Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State science standards in election spotlight (ID/Creation Kansans need to vote!)
The Wichita Eagle ^ | August 1, 2008 | LORI YOUNT

Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.

A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.

Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.

In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.

This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...

(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; education; election; elections; evolution; intelligentdesign; kansas; schoolboard; scienceeducation; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 1,151-1,153 next last
To: tpanther
I know you guys are really against intelligence being anywhere near the science curricluom, but why take such a concept to such fantastical leaps, or in your case depths, and actually incorporate such nonsense into your very own lifestyle?

You're looking in the wrong end of the telescope.

It's BECAUSE they've incorporated a godless existance into their lifestyle that they seek to impose it into children of the next generation.

It's usually much easier to deny God than it is to give up some things about your lifestyle.

601 posted on 08/21/2008 7:39:40 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

True, but at the same time it’s more important to ensure people we DO have a model and plan that people understand as an alternative to

INSANE FAILED UNOBJECTIVE GODLESS LIBERLAISM!

Is there ANYTHING that the godless liberal agenda has NOT ruined...let’s ALL just start there and work from that!


602 posted on 08/21/2008 7:47:36 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
know you guys are really against intelligence being anywhere near the science curriculum, but why take such a concept to such fantastical leaps, or in your case depths, and actually incorporate such nonsense into your very own lifestyle?

What seems obvious to one person may not seem obvious to another. To people a few thousand years ago it was obvious that the earth is flat. Somewhat later it was obvious that the sun, moon and planets revolved around the earth. It was once obvious that heavy objects fell faster than light objects.

Tantrums do not define science. Hard work in the field and in the laboratory define science.

603 posted on 08/21/2008 7:48:39 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Now I’m curious.

When you change the oil in your car, do you go to a library and study oil changing?

Americans understand that NO SINGLE document gives us ultimate freedom, but that God does.

We also understand that godless liberals do not define science, they don’t exclusively make rules for the rest of us to follow and as we NOW know they and the ACLU don’t have exclusive access to ALL the documents or laws that define and govern America.


604 posted on 08/21/2008 7:59:09 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

God may “give us freedom,” but religion has a piss poor track record.


605 posted on 08/21/2008 8:01:04 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
I don't change the oil in my car; I go get it done where they can properly dispose of the waste oil. However if I were to do it myself I would most certainly study up on the proper way to do it and the proper way to dispose of the old oil.

Yes, our founding documents state that our rights are endowed unto us by our Creator. Who argues differently?

Scientists define Science, and most Scientists in the U.S.A. are people of faith; not “godless liberals”.

What documents and laws that the ACLU do not have access to are you speaking of?

606 posted on 08/21/2008 8:08:23 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: js1138; metmom; GodGunsGuts; All

Absolutely amazing...still more irony and projections!

I think I get it now...but more on that later.

SOOOOO, stay with yourself now... if what you say is true, why do godless liberals think that courts define science? It’s not OK to interject “religion” or even simple belief of a higher being we don’t fully understand into science, but godless UNobjective liberals who hijack the law to fit THEIR IDEOLOGY, DOES define science??????

Not to mention law, education in general, government, journalism etc. etc. etc.

When the founding fathers said free exercise thereof, there were no exclusions stipulating EXCEPT science, govt., law and virtually every other public institution!

And ALL citizens have access to the labs, curriculum, and yes even the definition of science.

It actually used to be that way and we didn’t somehow turn into a Theocracy either, but what DID happen was Christians allowed ALL to participate and eventually godless liberals to hijack society to their ends in the first place!

Speaking of irony!

Back to my discovery...

hijacking the law, pitching fits of rage, arguing in circular unreasoned illogical patterns, and then projecting your OWN behavior onto Christians, is working for you (and others) about as well as godless liberlaism has worked, PERIOD.


607 posted on 08/21/2008 8:25:40 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
and then projecting your OWN behavior onto Christians

No one needs to project anything onto Christians. The history of Europe will do nicely.

608 posted on 08/21/2008 8:41:11 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
==Indeed it is trying to adapt by CHANGING its code.

How could it “try” to change its code, if mutations are random?

=Epigenetics is not a magic code word that makes the random go away.

Epigenetics won't banish all randomness from biology. Indeed, it is impossible to escape at least a certain amount of randomness because of the Fall. But epigenetics is quickly replacing randomness where randomness once ruled supreme. Let's face it, Darwinian evolution is on the way out...this is something epigeneticists have known for a long time:

Why Lamarck Won’t Go Away (1995):

“It would appear that neo-Darwinian theory has been seriously, if not fatally, undermined by the discoveries of these ‘fluid genome ’ processes at least ten years ago.”

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119951287/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

But don't worry, I think you will find that your fellow evos aren't so much wedded to Darwin as they are to evolution, and it will only be a matter of time before they insert a new godless evolutionary theory in its place. Trouble is, the field of epigenetics constitutes a powerful argument in favor Creation/ID. You guys are going to have one heck of a time convincing the public that epigenetics is the product of blind chance.

609 posted on 08/21/2008 9:22:55 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
==SOOOOO, stay with yourself now... if what you say is true, why do godless liberals think that courts define science?

I think we both know that answer to that question. It's because the evos rely on force to prop up Darwin's failed theory. If the courts started ruling in our favor, then we would suddenly start hearing that the courts have become a rubber stamp for Creationists/IDers, and are neither competent nor the proper forum to decide issues of science.

610 posted on 08/21/2008 9:27:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom

==Then everything in life only appears to be random and random is a meaningless word. I am not willing to go quite that far, but I do know that random doesn’t mean “not under the control of God”.

Then we all agree? Random still has meaning from a human vantage point, even though we recognize that what we call random is completely under God’s control. Does that about sum it up???


611 posted on 08/21/2008 9:32:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; metmom

OF COURSE...and godless liberal hypocrats can’t see their own behavior, they’re simply incapable of objectivism, so they project their own behavior onto others as an excuse for that and so it goes:

you’re injecting your religion into science,

that’s not soience

you have no proof

Rush is right, you don’t negotiate with liberals, you defeat them!


612 posted on 08/21/2008 9:32:42 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I can play that game too:

Hitler has a nice track record.

Stalin...


613 posted on 08/21/2008 9:35:49 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The mutations are random, the epigenetic response to stress that increases the random mutation rate is not random it is a programmed survival attempt by the cell. Now why do you suppose a cell under stress would attempt to INCREASE mutation and DECREASE mutation repair? Are you dodging this question?

Epigenetics doesn't support ID or Creationism any more than any other biological phenomenon that is subject to random mutation and natural selection.

614 posted on 08/21/2008 9:43:51 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==The turning on and off of epigenetic markers

As I explained to you before, epigenetics is involved in a lot more than simply turning genes on or off. Surely you must know that by now?


615 posted on 08/21/2008 9:45:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Everything is under God's control. So the carefully constructed dichotomy of “either it is directed by God or it is just a random process” is just so much meaningless blather; as well as advancing the blasphemous notion that random events are somehow not under the purview of an infinitely powerful and prescient God.

Why do Creationists/ID’ers/cdesign proponentists seem to believe in such a weak and powerless God?

616 posted on 08/21/2008 9:46:15 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==Now why do you suppose a cell under stress would attempt to INCREASE mutation and DECREASE mutation repair?

I already gave you my initial speculation as to why right here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2063792/posts?q=1&;page=551#577


617 posted on 08/21/2008 9:50:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Me neither, it’s not worth my time and frustration, and not that it’s wrong to consult a manual mind you,

My point was, some of us don’t NEED constant direction and study and become totally dependent on gubmint, man-made legal documentation and so on to understand freedom, much less understand not to just let the oil drain into the ground from the very first time I change the oil.

I can figure out to put oil in a certain container and take it to a place that accepts it (there are alot if signs around here fortunately out in front of garages and so on, even for those of us who aren’t clued all the way in just yet.)

Sooooo let the Christian God-fearing scientists define science and NOT lunatics that hijack govt to define it! WHOLEHEARTEDLY agreed!

“What documents and laws that the ACLU do not have access to are you speaking of?”

IT’S NOT A QUESTION OF ACCESS...it’s a question of MISUSE!

For instance, you’re not gonna agree that schools need to remove the word Christmas from their calendars on Dec. 25th because a group of anti-Christian godless liberals SAY IT’s offensive are you?


618 posted on 08/21/2008 9:50:44 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==Everything is under God’s control. So the carefully constructed dichotomy of “either it is directed by God or it is just a random process” is just so much meaningless blather; as well as advancing the blasphemous notion that random events are somehow not under the purview of an infinitely powerful and prescient God.

We finally agree. We all need to band together and defeat the unscientific blasphemy known as Darwinism.


619 posted on 08/21/2008 9:53:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life. Sometimes the changes last for multiple generations. However, there is NO CHANGE IN THE UNDERLYING DNA SEQUENCE OF THE ORGANIMS (emphesis added),[1] instead, environmental factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or “express themselves”) differently.[2] The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell - the zygote - changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, blood vessels et cetera as it continues to divide. It does so by a process of activating some genes while silencing others.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Epigenetics is not a magic word that makes the random go away. Epigenetic markers are just as subject to mutation and natural selection as any other relevant DNA sequence.

An organism that changes its epigenetics will express genes in a different pattern but will not CHANGE THE ACTUAL GENE EXPRESSED. Therefore when you say epigenetics is the answer for how genetic variability arises you need to propose a mechanism whereby epigenetics actually changes genetic alleles rather than just changing what genes are expressed in what cells.

620 posted on 08/21/2008 9:53:54 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It is the Cre-tarded “cdesign proponentists” who are blasphemous and unscientific.

Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is Scientific and has nothing to do with blasphemy as it doesn't mention God to blaspheme HIM; while I.D. posits that God is a rank amateur and incompetent who cannot design life that is capable of adaptation without direct divine intervention.

621 posted on 08/21/2008 9:56:03 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You’re getting your science from wikipedia now?

Let’s start with this gem: “NO CHANGE IN THE UNDERLYING DNA SEQUENCE OF THE ORGANIMS”

Are you sure about that?


622 posted on 08/21/2008 9:58:35 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Try to stay focused...we’re talking about American science and the ‘religion’ in question is Christianity.

While religion (if you insist) has it’s shortcomings, godless liberal socialism has mountains of piss poor track records as well.

You’re floundering and not really even treading water here.


623 posted on 08/21/2008 10:02:02 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
As to why a cell under stress would want to increase its own mutation rate you answered....

“Maybe it tries to adapt by matching its code to the feedback of the new environment. Maybe it knows what it’s looking for once it has found it, and thus must down-regulate repair so this strategy does not defeat itself.” GGG

So your admitting that increasing mutation rates and decreasing mutation repair could “match its code to the feedback of the new environment”. Wow. An admission that mutation of DNA could stumble upon a solution to stress such that life could adapt itself to a new environment.

Are you really suggesting a single cell is self aware in that it “knows” anything?

A cell “knows” when mutations have solved its stress problems because it has a marked advantage over its cohorts who do not share that mutation. It is called natural selection. That is how it “knows”.

And yes, it down-regulated mutation repair because the entire point of increasing mutation rates to arrive at a solution to the stress is worked against by repairing the mutations.

So now your admitting that mutations can adapt an organism to a new stressful environment? Why else would a cell respond to stress by deliberately increasing its mutation rate?

624 posted on 08/21/2008 10:03:57 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Yes I am sure, because if it was a genetic change “a change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism” it would be a genetic change not an epigenetic change. An epigenetic change is a change in the methylation pattern of the DNA, not a change in sequence. A change in sequence is a genetic change not an epigenetic change.
625 posted on 08/21/2008 10:08:31 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
==Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is Scientific and has nothing to do with blasphemy as it doesn't mention God to blaspheme HIM

Actually, Darwin's ToE is blasphemous to the core because it assumes that adaptation and “evolution” are random to the core. They maintain that the designs we see in nature are an illusion and are really just the product of blind, random chance. This is the HEIGHT OF BLASPHEMY. It's sad to see people who identify with Christianity like you come along and make excuses for them.

On the other hand, Creation Scientists (and to a much lesser extent, IDers) give God the credit for the designs we see in nature, and look for ways to see God's design in areas that are still poorly understood. So not only are they not blasphemous, they give all the glory to God, and are filled with wonder (and praise) every time they discover another one of God's ingenious designs.

I'll take Creation over evolution any day.

626 posted on 08/21/2008 10:14:49 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==Yes I am sure...a change in sequence is a genetic change not an epigenetic change.

“Other known epigenetic mechanisms include histone deacetylation and chromatin remodeling, RNA inhibition, RNA modification, and DNA rearrangement.”

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15689067

It would appear that the box you keep trying to put around epigenetics is far too small.


627 posted on 08/21/2008 10:21:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

And you are again supposing that “random” somehow means “beyond the power of God” which is absolutely blasphemous; NOTHING is beyond the power of God.

And because your prefer Creationism you will always have to reject the evidence of Science whenever you think it contradicts the way you INSIST God must have done things. Moreover I.D. INSISTS that God is an incompetent designer that could not create living systems that are adaptable to a changing environment but must intercede on their behalf to derive the adaptations necessary.


628 posted on 08/21/2008 10:23:34 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And how is it that you suppose that histone deacetylation and chromatin remodeling change genetic sequences? They do not. It controls access of that section of DNA to RNA polymerase, thus turning the gene “on” or “off”.

How does RNA inhibition or RNA modification supposedly change DNA sequences?

DNA rearrangement could derive an actual genetic change (most likely to be detrimental or nonsense if it does) but is more likely to just move the gene from one location to another without actually changing what is being produced.

Your contention that genetic variation arises by epigentic mechanisms is simply not supported by anything you have produced to date, and neither have you proposed an actual mechanism whereby genetic variation could arise by changing of epigenetic markers rather than actual changes to DNA sequence.

629 posted on 08/21/2008 10:31:04 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Try to stay focused...we’re talking about American science and the ‘religion’ in question is Christianity.

What is "American" science? Stuff that only works in the United States?

As for "American" Christianity, why do you suppose we even have a clause in our constitution prohibiting the establishment of religion? What's you best theory of what the writers were thinking about?

630 posted on 08/21/2008 10:35:55 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==So your admitting that increasing mutation rates and decreasing mutation repair could “match its code to the feedback of the new environment”. Wow. An admission that mutation of DNA could stumble upon a solution to stress such that life could adapt itself to a new environment.

What I am admitting actually goes against random mutation. For instance, the increase in mutation rates and decrease in mutation repair are initiated by design, not chance. Moreover, we still don’t know if the mutations themselves are random under these kinds of conditions. Maybe the processes that control these mutations are shuffling genes in much the same way as humans “shuffle” a Rubics Cube.

==Are you really suggesting a single cell is self aware in that it “knows” anything?

Who knows? One thing is for sure...something knows something. And whether this something has direct knowledge or is programmed (or both) remains to be seen. What a fascinating field of research! (except for Darwinists).

==A cell “knows” when mutations have solved its stress problems because it has a marked advantage over its cohorts who do not share that mutation. It is called natural selection. That is how it “knows”.

I’m not discounting that what we call “natural selection” plays a part. But then again, how does the cell “know” when it has adapted to the environment? How did it “know” that it was out of synch with the environment in the first place? Maybe we should call this process unatural-natural selection.


631 posted on 08/21/2008 10:36:02 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
==And you are again supposing that “random” somehow means “beyond the power of God” which is absolutely blasphemous; NOTHING is beyond the power of God.

I thought we both agreed that God is in control, and than that random is a word that only has meaning with respect to our own perspective. Unfortunately, Darwinists see randomness to the core, whereas Creationists recognize that God is in control.

==And because your prefer Creationism you will always have to reject the evidence of Science whenever you think it contradicts the way you INSIST God must have done things.

Again, you have it completely backwards. You will always have to reject God's creation whenever you think it contradicts Darwin's fairytale.

==Moreover I.D. INSISTS that God is an incompetent designer that could not create living systems that are adaptable to a changing environment but must intercede on their behalf to derive the adaptations necessary.

I think you are being a tad uncharitable. ID limits itself to finding design in nature. ID doesn't go nearly far enough IMHO. But apparently the very prospect of looking for design in nature drives you up the wall. Why are you so threatened by that? Does it all come down to your faith in Darwin's ToE?

632 posted on 08/21/2008 10:45:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Why would cells be programmed to elicit an increase in mutations during stress if mutations are not amenable to deriving selective advantage to overcoming that stress?

A cell “knows” when it is undergoing stress because it has evolved molecular signaling mechanisms that elicit a stress response. One of these responses is to deliberately increase its mutation rate.

A cell “knows” it has derived a selective advantage due to genetic variation when its offspring out-compete those without that genetic variant such that the population becomes overwhelmingly the descendent's of the cell that derived the genetic variation that best overcame the stressful conditions.

I am afraid that only “Darwinists” (i.e. evolutionary biologists) are conducting ANY research in this or any other field of Biology. The I.D. movement is bereft of any research and neither do they plan on ever doing any. And I know why.

633 posted on 08/21/2008 10:50:02 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I thought even you might realize that American teachers indeed teach American students but I guess I was indeed mistaken.

Show me where godless Russian scientists have contributed more to our body of scientific knowledge...

Again, can you show us where “free exercise thereof” excludes Christians from acknowledging their faith publically?


634 posted on 08/21/2008 10:58:22 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==Why would cells be programmed to elicit an increase in mutations during stress if mutations are not amenable to deriving selective advantage to overcoming that stress?

You’re assuming that the mutations themselve are completely random. But what if each mutational move has a goal?

==A cell “knows” when it is undergoing stress because it has evolved molecular signaling mechanisms that elicit a stress response. One of these responses is to deliberately increase its mutation rate.

Fine. First, how does the cell “know” it’s under stress? If the cell deliberately increases its mutation rate, then at a very minimum the mutation rate IS NOT RANDOM.

==A cell “knows” it has derived a selective advantage due to genetic variation when its offspring out-compete those without that genetic variant

But wouldn’t the cell’s offspring out-compete those without said advantage under either scenario? Wouldn’t you have to set up controlled experiments to determine whether the cell is self-selecting, or is being naturally selected, or both???


635 posted on 08/21/2008 11:07:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; GodGunsGuts; MrB; metmom

Science taught the godless way leads to exactly this kind of misunderstanding not only of science but issues of faith and concepts of God.


636 posted on 08/21/2008 11:10:45 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You will always have to reject God's creation whenever you think it contradicts Darwin's fairytale.

This is exactly it. God's Word is, well, the Word of God.

And when you compromise it because man's reason says something contradictory, often with the intent of "refuting" God's Word, where are you putting your faith?

637 posted on 08/21/2008 11:17:42 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Again, can you show us where “free exercise thereof” excludes Christians from acknowledging their faith publically?

There are lots of things you can acknowledge publically that you can't promote when you are a government employee in a position of authority over children.

638 posted on 08/21/2008 11:18:54 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==I am afraid that only “Darwinists” (i.e. evolutionary biologists) are conducting ANY research in this or any other field of Biology.

Could this be because Darwinism is a state sanctioned religion that has taken over our science institutions, brooks zero dissent, and that we are forced to pay for with our tax dollars whether we agree with the religion or not?

==The I.D. movement is bereft of any research and neither do they plan on ever doing any.

Not true. Creation and ID scientists don’t have the luxury of labs and research grants paid for by the US taxpayer, but they do nevertheless carry on research. Look at the ID research the Templeton Foundation is funding, or read the Journal of Creation. Both camps are cranking out new research in support of Creation/ID all the time.


639 posted on 08/21/2008 11:25:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Again, focus, we’re talking about science and how it is taught in THIS country...as influenced by CHRISTIANS.

that is... we’re not talking about ‘religions’ like Islam and how science is taught in Pakistan.

IS that easier for you to understand now?

I know that’s extremely difficult but if you insist in that illogical line of reasoning you’re stuck on, just be prepared to defend godless science instruction in Cuba, North Korea and Russia.

the godless model isn’t working out...not in science, not in anything, it’s leaving people empty because of it’s vacuousness.

Criticizing and remaining angry at God won’t change this situation for you no matter what you do.

And misunderstandfing God will not at all validate godlessness either!


640 posted on 08/21/2008 11:29:46 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: MrB

In Darwin of course!


641 posted on 08/21/2008 11:31:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

You don’t seem to realize -

if we allow the Christian worldview to creep into public policy and education,

we’ll end up like Afghanistan under the Taliban!

/sarc


642 posted on 08/21/2008 11:31:24 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Let’s face it, the godless way leads to a misunderstanding of everything, from top to bottom. This misunderstanding includes godless notions about the existence (and eventual fate) of one’s soul.


643 posted on 08/21/2008 11:34:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

In man’s wisdom over God’s.

This does no good for those that don’t recognize the authority of the Bible, but it should give Christians pause when they put the faulty reasoning of man over God’s truth:

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart;
do not depend on your own understanding.
6 Seek his will in all you do,
and he will show you which path to take.
7 Don’t be impressed with your own wisdom.
Instead, fear the Lord and turn away from evil.


644 posted on 08/21/2008 11:35:00 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“Christian worldview” makes fundamentalist dogma sound so much more palatable.


645 posted on 08/21/2008 11:36:37 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Amen!


646 posted on 08/21/2008 11:38:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
...science and how it is taught in THIS country...as influenced by CHRISTIANS.

Religion doesn't influence science, except perhaps as an irritant. Biology is the same in Russia and China and Pakistan and India and Africa. Same for physics, geology, chemistry and so forth. There is no religious science.

I will not argue that there are no bad or evil scientists, or that scientists as human beings all embody some perfect ideal of science, but over time, rubbish that isn't supported by evidence gets weeded out.

647 posted on 08/21/2008 11:38:45 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yeah, our society is such a much better place since Christian worldview has been forcefully shoved out of education and the public square.

Leading societal indicators will tell you how much “better” our society has been since 1963.

Hey, but at least you won’t be subjected to “judgementalism” for your hedonism! Great!


648 posted on 08/21/2008 11:41:15 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: MrB

You’re implicitly telling me that Catholics don’t have a Christian worldview. I’m telling you I think that’s a load of crap. You want to take it over to the Religion forum and discuss it there?


649 posted on 08/21/2008 11:43:28 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: MrB

PS Epigenetics is telling us something the Bible has been telling us all along. Just about everything you become via life choices gets epigenetically passed down to your children. Even attitudes cause heritable epigenetic changes. Thus, parents can be a blessing or a curse to their children in more ways than one. Very eye-opening stuff.


650 posted on 08/21/2008 11:44:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 1,151-1,153 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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