Posted on 12/04/2008 7:05:01 PM PST by Wegotsarah.com
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's recent trip to Iowa, where they hold those presidential caucuses every four years, leads me to suspect he may share the media speculation that he could be the Next Great Thing in the Republican Party.
It also reminded me how Jindal signed a dumb and devious bit of legislation last summer, allowing local school districts to promote alternative (i.e., religious) doctrines in their science curriculums when it comes to evolution.
Jindal is obviously one bright guy. How can he equate ancient creation myths with the hard facts of physics and biology?
One might think that the Republicans learned something from the drubbing they took in the 2006 and 2008 elections. But like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee (and John McCain in 2008), Jindal is apparently happy to cater to the religious right, even if it means teaching superstition in the classroom
Why do you feel the need to dismiss a straightforward reading of Genesis so easily?
I see evidence of variation within a species and so-called ring-species(fruitflies begat fruitflies that can't breed with original fruitflies). But beyond that, I don't see any hard evidence of molecules to man evolution. The fossil record doesn't really support it. Our best scientists biasing conditions orders of magnitude in their favor can't reproduce it, yet I'm expected to believe it happened by random chance?
Works for me.
God: "Moses, this is how the world was created, speeded up 100 billion times"
(two weeks later) "do you need to see it again?"
Moses: "No thanks, I think I got the gist"
Do you know why Jesus said He spoke in Parables?
Your logic has its origin in Genesis with this question, "Has God Said?"
Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism. It is a thesis, which can be put forward and argued for or against just like any other thesis.
Mostly it relies on statistical probability to demonstrate that a general theory of evolution is improbable because it has astronomically large statistical odds against it.
Some Darwinians have recognized that these are legitimate objections to a general theory of evolution, and have retorted with the theory that there are an infinite number of universes, and ours just happens to be the one where evolution worked. If I may say so, that’s not a very persusasive answer. A thesis, yes, and they are welcome to argue it; but it’s not very persuasive. The problem is that a reasonable thesis has to be capable of disproof, and that one certainly isn’t.
As a Catholic, I agree with you that evolution and divine creation as described in the Bible CAN be compatible. But strict evolutionists won’t allow that, either—or the view that perhaps there IS general evolution, but guided by God. Neither that nor any other view except strict atheist Darwinism is permitted in the public schools and in practice most universities, where contrary arguments are usually answered by refusal of tenure.
OK. So where did the something come from? (Whose something was it?) And what/who caused it to go bang?
*****************************
Come on, Eagle-—That a trick question? Everyone knows it it was Barrack ===get with it! LOL
Nope, but Christianity and Scientists are.
FreeRepublic is a strange little world in which a very vocal, fundamentalist fringe gathers along with more traditional conservatives. It is the mirror image of DU with its overrepresentation of far-left, socialist Democrats. It is NOT representative of most Republicans.
The vast majority of Republicans are capable of believing in both God and evolution.
Correction: there's no rational reason for it.
Ironically, however, there is a common assumption on both sides of the shouting match: that "evolution" and God are mutually exclusive.
The militant anti-evos are (perhaps) so insecure in their belief in God that they're afraid the theory of evolution endangers God.
The atheist pro-evos are so insecure in their disbelief, that they latch onto anything that seems to bolster their case.
Within that context the anti-evolution position is most difficult to defend, as there is strong evidence supporting the presence of at least some of the processes associated with the Theory of Evolution. Their tacit acceptance of the claims of the scientific method leads anti-evos either into a "God of the Gaps" position, or one of outright rejection of the scientific observations.
On the other side, it's interesting to watch the process whereby any non-evolution theory is a priori rejected as "non-scientific." Thus, the idea of an intelligent designer is rejected outright. Not for any good scientific reason, but rather because the admission that ID is a valid hypothesis admits at least the possibility of God. (Note that genetic engineering is proof that ID can be a valid hypothesis. Verification of a particuar hypothesis is, of course, a separate matter.)
In fact satan is expressly told the end, but like man he does not know the hour. The book of Revelation tells exactly how Satan winds up, and satan has full knowledge of the Bible. You can have that knowledge too, if you desire.
Till the time of the Gentile be fulfilled.......
That is false, and nothing more than a creationist talking point. Why don't you let science be the judge of what is, and is not, science, and what has failed? They are qualified in this area, you are not. For that matter, creationists have been declaring the theory of evolution as failed for 150 years. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. They should just learn to leave science alone.
...anyone who studies both sides of issues like evolution or climate change with a scholarly perspective soon realizes that the entrenched theories do not adequately explain the data.
I studied evolution for six years in graduate school, and included both fossil man and human osteology on my Ph.D. exams. It is the nonsense that creationists keep coming up with that fails to explain the data. Dinosaurs and humans cavorting around together? A 6,000 year old earth? Those religious beliefs, applied to scientific questions, are what do not adequately explain the data.
That was worded carefully. My contention is that I would like to see a clear distinction between what can be scientifically observed and what is extrapolated based on those observations. Teach the theories, but also teach the limits of what is truly known.
There are not two scientific theories to present. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, but the alternative you want presented is not. It is a religious belief. (See my FR home page for definitions of "theory" and other pertinent terms.)
What you are requesting is equal time for your religious belief in science classes, and that has been disallowed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Well, yes ... which is pretty much the point. But it cuts both ways.
Actually that was a fairly serious question.
Funny how the left can conveniently ignore the hard facts of biology when it comes to *choice*, abortion, isn't it?
It’s pretty easy to “trap” a pro-choicer.
When does the human life begin?
What? You’re not sure?
Would it be OK if I were hunting and shot at movement in the brush being “not sure” if it were a deer or a human? No?
Sorry-didn’t mean to offend or make light—— I’m sure they can’t give you an answer to your original question.
There is no problem. I knew what you meant. I was just milking it. And I think you are right about the answer, too.
“”God? Isn’t that the same fella Obama allegedly believes in?””
Well, I recall him saying during the primaries (when trying to prove his “Christianity”) that he “prayed to Jesus every night”. Well, all Christians know that we pray to God the Father (in Jesus’ name, Amen). We pray through Jesus, not TO Jesus.
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.