Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]
Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) -
The long-running debate over the origins of mankind continues Wednesday before the Texas State Board of Education, and the result could change the way science is taught here and across the nation.

Local and out-of-state lobbying groups will try to convince the board that the next generation of biology books should contain new scientific evidence that reportedly pokes holes in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Many of those groups say that they are not pushing to place a divine creator back into science books, but to show that Darwin's theory is far from a perfect explanation of the origin of mankind.

"It has become a battle ground," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of theNational Center of Science Education, which is dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Almost 45 scientists, educators and special interest groups from across the state will testify at the state's first public hearing this year on the next generation of textbooks for the courses of biology, family and career studies and English as a Second Language.

Approved textbooks will be available for classrooms for the 2004-05 school year. And because Texas is the second largest textbook buyer in the nation, the outcome could affect education nationwide.

The Texas Freedom Network and a handful of educators held a conference call last week to warn that conservative Christians and special interest organizations will try to twist textbook content to further their own views.

"We are seeing the wave of the future of religious right's attack on basic scientific principles," said Samantha Smoot, executive director of the network, an anti-censorship group and opponent of the radical right.

Those named by the network disagree with the claim, including the Discovery Institute and its Science and Culture Center of Seattle.

"Instead of wasting time looking at motivations, we wish people would look at the facts," said John West, associate director of the center.

"Our goal nationally is to encourage schools and educators to include more about evolution, including controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists," West said. "We are a secular think tank."

The institute also is perhaps the nation's leading proponent of intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have occurred without the help of an unknown, intelligent being.

It pushed this view through grants to teachers and scientists, including Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The Institute receives millions of dollars from philanthropists and foundations dedicated to discrediting Darwin's theory.

The center sent the state board a 55-page report that graded 11 high school biology textbooks submitted for adoption. None earned a grade above a C minus. The report also includes four arguments it says show that evolutionary theory is not as solid as presented in biology textbooks.

Discovery Institute Fellow Raymond Bohlin, who also is executive director of Probe Ministries, based in Richardson, Texas, will deliver that message in person Wednesday before the State Board of Education. Bohlin has a doctorate degree in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas at Dallas.

"If we can simply allow students to see that evolution is not an established fact, that leaves freedom for students to pursue other ideas," Bohlin said. "All I can do is continue to point these things out and hopefully get a group that hears and sees relevant data and insist on some changes."

The executive director of Texas Citizens for Science, Steven Schafersman, calls the institute's information "pseudoscience nonsense." Schafersman is an evolutionary scientist who, for more than two decades, taught biology, geology, paleontology and environmental science at a number of universities, including the University of Houston and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.

"It sounds plausible to people who are not scientifically informed," Schafersman said. "But they are fraudulently trying to deceive board members. They might succeed, but it will be over the public protests of scientists."

The last time Texas looked at biology books, in 1997, the State Board of Education considered replacing them all with new ones that did not mention evolution. The board voted down the proposal by a slim margin.

The state requires that evolution be in textbooks. But arguments against evolution have been successful over the last decade in other states. Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska made changes that, to varying degrees, challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum.

In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education voted to wash the concepts of evolution from the state's science curricula. A new state board has since put evolution back in. Last year, the Cobb County school board in Georgia voted to include creationism in science classes.

Texas education requirements demand that textbooks include arguments for and against evolution, said Neal Frey, an analyst working with perhaps Texas' most famous textbook reviewers, Mel and Norma Gabler.

The Gablers, of Longview, have been reviewing Texas textbooks for almost four decades. They describe themselves as conservative Christians. Some of their priorities include making sure textbooks include scientific flaws in arguments for evolution.

"None of the texts truly conform to the state's requirements that the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories be presented to students," Frey said.

The Texas textbook proclamation of 2001, which is part of the standard for the state's curriculum, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, requires that biology textbooks instruct students so they may "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weakness using scientific evidence and information."

The state board is empowered to reject books only for factual errors or for not meeting the state's curriculum requirements. If speakers convince the state board that their evidence is scientifically sound, members may see little choice but to demand its presence in schoolbooks.

Proposed books already have been reviewed and approved by Texas Tech University. After a public hearing Wednesday and another Sept. 10, the state board is scheduled to adopt the new textbooks in November.

Satisfying the state board is only half the battle for textbook publishers. Individual school districts choose which books to use and are reimbursed by the state unless they buy texts rejected by the state board.

Districts can opt not to use books with passages they find objectionable. So when speakers at the public hearings criticize what they perceived as flaws in various books - such as failing to portray the United States or Christianity in a positive light - many publishers listen.

New books will be distributed next summer.

State Board member Terri Leo said the Discovery Institute works with esteemed scientists and that their evidence should be heard.

"You cannot teach students how to think if you don't present both sides of a scientific issue," Leo said. "Wouldn't you think that the body that has the responsibility of what's in the classroom would look at all scientific arguments?"

State board member Bob Craig said he had heard of the Intelligent Design theory.

"I'm going in with an open mind about everybody's presentation," Craig said. "I need to hear their presentation before I make any decisions or comments.

State board member Mary Helen Berlanga said she wanted to hear from local scientists.

"If we are going to discuss scientific information in the textbooks, the discussion will have to remain scientific," Berlanga said. "I'd like to hear from some of our scientists in the field on the subject."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 4,351-4,387 next last
To: Junior
I think quantum theory should be banished from school curriculums as it gives me pounding headaches.

Who are you, Elroy Jetson? Grade School Quantum Theory???

101 posted on 07/09/2003 2:00:28 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Ah, then I return your bump!

I'm pretty much along the same lines as you.
102 posted on 07/09/2003 2:00:48 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ACAC
...it just seems like a cause that would be associated with the left.

Evolution is science, and thus politically neutral. It is the above perception that we conservative evolutionists are trying to combat by partaking in these threads.

103 posted on 07/09/2003 2:01:30 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
So far so good placemarker...
104 posted on 07/09/2003 2:01:48 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"It has become a battle ground," said Eugenie Scott

It sure is...it's a battle between religions: Atheism vs. theism. There is no doubt that the official U.S. govt. religion (not explicit but implicit) is Atheism, and it is taught in all govt. schools. All one has to do is note that every single teaching in public schools is consistent with atheism, whether the subject be biology, cosmology, physics, ethics - any subject that involves a choice - our govt. chooses atheism. Children are taught that they evolved from a chimp or common ancestor thereof, that they cannot control their sex drives (after all, they are no different from other evolved animals, so GIVE THEM A CONDOM!). This is a violation of the govt's own professed "wall of separation" as atheism has become the State Religion.

105 posted on 07/09/2003 2:02:24 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
1 p.m. today? The meeting is already over for crying out loud. And these were the "four arguments" presented? sheesh . . .
106 posted on 07/09/2003 2:02:39 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
My point is that "one day" will not arrive until those who control funding and publishing allow people to question evolution without being called kooks, removed from graduate programs and stripped of funding.

Do you have any evidence that that actually happens?

107 posted on 07/09/2003 2:02:46 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Woo hoo!

Dr, we have a Code Green here!
108 posted on 07/09/2003 2:03:39 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Don't you think it's strange that evolutionist are immune to thinking ...

defending their beliefs ---

contemplating alternative theories - ideas - thoughts ?

What are you all afraid of ... water --- meltdown !

House ... palace of cards -- fools !
109 posted on 07/09/2003 2:04:20 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
The guy who would have formulated them was called a kook, removed from his graduate programs and stripped of his funding.

Out of curiosity, who might this have been?

110 posted on 07/09/2003 2:04:54 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Even if one accepts that species change from one thing to another, it is farmore difficult to explain where the first living thing came from...

Correct. Abiogenesis should not be taught as a fact. It is a researchable problem, but there is no real theory.

This is why all the evolutionists on FR try to explain that the cause of first life is not part of evolution. Darwin explicitly excluded first life from his "Origin."

111 posted on 07/09/2003 2:05:44 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
This may be a good place to start:

"The Texas textbook proclamation of 2001, which is part of the standard for the state's curriculum, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, requires that biology textbooks instruct students so they may "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weakness using scientific evidence and information."

The state board is empowered to reject books only for factual errors or for not meeting the state's curriculum requirements. If speakers convince the state board that their evidence is scientifically sound, members may see little choice but to demand its presence in schoolbooks.

Proposed books already have been reviewed and approved by Texas Tech University. After a public hearing Wednesday and another Sept. 10, the state board is scheduled to adopt the new textbooks in November."

Seems to me that we need to locate the books and marshall arguments against them.
112 posted on 07/09/2003 2:06:12 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Junior
But since they can only truly question a theory from a position of knowledge, the point is moot.

Moot???

That is a bizarre statement. Education: Tell someone something exists. Teach them about it. Teach them to go beyond what they are taught!

Your point is that a student shouldn't be told that a theory is not a fact, because he is not yet able to "truly question it from a position of knowledge."

Remedial Science 101: This is a fact. This is a theory. They are not the same!

113 posted on 07/09/2003 2:06:13 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Creationists created the secular non ideological state ...

and evolution has redacted - PERVERTED it ---

to perpetuate their cultic fetishes -- egos !
114 posted on 07/09/2003 2:09:47 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
The institute picks each icon apart.
  1. For example it cites problems with a 1953 experiment that produced organic molecules from a mixture of primordial gases.
  2. It also claims that fossil evidence of a sudden explosion of life during the Cambrian era (about 500 million years ago) poses a mystery that evolution can't solve.
  3. It argues that drawings of vertebrate embryos are regularly misrepresented and
  4. that photos of moths on tree trunks in England, a classic example of the workings of natural selection, were staged.

Those are the fatal four?

115 posted on 07/09/2003 2:10:28 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Today science has moved on to much more precise theorums, Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution and General Relativity.

Next your going to tell me that Ether and Phlogiston are no longer part of cutting edge theory.

116 posted on 07/09/2003 2:11:02 PM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Do you have any evidence that that actually happens?

Great question. The answer is, of course, "no." Ironically, Behe is probably one of the richest professors in America, and Lehigh isn't a top paying University either. Why? Because Behe didn't bother trying to pass his ideas through conventional peer review at all... Rather, he published his ID ideas in a mass marketed book. Hmmm, makes one wonder why he did this. Did he fear losing his job or, "getting stripped of funding?" Of course not, he knew his stuff wouldn't stand up to scientific critique. (Calls to mind the cold fusion fiasco... a perfect example of why peer review needs to be utilized across the board.)

Case in point, his baby, the mighty flagellum, is no longer an ID icon. Oh sure, they'll find something else that is complicated or difficult to explain, but (ironically), his protestations will actually lead to a greater understanding of a particular mechanism. It's nice to have these creationists point out things that aren't currently adequately explained, allowing scientists to focus on that particular thing. In a weird way, the creationists are advancing scientific understanding!

If they knew any better, it would drive them crazy.
117 posted on 07/09/2003 2:11:26 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Two problems with your argument.

First, not mentioning religion is not the same as discounting religion.
Second, atheism is not a religion. It's the abscence of theism, nothing more and nothing less.
118 posted on 07/09/2003 2:12:39 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Correct. Abiogenesis should not be taught as a fact. It is a researchable problem, but there is no real theory.

That strikes me as absurd. (i.e. I know for sure what happened in steps 2 through 27,367. But I don't have the foggiest notion what happened in step 1.) You don't suppose the "truth" about steps 2 - 27,367 could be related in any way to step 1, do ya?

119 posted on 07/09/2003 2:12:44 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Did you accidentally post to the wrong thread?
120 posted on 07/09/2003 2:13:25 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Here is a link to an article on the Institute's website that goes into more detail about the arguments (Adobe Acrobat format):

What Are Key Problems With Darwinism

And this (HTML):

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

121 posted on 07/09/2003 2:13:25 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
And these were the "four arguments" presented? sheesh . . .

Yep, they were pretty lame. Basically taken from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution book, and all thoroughly refuted by several people. (This article is a good overview of why Wells' arguments are bogus.)

122 posted on 07/09/2003 2:14:44 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
All you non-Texans butt-out!

Feels good to write that.

123 posted on 07/09/2003 2:16:09 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Even if one accepts that species change from one thing to another, it is farmore difficult to explain where the first living thing came from, and how it was magically able to reproduce itself.

Now you've slipped out of the theory of evolution and into the realm of biogenesis. Currently there are numerous competing hypoetheses of how life arose (my money's on the one with the interstellar dust clouds, but that's simply because there is a lot more data available for it that for many of the others). However, it's in this territory that the definition of life becomes fuzzy. What separates self-organizing and self-replicating molecules (of which there are many) from self-organizing and self-replicating life? At what point is it no longer a chemical but simple life. Is there even a hard cut-off, or does it all kind of shade together? These are the questions the pioneers in the biogenesis field are currently tackling.

124 posted on 07/09/2003 2:16:40 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Calls to mind the cold fusion fiasco...

Ooooooh... Don't forget polywater.

125 posted on 07/09/2003 2:17:21 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Out of curiosity, who might this have been?

I made it up...that's why I had to include the </literary license> in the post.

126 posted on 07/09/2003 2:17:22 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Remedial Science 101: This is a fact. This is a theory. They are not the same!

I've posted this before, but I don't recognize your screen name. Enjoy

Often this statement is considered a sufficient dissenting argument. But it really is an expression of ignorance about how science works. I remind you that everything we understand about how things work in this world is ‘theoretical.’ Architects consult architectural theory. Structural engineers designing a bridge consult structural engineering theory. Medical doctors consult medical theory. Repeat, scientific theories are discoveries of how our natural reality is organized. To the extent a theory is useful it will be used. To the extent a theory is not useful it won’t be used. Given the power and utility of the theories that form the foundation of modern, technological civilization, a statement like the one above reflects a failure to understand this.
127 posted on 07/09/2003 2:17:26 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Most atheists are content to say that they don't believe that God exists.

I do know a couple who say that they believe that God does not exist. Big difference. These types could qualify as a sort of "religion," no?
128 posted on 07/09/2003 2:18:47 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Who are you, Elroy Jetson? Grade School Quantum Theory???

Well, I was considered "gifted" in school, but that simply meant I was a geek and prey to every bully within miles...

129 posted on 07/09/2003 2:19:04 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
contemplating alternative theories - ideas - thoughts ?

Science: exploring productive lines of inquiry, vastly productive and far-ranging; creating new modes of thought, growing, scanning, indifferent; forcing and following verticils arising out of mycelial fiber mats science in stasis ceases, in growth moves higher; always seeking new shoots, all intersections, following open-ended routes, back-tracking to the branch-off before dead-ends; no time to waste on abbreviated stumpy branches.

130 posted on 07/09/2003 2:19:05 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Atheistic physics... now there's a concept...
131 posted on 07/09/2003 2:20:09 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Junior
What separates self-organizing and self-replicating molecules (of which there are many) from self-organizing and self-replicating life? At what point is it no longer a chemical but simple life. Is there even a hard cut-off, or does it all kind of shade together? These are the questions the pioneers in the biogenesis field are currently tackling.

Can you give an example of your difficulty in deciding whether something is alive or not alive?

132 posted on 07/09/2003 2:20:09 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ALS
fC ...

Nobody knows a ' reasonable ' doubt // truth - science has to be in reality ...

How can they know reality // truth -- honesty --- THEY REJECT EVERY BIT OF IT ...

evos teach and practice the OPPOSITE ---

they think the biggest - best liar (( reason )) wins (( good definition of evolution )) !

als reply ...

they think the biggest - best liar wins"


als ...

"survival of the fittest"

coincidence?

133 posted on 07/09/2003 2:20:59 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Atheistic physics... now there's a concept...

Heard of Astrophysics? How about the Big Bang? Heard of that? There's a concept!

134 posted on 07/09/2003 2:22:52 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
That strikes me as absurd. (i.e. I know for sure what happened in steps 2 through 27,367. But I don't have the foggiest notion what happened in step 1.) You don't suppose the "truth" about steps 2 - 27,367 could be related in any way to step 1, do ya?

The Nobel prize await you if you can solve step one. By the way, no one knows all about steps 2-27,367. We also don't know exactly what happened in the OJ murders. Does this mean they didn't happen? Or does it mean that those who believe OJ is a murderer are promulgating a religion?

135 posted on 07/09/2003 2:23:47 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
This is a fact. This is a theory. They are not the same!

Exactly. However, evolution is fact in that it has been observed (organisms changing over generations) and theory(s) in that researchers have postulated a series of mecahanisms to explain these changes. Biology classes should explain the first before tackling the second. They don't however, and the student is left with just enough information to pass his mid-term, but without enough information to really understand what is going on.

136 posted on 07/09/2003 2:24:05 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Good to see the gov't finally got around to noticing those copper bracelets are a fraud. Now, I don't mind companies relieving gullible people of their cash sometimes, but I've gotta wonder...

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/06/qtinc.htm

(funny thing is, if you do a google search on "q ray" right above the 1st story -the above url-- are 2 ads to get your very own ugly piece of copper that will only make your skin green. Strangely, I love America b/c of stuff like this!)

Of course, these companies get only a slap on the wrist, and certainly don't have to refund anyone. They will probably go on to sell them as T-Ray bracelets or something. Or move on to magnetic socks or crystals or dowsing rods, etc.

Barnum said it so well...
137 posted on 07/09/2003 2:24:31 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I think the jury is still out on whether prions are alive or not. They don't have RNA or DNA, so how do they replicate?

How about viruses?
138 posted on 07/09/2003 2:26:12 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
In a weird way, the creationists are advancing scientific understanding!

Irony, thy name is ID.

139 posted on 07/09/2003 2:26:30 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Evolution is a denatured seed - colony ...

a hopless dichotomy ---

rotting (( all manmade - artificial - PLASTC )) !

Here's a crash course in eschatology (( future events )) ...


"Thus 9:24 and 8:14 point to the same reality---the kingdom of God ignaugurated at the first advent and consummated at the second."

To: Aric2000

You know nothing about science (( history )) or the bible ... just tacky rants !

It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and wrong forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)."
Daniel and the Coming King

Chapter 16

The Gospel In Daniel 9:24

By Dr.Desmond Ford

"It would be tragic if we contented ourselves with an analytical examination of this passage of Scripture. It is not merely a scintillating gem to be admired, but the bread of life to be eaten. It consists of 'the everlasting gospel' in minature."

"That which should concern us all the more than the issues of hermeneutics is the issue of life---our life. Not minutiae of prophetic interpretation, but sin, sorrow, and death constitute our problems. Daniel 9:24 assures us that the world is a ship and not an iceberg, that God is intensely interested in our dilemma, and, best of all, that He has done something to extricate us from the apparent cul-de-sac of existence. In Christ, the Melchizedekan King-Priest, He has brought in everlasting righteousness, freely offered to all who believe."

Chapter 14

Daniel and the Coming King---Daniel 9

By Dr.Desmond Ford

"Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of scientists prior to the modern period, wrote a commentary upon the prohecies of Daniel and Revelations. He desribed Daniel 9:24-27 as "the foudation-stone of the Christian religion" because centuries in advance it gave the time of appearance of the Messiah and His death, as well as a comprehensive description of His saving work in heaven and earth. The prophecy likewise tells what would be the fate of the Jews consequent upon their rejection of the One whose coming they had long anticpated. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, foretold in Daniel 9:24-27, was history's testimony that the offerings and services of the sanctuary had met their fulfillment in the advent of the promised Messiah."

Newton, Isaac. Observsations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalpse of St. John. London: J. Darby and T. Browne, 1733 (Isaac Newton)

Chrystalk ...

"All of this while the book itself says it is sealed up, and never will be understood ... until the End of Days --- which we are living in ... "

Chapter 14

Daniel and the Coming King---Daniel 9

by Dr.Desmond Ford @ ... GNU (( link )).

Seal Up the Vision

"The expression 'to seal up the vision' (v.24) should be considered. This expression, 'the vision', occurs eleven times in Daniel 8:1 to 10:1, and in all these cases it refers to the vision described in the eighth chapter of Daniel. The reader is advised to read again the entire passage. In pictorial, symbolic form the prophet was shown the unfolding of all future centuries till the second advent of Christ. The famous empires, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, which long oppressed the people of God, are described; but particular emphasis is given to the persecution of the church during the Christian era and also to the supremacy of the couterfeit, apostate religion over most of that period. Christ's mediatorial ministry in heaven is alluded to, but its eclipse from men's mind through a counterfeit system is fortold. The sanctuary mentioned refers both to the church temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit on earth, as well as Israel's typical sanctuary. No doubt Daniel was dazed by this revelation of the apparent triumph of evil. In his lifetime he had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, the center of true religion, and the carrying into captivity of the people of God by an idolatrous and desolating nation. Now in vision he is informed that this state of affairs is to continue on a much greater scale throughout most of the earth's history. It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and wrong forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)."

"Now in the revelation of 9:24-27 the mourning seer is told that there is a greater Prince of the house of Judah, a greater atonement, a greater sanctuary, and a greater redemption than any ever before experienced by Israel. The long-awaited Messiah, the Prince, a Priest-King, will take away the sin of the world and end earth's dark night. Thus 9:24 and 8:14 point to the same reality---the kingdom of God ignaugurated at the first advent and consummated at the second."


UNFOLDING (( designeduniverse.com )) !
140 posted on 07/09/2003 2:27:10 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I want some of what you're dropping...
141 posted on 07/09/2003 2:30:11 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Truth is a foreign forbidden language - tongue ...

mind - thought - word nazis !
142 posted on 07/09/2003 2:30:49 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I predict a large and colorful essay on prions an viruses.
143 posted on 07/09/2003 2:31:14 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
[js1138:] Abiogenesis should not be taught as a fact. It is a researchable problem, but there is no real theory.

[you:] That strikes me as absurd. (i.e. I know for sure what happened in steps 2 through 27,367. But I don't have the foggiest notion what happened in step 1.) You don't suppose the "truth" about steps 2 - 27,367 could be related in any way to step 1, do ya?

Every science starts at step 2 or higher. Newton's theory of gravity explains how pieces of matter interact with each other, but it doesn't explain where the first piece of matter came from. Copernicus's heliocentric theory doesn't explain where the sun and planets came from, only how they move in relation to each other. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains how living things develop into species as a result of imperfect reproduction (i.e., each new creature is not an exact copy of its parents). It cannot, by definition, tell us what happened before organisms began reproducing imperfectly. That does not, contrary to your assertion, cast any doubt on the validity of what it does tell us.

144 posted on 07/09/2003 2:31:25 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Virii, for instance. It seems that every other biologist will claim it is either life or non-life. Personally, I think it's somewhere in between, but then I'm a romantic.
145 posted on 07/09/2003 2:31:36 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Evolution is an urban legend popular among the unscientific who don't know a theory from fact !

Real science is coming ... designeduniverse.com --- evolution is a fraud pepetuated by the ignorant !

Just reading the Bible the founding fathers plainly knew this beast would arrive and cover - tyrannize the nation but we would have to deal with it ... so we are -- will !

designeduniverse.com ... the obituary of evolution penned by freepers ...

yours truly !
146 posted on 07/09/2003 2:33:31 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Well, the Big Bang theory did postulate a certain frequency of cosmic background radiation, and when researchers went looking for it, low and behold, they found it. This is a case of a theory making a prediction that tested out in the end. It most definitely has something going for it, wouldn't you agree?
147 posted on 07/09/2003 2:33:44 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Junior
This stuff works without chemboost. Even better: it's still there later.
148 posted on 07/09/2003 2:38:02 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Fatal 4 placemarker, and ROFLMAO!! for good measure...
149 posted on 07/09/2003 2:39:38 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I think the jury is still out on whether prions are alive or not. They don't have RNA or DNA, so how do they replicate?

A prion is a protein of a certain tertiary configuration that has the capability of changing the tertiary configuration of other molecules of the same protein to match itself. It is not alive. The cell produces the target proteins.

A virus is a segment of RNA surrounded by a protein shell that contains the information to reproduce more copies of itself. It is not alive.

150 posted on 07/09/2003 2:39:57 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 4,351-4,387 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson