Posted on 11/18/2005 4:34:43 AM PST by StatenIsland
Another idiot that equates ID with strict creationism, and then says it's wrong.
Folks with the "art gene" running through their lines know all about it. Those who don't, can't imagine it's that simple.
Apparently NOT as the Heavenly Father, that Creator that endowed US with RIGHTS no man/government can take or give, is not the "god" this man is describing.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you think there are really "transitional" fossils that demonstrate humans evolved from something else?
i believe he says it is not science, but rather theology.
So apes started cave paintings? Cool!
THIS libertarian (small "l" please) is anything but Godless, and believes he should be able to exercise his freedom to believe in God the way he wants to believe in God -- not in the way some school board or other government entity tells him he should believe in God.
Next thing you know, a school board will be taken over in Jersey City by Hindus and you'll find cows an intergral part of the science curriculum. And perhaps somewhere, somehow, Druids (Reformed) are plotting to take over a school board and mandate repeated mention of trees.
It is truly sad that defenders of both evolution and intelligent design don't really look at their topics objectivelly, they just defend either one as their "religion" yelling at each other and not listening to another point of view. The fact is, evolution is a theory, not a law, which means that it is (was) the best theory given the observed data, much like the Big Bang theory, which is being revised (some scientists think that the universe came from "sheets" instead of a singularity). ID, from what I understand, takes the THEORY of evolution and, in simple terms, states that we don't really know how it all started due to the mathmatical improbibility of it all. But I guess people don't want to look at it in that light, they just want to argue, which is their right, but it seems to be a moot point.
No matter what, we are here, there are mysteries of the Universe that we don't understand, from the fact that evolution of the first complex protiens should have taken (mathmatically) over 20 billion years to happen given all of the variables, to the fact that the Universe isn't crawling with intelligent life and we haven't detected it yet (read Carl Sagan for more insight on this), to the "missing link" in the past of the human race.
If you read most physicst, specifically the quantum fields and cosmology, they are constantly dumbfounded about the origin of anything in the Universe, and most of them do write a lot of it off to a higher being (God). Yelling at each other, trying to prove or dis-prove the existence of God due to observations (which can be flawed) in one or two specific fields of science is absurd. Most people hear the word "theory" and believe it to be a natrual law, but theories are imperfect and subject to change due to new observations. The final say on evolution, as well as the creation of the Universe, is still open for new theories, and most likely will be for the rest of history because of a lack of data (first hand) that proves conclusively the facts one way or another (unless human beings do evolve to something completely different before the end of history).
People who try to argue for science while disregarding the unknown are deluding themselves, because there will always be mysteries that human beings can't explain, no matter how much we learn about the universe around us.
So,what?
Why does Krauthammer,and others, believe that it's their mission in life to parade the truth of scientific orthodoxy upon the school systems?
If intelligent design is false it will fall out of favor, and be discredited on the facts. The world will still spin, and birds will still fly.
The larger question is: Who decides what is taught in schools - liberal bureaucrats, the MSM, or parents?
We've already seen one judge rule that parents have no control over what is taught in schools. Whatever one thinks of the ID/Evolution controversy it should be remembered that parents are under fire to cede control of their children to liberal educators. That's more important than any theory, and Krauthammer should recognize that.
Thank goodness we get to elect school board members so if the Hindus win, so be it.
In this sense, we can take Genesis as true: a poetic statement about the Creator and his relationship to the cosmos and humankind. But we cannot take it as literal scientific truth. The scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming that life has developed from a simple common ancestor over thousands of millions of years. Most branches of Christianity have long since recognized this fact, and have reached the conclusion that evolution poses no more threat to Christian theology than the present problem of evil in the world. For example, Roman Catholics teach that God used evolution to creat us. Only in one portion of the Evangelical ("fundamentalist") movement is a literal reading of Genesis demanded of Christians. I believe that this is a huge barrier between educated people and Christianity -- an unnecessary barrier! As Jesus put it: "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)
Creationism is theology. ID is philosophy.
Whenever you get into things we don't understand you're always bordering between philosophy and "science".
As someone how they differentiate science from phiolosiphy, and you'll likely be able to give them several examples of things they consider science that don't fit the definition.
Then ask them how to explain the origin of the universe through science.
I'm not a fan of Robertson, and I do think that he is pushing for creationism to be taught in schools.
However calling ID "today's tarted-up version of creationism", is just as close minded as Robertson.
And what did the Bible say he created them from? I remember in the case of woman it was from Adam's rib. Do you honestly find that easier to believe than evolutionary processes? I mean if God wanted to create woman He didnt need to mess around with Adam's rib. He could just speak her into existence like he did the rest of the Universe. So why if He could choose the Adam's rib approach with Eve, you wont allow God to use evolution as his means of creation. A baby is a person from conception on in that if it continues to grow, its not going to end up an aligator. Its human. So if you give God nine months to create a child today, why dont you allow God millenia to produce this complex creature Man. You do realize that God exists outside of time and our days are irrelevant to him?
If you don't take Genesis literally, then there is nothing else to say.
So no matter what, you aren't going to believe the Biblical account of creation and I won't believe we evolved from apes so I guess it's a draw.
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.