A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

Human Events ^ | September 15, 2000 | Nancy Pearcey

[TASMANIANRED]

Knowledge increases my sense of "awe" over the whole thing.

[YHAOS]

". . . some eminent FRevos have decided to more or less boycott the crevo threads. This came as very sad news. We all lose when stuff like that happens."

Some people don't want to play unless they can just waltz right in and pick up all the marbles without a contest. The Masters of the Universe suffer the greater loss here, but it's true just the same; we all lose.

[TXnMA]

"In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage"

BB, let's try reversing the 'polarity' of your statement:

"In the end, science>religion must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical spiritual. When it starts treading on metaphysical physical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I submit that such an inviolable dichotomy is invalid in a physical universe that was created and is maintained by a God who is Spirit.

[hosepipe]

[ Are all men (ie Mankind) created equal? Are they, then, endowed with inalienable rights? Do governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed? ]

Yes.. Unalienable by whom?...

If Certain RIGHTS were given by God and those rights are none of governments business.. THEN, government cannot adjust them.. Since "the Government" didn't grant them..

Grant them meaning... "grant privledges"..
Which is what ALL democracys have.. "privledges" granted by the government..

In a real sense no democracy on earth has any "rights" merely privledges granted by the government which can be adjusted, on a whim.. Thats why democracy is indeed Mob Rule..

UNalienable is a word in our Constitution echoed NOWHERE in any other Constitution on this planet, I know of.. For good reason too.. UNalienable rights can only be vouched safe by God(the real one).. Deport God and the word UNalienable becomes mere rhetoric.. Could be thats the ACLU's real agenda... deporting God.. or at least giving God a green card..

You know, so that "we"(in the U.S.) can become a democracy like in Canada and Europe..
Where God(the real one) is pretty much UNwelcome...

[TXnMA]

"Knowledge increases my sense of "awe" over the whole thing. "

Yes, indeed! And that is why this is on my daily reading list -- along with the Bible...

[Conservative Texan Mom]

My favorite is the Blue Lagoon

[TXnMA]

"Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors."

Even including this discussion on FR? '-}

[FreedomProtector]

As far as I know, FR is the only site with an ongoing dialogue on the "crevo" issues.... I learned a lot from both sides.

Me, too, <1/1,000,000th%. If anything, the "crevo" debates have increased my appreciation of, and interest, in science issues, and I've learned so much from the correspondents on such threads, on both sides. So I was disturbed to learn that some eminent FRevos have decided to more or less boycott the crevo threads. This came as very sad news. We all lose when stuff like that happens. FWIW.

I recently read a couple of "I'm leaving" posts and I still don't understand the reasons for given for leaving. In general if someone said anything out of the bounds of reasonable thought [scientific or otherwise] or appropriate humor on either side someone would shoot it down rather quickly. Having two sides who disagree is in many more ways more interesting then a bunch of people nodding their head yes. I doubt that Darwin Central would be all that interesting for this reason, as it tends to ban people who disagree quickly.
DaveLoneRanger was banned after only a day for trumped up charges of trolling.
Having read many DaveLoneRanger posts, I can say I have never seen a post of his that would classify as a troll.

Anybody can find one-sided well written books on the subject, a dialogue is rare. FreeRepublic is unique in that it fosters freedom of intellectual inquiry. Philosophical arguments and arguments related to scientific theory are interesting because after an argument will be stated, there will objections, there will be counters to those objections, other objections etc. The initial argument may not have really been that interesting, but the objections and arguments to counter objections are almost always are interesting.

Maybe they are tired of a constant barrage of the shelling and counter arguments and it is a calculated retreat, but it seems more like an emotional response similar to a child "I don't want to play anymore", so I will go and play over here rather then someone who is really intersted in intellectually analyzing what view is probable or what view doesn't contradict the world I observe?

[FreedomProtector]

are almost always are interesting. -> are almost always interesting.

[TXnMA]

"My favorite is the Blue Lagoon"

Indeed! Imagine being able to see this

whenever you look up from your patio at night...

[YHAOS]

”UN UN UN UN UN”

At ease soldier! I was quoting Coolidge. { 8^)

Otherwise I don’t have any kind of a quarrel with what you say.

[ahayes]

DaveLoneRanger joined in mid-September and started out his posting career by calling us his enemies and comparing us to terrorists.

DannyTN has been posting at DC and has not been banned as he has demonstrated a commendable ability to actually be civil, unlike Dave.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

I am going to respond to your post, only because it is so chock full of falsehoods.

DLR, as he is known at DC, was there for over a month, his first post was about how they were all his enemies.

The crevo threads here have gotten completely out of hand, the Creo's have completely lost it here, you do not discuss science, you discuss what you think science is, there is a difference.

Jim Robinson stated that anyone that understood evolution was a marxist etc, and had nothing to add to the conservative movement, his words.

When the irrational have taken over a website so completely, and the rational are attacked for their views on science, and have it stated in no uncertain terms that they are useless to the conservative cause, expect them to leave in droves.

DC happens to be a rational place for discussion, DLR, was not rational, and he flamed out, fairly quickly.

I have not posted that much at DC, but I am beginning to think that I probably will, and I have not posted here, for the reasons stated above.

If those that understand science, are not welcome at this website, then we won't be here to discuss it.

I must say, the science threads are now few and far between, and the discussion of such science by the Creationists is laughable in the extreme.

BTW, just so you also know, anyone is welcome at DC, just do not go into your, I am creo hear me roar mode. Be rational, discuss rationally, and you too can post at DC.

The level of rational has gone down at this website exponentially, as the ones that understand science, and discuss it, have been slowly banned from the site, or shown to be unwelcome on this website, as they give nothing to the conservative movement, unless they wish to change their entire worldview to the irrational, then, they will be welcome.

Otherwise, those that understand science, evolution, etc, are marxist homosexual pagan, and whatever Else Jim Robinson claimed they were attached to and helping.

Once the owner of a website makes such a statement, expect those that agree with the rationality of science, to run away in droves, there is nothing else that can be done.

[Cicero]

Absolutely. The rise of freedom in the west owed something to liberal philosophy, but its solid foundations were laid by Christianity over the course of the middle ages.

Christianity taught that all are equal, whether Greek or Jew, man or woman, slave or free, from the time of the Apostles. And it taught the lesson already present in Judaism, that God gives men freedom of choice--something Muslims don't have a clue about. The choice given most explicitly in Deuteronomy, but seen throughout the Bible: that men are free to choose good or evil, to follow or to defy the Covenant.

This does not mean that everyone has to be a Christian to be free, but it does mean that if they start to undermine the foundations on which freedom was based, then they start leading the country into a new kind of slavery.

Peter Singer illustrates this, when he argues that a one-year-old child can be killed for convenience, and is perhaps worth less than a dog. And the Darwinists were behind the eugenics movements, the development of "scientific" notions of race in the nineteenth century, and the idea that those who fall behind in the evolutionary climb deserve no pity.

There has been quite a lot of work done, from the time of Toqueville, illustrating that freedom in America works, however imperfectly, because a majority of citizens freely choose to discipline themselves, because of their own moral sense, usually religious. The Great Awakening of the nineteenth century, for instance, played a part in preserving American freedom. Because citizens act relatively virtuously, guided by inner constraints, it is less neccessary to impose discipline from above by the police.

Again, one need not be a Jew or a Christian to follow the basic moral codes or virtues, but without religion these habits quickly degenerate into Hobbes's state of natural anarchy.

[cornelis]

demonstrated a commendable ability to actually be civil

I've seen enough in the world to watch out for those!

[YHAOS]

"I submit that such an inviolable dichotomy is invalid in a physical universe that was created and is maintained by a God who is Spirit."

Good point, except The Masters of the Universe have pointedly excluded themselves from the spiritual in an attempt to deny Christian thought any place at the table. Of course they violate their own policy at will, but they tolerate no cross over from the Christian side. It’s their dichotomy; let them resolve it.

Am I being too mean-spirited? Probably. Sorry. { 8^D

[hosepipe]

[ At ease soldier! I was quoting Coolidge. { 8^) / Otherwise I don’t have any kind of a quarrel with what you say. ]

?? I thought it was obvious I was supporting what you said...
Not the reverse..

[YHAOS]

"I thought it was obvious I was supporting what you said"

It was obvious. I was reacting to all the UNs you threw at me by explaining I was quoting Coolidge who used 'inalienable.' Otherwise, I agree with you (and Coolidge) { 8^)

PS Yes, I know UN is what Jefferson wrote.

[hosepipe]

I see...
"and a happy UNbirthday to you..."- Mad Hatter...

[Jaguarbhzrd]

200 just for fun?