Posted on 09/23/2008 8:49:33 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
One of the world's leading biologists, who is also an ordained Anglican priest, has sparked uproar in both religious and scientific circles by campaigning to teach creationism, along with evolution and the "Big Bang" theory in science classrooms. Creationism, an issue that has triggered furious debates in churches, schools and even courts in the United States, rejects Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and holds that God created the universe and all that goes with it - most of all, man - in six days. The Rev. Michael Reiss has truly stirred the pot - and the fury of his fellow scientists - by proposing that creationism has the right to a place in school lessons along with conventional theories of the evolutionary origins of man and the theory that the universe exploded exploded from a single point billions of years ago - the Big Bang.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And now intelligent ID now has more friend in the science department than it does in the school of theology!
It seems the tide is finally turning against the Darwinian evolutionist’s.
Hardly.
A theory that has to rely on courts for enforcement is doomed to fail.
In free societies that is.
Yeah Joe, scientists were making statements critical of Darwin on all the TV networks at the time.
In free societies that is.
A religious belief that has to dishonestly masquerade as science and fight its battles with PR flacks and lawyers instead of scientific evidence has already failed.
And will continue to fail unless a theocracy is imposed.
What happens to the world when the most powerful nation for good, the nation that has advanced the exercise personal freedom, when it falls? Will another more righteous nation arise to take its place? If so, I wonder where I should move my family to?
This is intellectual dishonesty on your part. You know very well that intelligent design arguments are advanced on the basis of the irreducible complexity of organism and not on religious belief. As a macro-theory on the origin of species, it has as much scientific basis as the macro-theory of evolution. Neither one of them has ever been verified in a laboratory. You can continue to be a kool-aid drinking darwinist if you want. Your days are numbered.
Besides, you couldn’t hold a candle to Rev. Reiss in a debate on biology. He has out evolved you.
False. ID and IC are not scientific theories. Look up the definition of a theory and you'll see why (try my FR home page; I have a lot of good definitions there).
Neither one of them has ever been verified in a laboratory.
Irrelevant.
You can continue to be a kool-aid drinking darwinist if you want. Your days are numbered.
What, are you going to impose a theocracy and do us all in? What will it be this time? The rack? The stake? Or will you come up with something more innovative?
The last time religions had that kind of power in western culture it was called the Dark Ages; the Enlightenment that followed means we don't have to kowtow to religious authorities any longer.
You’re right. A person may accept or reject creationism (or evolution) but it’s not a religious or metaphysical view pretending to be science. That’s just the disparaging bias of secularists who don’t want to even consider another perspective. The question is why anyone with an open mind would object to presenting both views for consideration. If nothing else, it would encourage a RATIONAL debate and discussion. Today it’s as filled with invective and hostility as in the 19th century. In 1860 when Archbishop Wilberforce debated the Darwinist Thomas Huxley, he opened the debate by asking Huxley if he were descended from an ape on his grandfather’s or his grandmother’s side.
“...intelligent design arguments are advanced on the basis of the irreducible complexity of organism...”
That’s the problem—”irreducible complexity” is a concept that requires a greater leap of faith than evolution (not that evolution really reaqures one). Irreducible complexith is a farce.
No, another, more morally grounded culture, say, Islam, will take its place.
Leftists, secularists and atheists are cutting their own throats by trying to destroy the Christian foundation of our culture. A morally weak society will fall to one that isn't morally weak, even if the conquering culture is not righteous, but evil.
But, I guess in the case of the leftist/secular/atheists, they only believe that they are alive for 70 odd years and that no other portion of the timeline matters, as long as while they are alive they can do whatever they hell they want to.
What happens to the world when the most powerful nation for good, the nation that has advanced the exercise personal freedom, when it falls? Will another more righteous nation arise to take its place? If so, I wonder where I should move my family to?
I hope it won’t fall in our lifetimes. When it does I’m not certain another nation can or will take our place.
My brother and I were talking about if we had no choice but to live somewhere else, he picked Australia and I picked New Zealand, since we’d have a shot with the language there.
Dissent from darwinism, not to mention resisting the godless agenda which has hijacked it, is NOT an attempt to inject religion into science.
Your theocracy sky is falling madness has been debunked thoroughly.
What is it about Islam that you think would make it succeed where Christianity has failed?
Not sure what you mean by “succeed” -
they WILL dominate and take over when America loses its moral grounding to secularist relativism.
Secularist relativism won’t stand up to the “wrong” that is Islam, and they will “win” by default, by not facing any opposition.
This is a recurring historical event, decadent, flailing cultures get taken over by those that have firm, set standards and beliefs. And then THOSE beliefs are “imposed” on that culture/society.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the implication of what you're saying is that the only way to defeat militant Islam is to push our country further away from being a secular republic and closer to a governmental system with religious aspects.
When did the ideal of a secular, pluralistic republic become unfashionable?
Right. ID proposes that we teach in science class that God is dead. That is hardly religious?
The question is, when did a set of standards of behavior become unfashionable?
Our country was founded on this principle:
John Adams: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
So, it was not intended to be a “secular republic” as you claim. It was intended to be a republic founded in liberty, and that liberty was based on the assumption that the people being governed were of strong moral and religious foundation, not morally relativistic.
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.