Posted on 01/30/2005 9:56:02 PM PST by freespirited
Ironically, this battle was touched off when Cobb County bought new textbooks that actually covered evolution, after years in which the subject was largely ignored. The same kinds of struggles are cropping up in towns in Wisconsin, Arkansas and elsewhere, as school boards try to implement state curriculum standards mandated by Congress. All sides are keeping a close eye on Ohio, which last year adopted standards including an incendiary phrase about "critically analyz[ing] aspects of evolutionary theory." Kansas, which in the November election handed the anti-evolution forces a 6-4 majority on the state school board, is due to review its standards in February; five years ago, the state was widely ridiculed for eliminating evolution from the required curriculum entirely. The only thing lacking for a full-scale culture war is involvement by the national conservative movement, which has treated it as a local issue. That could change, though. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who wrote an op-ed article supporting the Dover School Board, says he regards evolution as one of the "big social issues of our time," along with abortion and gay marriage. . . . .
Soon thereafter, I.D. burst into public awareness with the publication of "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law professor who underwent a midlife conversion to evangelical Christianity. As a scientific theory, I.D. is making only slow progress in overcoming evolution's 150-year head start. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Just because there will be no animal death after the coming of the kingdom does not mean there was no struggle or animal death before the fall.
I have yet to see a single Biblical passage that denies animal death before the fall. And no, Romans 5 does not cut it, as St. Paul is clearly speaking of human death and not animal death.
Rom 8:21-22
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (emphasis added in scripture text)
Talk about a central theme, WOW!
Bot, there is a lot of anti-evolution stuff coming out lately. Reminds me of all the anti-dan rather stuff coming out after he showed the forged documents.
And it is about bloody time... 8^>
The internet is having as much impact on the free flow of ideas and criticisms as the printing press did. That is a good thing.
Once both sides are exposed in the light of day, it is amazing how fast "controversial" subjects can become much less controversial.
Is the authenticity of dan rathers documents still very controversial to reasonable men? 8^>
SHUT UP YOU STUPID CREATIONIST!
</sarcasm>
Yes, human death is key to the Gospel. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates animal death plays the same role.
God's first act after pronouncing the curse for Adam's sin was to sacrifice an animal (the first animal death was skins to cover Adam and Eve's sin).
The text does not say it was a sacrifice, and it does not say it was the first animal death. You are adding to the Word of God.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
Isaiah is speaking of the state of the affairs after the coming of God's Kingdom at the end of time. Nothing in the text indicates this was the order of things before the Fall.
As Paul clearly states, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, overcame the penalty of death brought on by Adam's sin.
Right, Adam's sin caused HUMAN death, and Christ conquered it. St. Paul says nothing about animal death.
If evolution was true, Jesus Christ would have had no reason to resurrect Himself because He could have become a spirit being and went straight to heaven.
I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate. I don't see how evolution negates the effects of human sin and the need for Christ to sacrifice himself to remove that sin.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Yes, Adam would not have died had he not sinned. What does this have to do with animal death?
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Luk 24:39-40 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them [his] hands and [his] feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
I don't see what any of the passages above have to do with animal death before the fall. Please elaborate.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yes, sin caused human death. I don't see what this has to do with animal death, for the fifth time.
Adam's sin cursed the entire universe. Rom 8:21-22 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
I don't see any mention of animal death. Sure, creation groans because of Adam's sin, but nothing in the text suggests groaning=animal death. You're adding to the Word of God again.
Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (emphasis added in scripture text)
Yes, this is one of my favorite passages as well, but what exactly does it have to do with evolution or animal death?
-OR- that inbreeding resulted in the devolution of the human genome.. to what it is now.. with further devolution as a work in process. One thing is certain the third human on earth came from the first two.. and there is much evidence they were trolls(the first two).. with evidence of; What we know of human history..
I'm curious: Is this insulin pathway argument yours, or did you get it from somewhere else?
Nice link.
I bet no one reads it.
No, you can't jump in; Oh, you already have.
I know what he was saying; I just wanted to know if he knew the context of those verses...he didn't know...and you can pull verses out of a skeptic's book and pretend you have labored long and hard to dig them out yourself.
I am amazed that in one long breath you convolute the creation story (any child can get it)and then accuse others of convoluting.
Are there some things figurative in the Bible? Sure, but every time it disagrees with popular opinion does not mean you can slap a figurative label on it. That is quite convoluted.
The Hebrews had it long before you and they easily understood Gen. 1 and Gen 2 to be obvious compliments of one another.
I have read the 'skeptic' books, they never give the Bible the benefit of a doubt; their doubt.
I already adressed my criticism of Neo-Darwinism. Take a look at this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1328556/posts?page=194#194
I really doubt that you are open-minded since you put that same post up repeatedly and always reject the arguments in total.
Asking JohnnyM
Uh, no, apparently you don't.
Evolution was regularly taught in American High Schools starting around the 1880's. The only thing that happened in the 20's was that for the first time nearly all American youth were attending public high schools. Previously many had attended private schools, and even more had ended formal schooling before the high school grades. IOW the rise of the antievolution movement, and Scopes and all that, was not a reaction to more (or less) evolution being taught in the average school, but rather to more schools, each teaching about the same amount of evolution as American schools had for decades.
If you want to focus on results rather than causes, you're still wrong. The result of the Scopes trial was less teaching of evolution (mainly due to voluntary avoidance by publishers) not more. Evolution wouldn't become an important or central topic in textbooks again until around 1963, with the introduction of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks. This was part of the reaction to the Sputnik "crisis" in science education (math and physics having been tackled first) and these texts became a model for many private publishers. Their appearance is also why the antievolution movement (Seagraves v. California, The Creation Research Society, ICR, The Genesis Flood, etc) reappeared just about this time.
The evolution of useful idiots is a story all its own. It remains for the rest of us to recognize the difference between and "theory" and a "philosophy" when it comes to science.
One thing I have learned in life is the futility of discussion with someone who considers me an indoctrinated propangandist.
Very well said.
Or is this an excuse to avoid discussion because your argument doesn't hold up. :)
When people ask the question -- is nothing sacred? -- in science that's really true.
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.