Posted on 12/08/2005 7:57:08 PM PST by curiosity
Sorry. GOP != Creationists. Plenty of republicans still believe in things like physical evidence, sound rational thinking, analysis and deduction. Good old-fashioned conservative things like that...
YEC INTREP - They still don't understand
*Excuse me let me fix some mistakes:
I mean to say that: How can Christians who 'believe in the Bible', be consistent, and deny God's power in Genesis to create the world in 6-Literal Days (thereby ~almost~ calling God a liar, becuase that IS what Genesis says in Hebrew-In COntext), and then Later claim that they believe in Christ's Resurection/Moses Snake Miracles/ THe Passover/ The Ten Plagues/ Israel's defeats of her enemies during JUDGES/ Feeding The 5000 (both miracles..) , and on, and on- Is it possible that God is saying: believe in me, because I CREATED ALL MATTER, and therefore I can manipulate it if I want, and have the will, therefore I care about YOU (and want to save YOU TOO?).
Could it be, isn't this reasonable.??
"There's nothing that scares an "educated" libertarian more than being thought stupid or unsophisticated."
What Eve was made to feel like when she hesitated in taking
the Forbidden fruit..."For God knows that when you eat of it, you shall be wise, like the gods knowing good from evil"
The same old tricks are being used today to separate other wise good people from their Godly heritage and personal integrity as was what was used on Eve and Adam in Eden and human kind has lived "east of Eden" ever since.
East of Eden...where one finds the gates of Hell!
NOPE God said "let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the earth plants bearing seed, fruit-trees bearing fruit each with seed according to its kind"- That's what it says Gen 1:11..
Does John 20-21 Not mean what it says it means when it says "he must raise from the dead"-
THE HEBREW IS PRETTY CLEAR, which means that abiogensis is wrong!!
When evolution becomes a reasonable explanation for the intricacy and complexity of living creatures, then we will cease to reject it.
Then Gen 1:12, "And the earth brought forth grass".
Gen 1:24 : "And God said, Let the earth bring forth
the living creature after his kind, etc." but then
Gen 1:25, "And God made the beast of the earth after
his kind etc."
But it never says that God made the grass, just that the earth brought it forth. So grass is not made, it just occurs.
“Turns out, Paul Mirecki might be a prophet.”
Glad to see there’s no agenda here.
“But when we asked for his take on the modern-day tension between science and religion, he attributed it not to genuine human soul-searching but to “a political movement to change society.”
Yeah, a political movement to stop your political movement, and, one hopes, to reverse the damage your ilk has done.
“State Sen. Kay O’Connor said he “has hate in his heart.”
Sky is blue, ocean is wet . . . you ain’t gotta be Fellini to figure that one out.
“Other state legislators questioned KU’s integrity and the professor’s competence.”
And in other news, sources claimed that Jeffrey Dahmer may not have been a very nice fellow.
“Mirecki’s boss, Chancellor Robert Hemenway, called the e-mails “repugnant and vile.”
I only hope he meant it, and was not just posturing for the media. But did he really not know what kind of vipers he was harboring?
“It would seem there’s an impassable rift between the God-fearing and the God-doubting.”
One would more accurately term them the God-loving and the God-hating.
“Between the far right and the far left.”
That would be, “Between the far left and the rest of humanity.”
“Between two caricatures: the religious crusader and the atheistic intellectual.”
That would be, “Between a caricature, the ‘religious crusader,’ and the ubiquitous atheist pseudo-intellectual.”
“Yet two-thirds of respondents to a recent Lawrence Journal-World poll reported believing in evolution theory and God.”
You astound me, Holmes.
“Could it be, then, that Mirecki was right? That an issue seemingly close to the human heart has been hijacked and exploited in the public sphere?”
No. It is rather that the scurrilous conduct of Mirecki and his ilk has been dragged out into the light of day.
“We set out to find what’s really going on”
No, you set out to slam Christians.
“to our knowledge, the current political debate involves no evolution-wary Wiccans, nor fundamentalist Buddhists, Jews or Spaghetti Monsterists.”
Oh, yes, Wicca and Spaghetti Monsterism are on the same moral plane as Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity. In a pig’s eye.
“They should not be mixed. Religion should not practice science, and science should not practice religion.”
However, both are practiced by human beings, and it is folly to ignore the implications of the one for the other.
“humans have been constructing meaning and mythology since the time of cavemen. So says religious studies scholar Karen Armstrong”
No bias there, eh? Looks like the “religious studies” field may be as heavily infiltrated as the other departments.
“Mirecki says. “I don’t *believe* in evolution. I accept the findings of scientists.”
And in the same way a lot of people do not *believe* in God, but accept the evidence of their senses.”
“I think the great fallacy of fundamentalists is that they want to put religious truth and scientific truth on the same plane and say they’re the same kind of truth”
And here we see the big lie at the core of the opposition to any mention of intelligent design.
The initial problem was atheists saying that scientific truth can prove things about religious truth, and that what it proved was that there was no God. Everything that has ensued is a *reaction* by people of faith to that abuse.
Religion was *already* being taught in science classrooms, and what was being taught was atheism. People of faith, seeing this, started saying that the science classroom should not be the exclusive purview of atheists to teach atheism, and, since atheists are unable not to teach atheism, they wanted a bit of time for the other view.
“The God I was taught about as a fundamentalist Christian is not compatible with what I learned in the world,” Humburg says.”
Which is immaterial to any discussion of intelligent design, since intelligent design does not include 7-day, young-earth creationism.
“No matter what science says, God could still be behind it all. Behind everything,”
Which is ID in a nutshell.
“Evans . . . estimates that 10 percent of Americans are evolutionists, 10 percent are creationists, and 80 percent are some combination of the two.”
All she can see is creationists, evolutionists, and hybrids? I wonder if she’s deliberately misusing the word “creationist” to further her agenda, or if in her view everyone who believes in God should be lumped together.
“Burt Humburg, KU Medical School graduate, Christian, and evolution advocate . . . “We imbue the world with meaning — that everything has a purpose,” Evans says. “That’s why people have a profound feeling of discomfort when confronted with evolution.”
I wonder how hard they had to look to find this theological idiot. If you accept that the fossil record reflects some sort of process, and you accept that God created everything, then clearly evolution has a purpose.
“Religion and evolution are perfectly compatible, with a few exceptions.” One of those exceptions is Biblical literalism.”
Well, after all that talk about “creationists” we finally get to this?
“The church refused to accept his theory that the Earth was round and not the center of the universe.”
Another distortion that won’t die.
“famed blogger Josh Rosenau (says) “ . . . you can’t base religion on empirical evidence.”
You can if you have the evidence.
“Krishtalka says that by attempting to place science and religion on the same plane — public school classrooms — Intelligent Design proponents have created unnecessary conflict.”
Another repetition of the central big lie. Atheists have created unnecessary conflict by using the science classroom to proselytize their religion.
“Rosenau says the debate too often is categorized as “atheists vs. Bible-beating hicks.”
He must read FR.
“He (God) doesn’t expect us to check our brains at the door to church.”
Quite true, but try telling that to a fundamentalist atheist.
“One such mission occurred in September at an anti-evolution meeting in Dover, Penn. The meeting convened amid a federal trial between Dover residents and the local school board, which voted to include Intelligent Design in a revised curriculum.”
Note the association of “anti-evolution” and intelligent design. ID is not anti-evolution.
This is a three-cornered fight, with the atheists muddying the waters by conflating the other two points of view.
“Here I am as an M.D.,” Humburg says. “Anything that undermines science is a threat to me. Be it politics, religion, Intelligent Design. As a scientist, I should have something to say about that.”
And once again the association of ID with "anti-evolution."
“As it turns out, Miller sums up our unscientific findings in a note at the bottom of his personal university Web page: . . . Christian theologians and scientists, including evangelicals, since the time of Darwin have seen no necessary conflict between orthodox theology and an evolutionary understanding of the history of life.”
IOW, ID.
The author admits that the notion of a severe separation of science from religion is a new one. This even newer insistence on a hermetic seal on the science classroom, to prevent any acknowledgement of the existence of religious belief, can have only one motivation: to ensure that the teaching of religion in science classes remains the exclusive prerogative of the atheist.
Thanks. This thread may carry us through the weekend.
|
"A perceived conflict between science and religion has been constructed, through media and public forums, by people with political aims."
This is really all one really needs to know. The controversy is mostly construed. It makes good media and that sells papers and gets ratiings.
Have you ever seen a media report on a consensus? Agreements are boring, conflict is exciting.
The fact that 99% of scientists agree that humans contribute to climate change is much less a story than the 1% that disagree.
Of course if 99% of people beleived the world was flat and only 1% thought it was round, the 1% would be right. That is why science is not a democratic process.
Old fashioned things like that are better protected by the GOP in power. That's why the left would like to chip away at what put us in power in the first place.
Nah, I think the Islamic world still beats us in that regard. We appear to be making a concerted effort to close the gap though.
Pounding the table, shouting, (or CAPITALS) is the sign of a weak argumnet.
Man wrote the Bible, God didn't. The Bible is subject to interpretation.
I don't have a problem with people believing in Creation, or ID, but it is not science, and never will be. Keep Creation and ID in the philosophy/religion classes.
Yet another demonstration of the mis-use of the word "theory". The proper word here, I believe, should be "hypothesis". A "theory" is an entirely different thing, describing how something operates, like "gravity theory", "music theory", and "semiconductor theory". It is NOT a guess.
Give him a break. He's not a scientist.
Well, actually, I was speaking of conservative Christians, and America is not the only place where we exist, you know.
I actually know a couple conservative Christians from the Islamic world, and they have no trouble reconciling their faith with modern science. In fact, one of the things they pride themselves on is that they are able to do it and the Moslems aren't.
It's not the left that's attacking science. It's troglodyte "conservative" school board members in Dover Pa, and their close relatives in Kansas.
The "left" isn't doing anything but laughing at a small subset of conservatives who are so wound up in their religion that they're willing to torpedo the very political organization that can actually do a few things they want (like oppose abortion, etc.).
These people are the same kind of idiots as the "gay marrage" idiots in the Dem party. Willing to torpedo their political power over a silly issue of no real importance.
And that's where this fight belongs, between the various Christian denominations that believe entirely different things from reading the same Bible.
This subject SHOULD NOT be brought into the public square with attempts to force it into science class. That's out of line. It's damaging to conservative politics, and it's damaging to peoples faith as well (just observe how this discussion will devolve into arguments against the existence of God - trust me, some will reject God because this discussion came up - and it's the fundamentalists that are bringing it up)
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.