Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
He's some kind of universalist church leader. I can't stand the guy. Americans United and ACLU are groups that are so anti-Christian it's not funny. Brrrrr.
Evolution is only a theory as well. It shouldn't be taught as fact either.
In science a theory is a stronger statement than a fact. Facts are frequently found to be in error. Established theories, almost never.
Probably because it doesn't try to. Sigh! One more time! The theory of evolution deals with how species are descended from other species; not how life originated.
Agreed.
"That should eliminate your problem as well because you would then be responsible for teaching your own d****ed kids your own d****ed myths."
That's such a Christian thought! I'm happy to see you as a shining example of Jesus!
Merry Christmas and Happy Kwanzaa!!
Jesus didn't even attempt to set up a public school system. In my theological construct of true Christianity, Jesus would not have advocated anything he didn't talk about.
"Jesus didn't even attempt to set up a public school system. In my theological construct of true Christianity, Jesus would not have advocated anything he didn't talk about."
Typical of a "Christian" to mention Jesus just two replies after calling my children "d*****eds".
Screw you.
Bet you thought all Christians were supposed to be into forgiveness and inclusiveness, eh?
We aren't ~
On the other hand, your claim that there is some sort of stereotypical Christian who kicks your teeth in on occasion, and insults you back, suggests that you do meet up with some of us with some regularity.
BTW, against all stereotypes, I am not inviting you over to the "dark side" at all. You can go about your merry way on a one way trip to oblivion. It is simply not my concern. I just don't want to pay taxes to have your party line propagated in public schools and forced down my kids' throats.
and did you read this?
New SAT Questions Replace Evolution with Creation
http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/new_sat_questio.html
Students attending school in districts that have phased out the teaching of evolution will no longer be forced to answer SAT questions about the controversial theory. Instead, they'll answer questions about the six days in which God created the earth and the great flood that took place 4,300 years ago.
"We aren't ~ "
No, but you do have the pious and ignorance part down pat!
"and insults you back"
No, a$$hole - you insulted my children. Big difference, faux-Christian. Although the history of Christianity is certainly filled with violence perpetrated on innocents in the name of God, so I guess you're only doing your best to live up to that legacy.
" I just don't want to pay taxes to have your party line propagated in public schools and forced down my kids' throats."
I actually agree with you. If I want my kids to learn about mythology, I'll send 'em to Sunday school. I have no desire to have my taxes spent on forcing them to learn Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, etc) beliefs.
Although the teaching of science isn't a "party line".
But Prof, you said this:
There are no particularly worrisome gaps in the modern theory of evolution, barring the gap at the very beginning of life.
Perhaps I read too much into this statement. It seems to acknowledge a "gap" in need of an explanation.
As for species descending from other species: Darwin, I'm told, drew many of his insights from selective breeding experiments. But none of these have ever shown descent of one species from another. I think when he got to Galapagos, and saw the concentrated, rich riot of birds and reptiles of so many different species running around this isolated piece of geography, he drew the perhaps unwarranted conclusion that they must all be related somehow by line of descent. (That's a speculation on my part.) But what "looks plausible" ain't the same thing as establishing a fact.
So, forgive me, but I'm a skeptic; for me, the "jury's still out" on the issue of species being derived from other species. I don't think this sort of thing has ever been observed. But it makes for a great "just-so story."
I am convinced that evolution is a fact, however.
And so, we get back to where we always begin, you and I, Prof. Though I sincerely respect your right to see things differently, and to disagree with me.
Christ is going to give you eternity and all you will be able to do with it is smile and act like a turnip. Bravo!
The problem here is the Sumerian stories about "the Great Flood" predate that narrow, sectarian accounting of just how old the Bible is, or how long it's been since Creation.
I don't really care what kind of question is asked about things without the sort of evidence that can be reproduced in an independent laboratory! Evolution and Creationism fall into the same category in that regard.
Besides, SAT should be asking questions more along the lines of what a future lawyer might be expected to know. We import our scientists and engineers, but the lawyers are our specialty. May they live long and prosper, eh?! Let's hope "W" is successful in Iraq. They can use some of our legal talent as an import item!
Time to dismantle that grievous error. Learn to take care of your own kids.
BTW, the reference was to you, not the kids. In the future, if you don't want to go around thinking your children have been insulted, keep it in your britches.
You can see it happening, BB:
Ring Species. We can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them.
Ensatina eschscholtzi: Speciation in Progress. A Classic Example of Darwinian Evolution.
Oh, I don't know about that.
If physicists can promulgate "String Theory" (without even a lick of physical proof), why can't Intelligent Design--for which there is ample circumstantial proof, be taught?
Biology, physics, and chemistry are all pointing to an orderly, designed universe, which is, or should be, at the foremost of intellectual chatter of this era.
That such a mountain of evidence is ignored is telling of the bias (and fear) in some. Perhaps they feel it would dry up funding? It shouldn't--I'd DOUBLE funding, because we'd be getting closer to an understanding.
If OJ Simpson could be convicted on circumstantial evidence (civil trial), and criminals are convicted daily based on circumstantial evidence, shouldn't that same standard apply elsewhere?
Many scientists are deists. Some, theists. IMHO, the weight of coincidences has now piled up to where an honest scientist ought to, at least, concede the probability that this is a designed universe, not a "Cinderella" one that "just happened" to be favorable for our existence.
The Anthropic argument can work both ways. It doesn't necessarily rule anything out either way.
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.