


479 posted on 02/20/2006 2:27:31 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Really? Look around you. How did it create itself?

Perhaps spacetime has always existed, and didn't need any "creation" by itself or any other entity.

Isn't that what you believe about a certain deity?

480 posted on 02/20/2006 2:29:47 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: joseph20
There are clues and pieces that when studied and interpreted correctly, lead the conclusion that God is a Trinity.

When Jesus said, "I and my father are one." And when he said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the father," I think that's more than a 'clue'. It's pretty much up front. Kind of like Genesis.
481 posted on 02/20/2006 2:30:04 PM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Just curious, but after all the dust settles in this debate, what actual technology (ranging from electronics through medicine) is effected by the outcome of this debate?


482 posted on 02/20/2006 2:30:26 PM PST by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: joseph20
It's improper to refer to the Catholic Church as a "sect of Christianity".

because we ALL know it's the True Church!


No; it is NOT the time to get the Christians fighting among themselves while we sit back and laugh!

483 posted on 02/20/2006 2:30:28 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
giving out antibiotics like candy

This is something of a current scandal in the UK, where we have created MRSA (methicillin-resistant or multiple antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) super bugs in our hospitals responsible for circa 100,000 human infections annually, of which about 5,000 are fatal.

But in this case, it isn't for want of understanding Evolution, more to do with the bloody socialists running the NHS!

484 posted on 02/20/2006 2:32:10 PM PST by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Binghamton_native
Just curious, but after all the dust settles in this debate, what actual technology (ranging from electronics through medicine) is effected by the outcome of this debate?

The use and development of new antibiotics is affected by one's view of evolution. The selection of organisms for transplants or gene therapy is dictated by one's view of relatedness, which is directed by evolution. Pretty much all of biology goes back to evolution.

485 posted on 02/20/2006 2:33:57 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Like animal to human?

Psssst, this just in. Humans ARE animals.
486 posted on 02/20/2006 2:34:26 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I doubt that God is in conflict with His creation. I also doubt that scripture -- when properly understood -- is in conflict with creation. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable in a church that claimed such conflicts exist.
 
I do not disagree with this!
 
 
But I DO believe that 'creation' has been ravaged a bit since it first started:
 

NIV Romans 8:19-24
 19.  The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
 20.  For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
 21.  that  the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
 22.  We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
 23.  Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
 24.  For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?

487 posted on 02/20/2006 2:36:12 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

The living Magisterium of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

What do you use?


488 posted on 02/20/2006 2:36:31 PM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

If that's not what Intelligent Design theorists mean by intelligent design, then they'd better adopt some new words,

It's not and after the Dover case they will be adopting new words.

You're version of ID is not what the controversy is about. The version of ID promoted by the Discovery Institute (the preeminent ID think tank in the US) states that the ID'er intervenes in evolution in a way that is not natural (that is, not random mutation) and that is not knowable by a science that admits only natural explanations. The Discovery Institute actually wants to change the definition of science to admit supernatural explanations. The school board of the state of Kansas has recently attempted to do just that.

489 posted on 02/20/2006 2:37:51 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

Time is Nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen a once.


490 posted on 02/20/2006 2:37:53 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

Time is Nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.


491 posted on 02/20/2006 2:38:04 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

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

Perhaps it doesn't speak your language or perhaps you simply are not listening. Are you reason's ruler?

492 posted on 02/20/2006 2:38:13 PM PST by Theophilus (Abortion = Child Sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Binghamton_native

[...after all the dust settles in this debate, what actual technology (ranging from electronics through medicine) is effected by the outcome of this debate?...]

You have raised the million dollar question!!!

The outcome is a civilation in decline because it has forgotton God.
Evolution does not advance civility, it excuses depravity.


493 posted on 02/20/2006 2:38:22 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 482 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Again, do you have any link to any definition supporting your idea of 'affirm'? If not, then I believe you lose this point.

Sorry, I had to run and my second link did not make it in the post, but it is here.

3. affirmation - (religion) a solemn declaration that serves the same purpose as an oath (if an oath is objectionable to the person on religious or ethical grounds)

494 posted on 02/20/2006 2:39:49 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
But in this case, it isn't for want of understanding Evolution, more to do with the bloody socialists running the NHS!

Well, creationists and socialists have many similarities.

495 posted on 02/20/2006 2:39:53 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark

I have been.

Now am leading a small group at home on Tuesday evenings.

Hebrews 5:12

In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!


496 posted on 02/20/2006 2:41:58 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Mighty flimsy strawmen: do I have to???


497 posted on 02/20/2006 2:43:24 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Perhaps.....


498 posted on 02/20/2006 2:43:52 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

It. Doesn't. Make. Sense. To. Me.

I never stated that it was illogical as an objective fact. Maybe it's right. Maybe God needed to sacrifice his only son as an offering to himself. I just don't get it. No need to come unglued.


499 posted on 02/20/2006 2:44:31 PM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
It's pretty much up front.

Or He's a lLiar, or a Lunatic!

500 posted on 02/20/2006 2:44:35 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 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