The federal judge who struck down the decision by the Dover, Pa., school board to teach intelligent design in science classes, John E. Jones III (in photo), told a Lawrence audience Tuesday that he spent a week under protection of federal marshals due to death threats — a “sad statement,” he said, on the lack of public understanding of the role of judges. “These criticisms point at something in the way that both the pundits and the public tend to perceive judges. It is false, it is debilitating and if unchallenged, I believe it will ultimately tear at the fabric of our system of justice in the United States.”
Jones added another good caution: “As we spend time, as we did in the Dover case, debating what to put in the science curriculum in our schools, we had better start paying attention to the curriculum of civics and government, as well as history.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
198 Comments
Interesting and illustrative.
The “pro life”folk, the followers of a man who gave his life for belief; and they now are so militant in their belief that they threaten death on a man who would dare raise a question to that belief.
Keith Olberman will have a piece this evening (thursday) on militant Christians trained from childhood to kill or die for their faith in “Jesus camps”. This might need watching.
I do not know and have never met an “Islamofascist”. I hope we do not come to know or be subject to “Christofascists”.
Christian terrorists at it again. Whether it be reporters, doctors or judges who are fellow Christians nobody is safe from the Christian Taliban and their quest for a Dark Age revival of theocracy.
In Kansas we have politicians who goosestep towards their goal of overthrowing this nation’s Constitutional ideals. Tiahrt, the pro-torture fundy who never met a science textbook he didn’t want to burn and Brownback, a bonefid member of a cult who wants the entire world ruled by 200 Christian governors.
Wow!
Two textbook examples of hasty generalizations.
interesting and illustrative…
Yep, generalizations indeed. Those who hide behide the moniker of Christian and threaten others are not Christians or someone who didn’t quite get the concept of the Bible’s teachings. Funny, how the press prints all the negative things about people who claim to be Christians, but hardly ever print anything on Christians that set up missions, help build houses, perform countless charities, visit the sick, help the anguished and many other things. But, I guess those things just don’t sell in a newspaper.
Amen JM and Nathan!!
Appreciate you sacrifice and service Nathan.. thank you!
The death threats just go to show the evo v. ID debate is about religion and not science. These Phelps like Christians give religion a bad name, and make a mockery of American science to the world community. Ya haven’t heard anything about China disregarding basic science. Maybe thats why they are beating America’s students on science tests.
This shows that no one of the three Abrahaimic religions has a monopoly on hate and violence. All three have their fair share.
I do not nor have ever condoned violence as a way to get your way in any issue. Threatening a Judges life is wrong and illegal. It is not the actions of christians as most of your replys suggest. It is the action of one or a few (I don’t know which) misguided individuals who are frustrated. Conversly western society is attacked with death (not a phone call)repeatedly by a group of muslim extreamist and millions of muslims chear worldwide and you refuse to profile them as hostile. Additionally the ACLU sues and extracts fines from school districts that dare to consider a theory that opposes their chosen beliefs. See a balance here? See logic here? There are flaws in Darwins theory but you will never hear about them because it is illegal to discuss it. Is that free speech? Is that science?
Not true Stephen. Questions about the mechanisms are constantly discussed. There is no law against that.
The school districts lost and paid fines for letting a religious idea, not a theory! (theory is not hunch, get it right!!!)that has NO basis in science, taught to be as accepted by the scientific community as evolution. There is a reason why every national science organization (NAS, AAAS, NSTA…)has publically rejected ID.
There are flaws in every theory. Just because there are CURRENTLY gaps in need of future research, doesn’t mean that you can just say God did it and teach that in school. Have any of you actually read Judge Jones ruling? Maybe you should. then you would realize that ID has no basis in science and is totally a religious indea.
The problem is the judge didn’t understand what he was talking about (his decision almost mimicked prosecution papers). Though he shouldn’t have death threats, he certainly should be removed. The reasoning is that by saying “ID” is in contrast to “evolution” shows he knows nothing of what ID is. ID teaches evolution…it is a debate of first causes and a debate against naturalism (ID says evolution occured but had to be designed).
Courtney,
It isn’t a matter of filling in gaps; it’s a matter of mathmatical impossibilities as well as the destruction of basic evolutionary ideas.
For instance, mathmatically the odds of something coming from nothing are impossible…and when something is mathmatically impossible it is just that; impossible.
Furthermore, we’re finding that simple cells do not really exist. For a reproducing cell to exist, it must be complex at base level. Remove any part and the cell become useless…but there are multiple parts. Evolutionary theory simply cannot explain how this occurs because it works off the basis that all things begin simple and move towards complex, although all viewable evidence demonstrates this is not true.
Unfortunately, Joel, as the ruling shows there is no evidence for the first cause. The ID experts(Dr. Behe) admitted “There are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” ID is a philosophical arguement with no gound in science. Judge Jones, a religious man, ruled unbiasedly based on the evidence. If only the school board could do the same.
Yet another example of “wingnuts gone wild”.
Had enough yet?
If you think natural selection is based on probability then you are in desperate need of an education. Having a fish just appear is impossible, yes. which is why ID is fasle. Natural selection allows for more complex systems to be made from already existing systems. there is a mountain of evidence for this. Actually, in the judges ruling Evolution experts explain just that.
Do some digging before you start putting old-ignorant comments on the board. i can give more sources if ya want…
Joel, if you want to know the real science, I suggest you contact an expert in the field.Start with Josh at “Thoughts From Kansas”.Please check this out.http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/
Whoa! I just viewed the “Jesus Camp” story on MSNBC and I’m blown away that this can be compared to Islamofascists. Even though I don’t agree with many things about this camp, to suggest that they are being trained with military weapons to kill those that aren’t Christians is ridiculous. Come on, people. There is nothing shown here that is militant in nature. This is just another example of people responding to something so outrageous as death threats with exagerrations to back up their ideas. When can we just be real and not try to twist the truth to fit our beliefs?
Those defending these militant Christians are the same ones that are for nuking Islam fascists. A violent religious group is the same no matter what the religion.
The majority of Christians are good people, just like the majority of Islam followers are good people. The problem is that they have their radial nuts too - much like in this country.
Courtney,
Have you read the transcript? Behe answered a loaded question without thinking but never actually admitted to such evidence. I’m close friends with one of the expert witnesses (though dismissed) for the Dover district. You may want to be careful with what you try to slip by me.
I totally agree with you, CR. The problem is that I didn’t see anything in this “Jesus Camp” video that was militant or violent in nature. Now Fred Phelps is a completely different story. I’m not saying that there aren’t violent Christians out there, but I just don’t understand people labeling this “Jesus Camp” thing as violent when I didn’t see any violence involved. If I missed something on the video on MSNBC, please let me know. Otherwise you can call them extreme or radical or fundamentalists or whatever, just don’t call them militant or violent.
“Violence sometimes neededFather Frank Coady is right that Christians should act out of love and compassion. But we sometimes disagree on how best to put love into action.
If a bully holds a gun to someone’s head (or a sword to their neck), I believe a Christian’s first responsibility is to rescue the victim — even if that requires killing the bully. Scripture is very clear that God sides with the oppressed.
Yes, Jesus instructed His followers to turn the other cheek. But He did not give us the authority to make that decision for anyone else. During the Nazi era, for instance, only a very bad Christian would have told the Jews to turn the other check.
Scripture commands us to “rescue those being hauled away to their death.” (Proverbs 24:11) We did the right thing by waging war against Adolf Hitler. And we are doing the right thing by fighting the war we’re currently engaged in, against people who have repeatedly stated their intent to “finish the job” that Hitler started.”
This is a letter to the editor that was in our local paper today, it’s from a woman who I’ve frequently had ‘ltte wars’ with on life and death and abortion issues. So you tell me read through that, and is she referring to war…or abortion?
You didn’t see anything militant about those camps? “I”m ready to die for Jesus” isn’t militant? Would you feel differently if it was a tape of some Islamic kid saying “I’m ready to die for Allah?”…I’m betting you would.
I have not seen these Jesus Camp tapes yet. What I was referring to was the threat against this judge. I consider that militant - don’t you?
Actually, threatening harm is a crime, isn’t it?
Joel, your dishonesty starts at a pretty basic level. Your boss, Billy Dembski, was not dismissed as a witness, he withdrew. He did so because the Discovery Institute decided that the case was unwinnable.
Despite DI’s rhetoric, there is no scientific backing for ID creationism. No one has proposed a testable ID hypothesis, and there’s no definition of science that includes IDC but doesn’t sweep in superstitions like astrology. Behe admitted as much in Dover.
There are problems with gravity; mathematically the whole thing doesn’t fit together. But that doesn’t mean we should just give up and invoke “intelligent falling.”
Josh, doesn’t the FSM fall intelligently?Never mind, carry on fighting the good fight.
Jones: Not an ‘activist judge’
Jones — an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of intelligent design — defended his decision in personal terms.
“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court,” Jones writes.
“Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy,” he said.
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, “Children in public schools deserve top quality science education and freedom from religious indoctrination and today they were granted both.”
Not only is the government harmed by the politicalization of religion in this country, but Christianity is too.
So, if you hate Christianity and want it controlled by the state, keep up the wise course that has been so aggressively initiated by George W. Bush.
I consider myself a Christian
But to hear that people threatened another’s life over something so trivial in the name of god puts us all to shame.
These people need to take another look at themselves.
“We are all the samePeople with sinning hearts that make us equalHere’s my hand not words said desperately”
Joel’s gone quiet.We could try the whole thing again right here.End result will be the same.
Saying that you are willing to die for Jesus isn’t militant. I’m a Christian and would die for Jesus, yet I don’t own a gun and even have a good friend who is Muslim. If the Jesus Camp had kids saying “I would kill for Jesus” then I would agree that is militant. I would die for my family, but that certainly doesn’t make me a militant familofascist radical.
I think Joel went quiet because he maybe grasped that people saw he was just towing the party line and regurgitating the drivel, revisionist history, and lies put out by the Disco Boys.
amen anon
The Jesus Camp folks are in the same camp as the islamofascists. The are both ultra-fundamentalist, ultra-intolerant and ultra-brainwashed. Granted the Islamic branch takes it further with the violence but the rhetoric is very frighteningly similar. The fact that those deep in can’t see the similarity is more evidence backing my point.
Jesus would be so proud.
For instance, mathmatically the odds of something coming from nothing are impossible…and when something is mathmatically impossible it is just that; impossible
50 years ago there was no internet, nothing, so this response must be impossible
How about “Thou shalt not kill?” I think that is in the Bible somewhere…
HELLO REVEREND.Nice to hear you preach again.
I just listened toGEE, I LIKE YOUR PANTS (ZAPPA),IN YOUR HONOR!
And howdy to TM.Wasn’t that one of those command thingies? HA
Morg your logic is erroneous. Senator Ted Stevens says the internet isn’t a big truck but it’s a series of tubes. You see, before the internet we had tubes but then some brilliant guy decided to stick them all together with soup cans on each end then we developed the internet.
Jesus Camp sounds similar to the stories that my German relatives told me about:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-beginnings.htm
Gravity is only a theory. It is not fact. We need to teach intelligent falling.
Tracy, being willing to DIE for Christ is completely different from being willing to KILL for Christ. Sending death threats to people is NOT consistent with being willing to die for Christ, but IS consistent with willingness to KILL for Christ.
Dot morg, mathematically we can prove many things that Joel will not agree to.Probability says we are not alone in this universe.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ TheoryAugust 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Enlarge Image
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.”Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God’s Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue “so they can make an informed decision.”
“We just want the best possible education for Kansas’ kids,” Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein’s ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
“Let’s take a look at the evidence,” said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden.”In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, ‘And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’ He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, ‘But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.’ If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling.”
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton’s mathematics and Holy Scripture.
“Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein’s general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world,” said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. “They’ve been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don’t know how.”
“Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work,” Carson said. “What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that ‘gravity waves’ and ‘gravitons’ are just secular words for ‘God can do whatever He wants.’”
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
“Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the ‘electromagnetic force,’ the ‘weak nuclear force,’ the ’strong nuclear force,’ and so-called ‘force of gravity,’” Burdett said. “And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus.”
I agree TM.I would imagine that fellow Jesus agrees also.
You are right, Tracy. Too bad so many Christians are unconcerned with little details like Christ’s message.
Alrighty now!!Ben weighs in for the fight!!!
I like theistic evolution myself.The Big Guy set this whole thing in motion with a Big Guy sized bang, and it’s been evolving ever since.
Gravity is only a theory. It is not fact. We need to teach intelligent falling.
we should start a tee shirt company that’s priceless
TM, I’m a RED LETTER guy.I can remember everything written in my Bible in red.The rest of it is mostly a blur of bla-bla.Well maybe excepting some of Paul’s stuff.
Oops, that should say “You are right, Ben.” By the way, sparks fly up because they have kinetic energy and heat rises. Eventually, they fall down.
.morg: What does that mean? You believe in the red letters, but ignore them because they are bla-bla, or you don’t believe them because they are bla-bla?
I was raised Baptist and know what the phrase means willing to die for Jesus means. That means if you are ever being forced to renounce your faith in Jesus, that is the point to which you should be willing to die.
It does not mean that you take it upon yourself to issue a death threat on some judge’s life because you don’t like his ruling.
Jesus does not promote killing for his sake.
TM to me the bible is like the farmers almanac take it from there.
Intelligent falling makes me laugh
its suprisingly easy to find the the gravitational constant. Did anyone do the Cavendish experiment in college? its fun!It’s a good thing someone thought up that nice piece of satire before those crazy fundementalists tryed to put it in science class.
The ‘Jesus Camp” surely isn’t militant. But it is wrong. Doesn’t seem right to me to tell a 6 yrld he is a sinner and failure as a Christian becauses he read Harry Potter. I wonder if they will offer ‘Jesus Counseling’ to help the kids undo the years of crazy religious indoctrination.
.morg, I couldn’t agree more; nevertheless, some of that red-letter stuff is pretty good (peace, love, tolerance), most of which is completely ignored by many “Christians.”Amen, CR
Consider an intriguing possibility. What if Saul were really a ‘false propeht’ Jesus warned us to watch out for?
TM we are on the same wavelength its a good guide book. My folks were not religous when I was 12 they gave me a an illustrated childrens bible and said make up my own mind.
Well, if Saul were really a false prophet his teachings would have been in conflict with Jesus teachings and the scriptures as opposed to supporting.
Not only that, as a false prophet he spent a bunch of time teaching about Jesus…
It is about as intriguing a possibility as a meteor destroying my home…
TM,
I don’t know what “many” Christians you are talking about “completely” ignoring those teachings.
Anyhow, where exactly was “tolerance” in Jesus teachings?
“Anyhow, where exactly was “tolerance” in Jesus teachings?”hahahah, heheheh hohohoho.TM, you wanna take this one?I can’t quit laughing long enough.Nathan must have visited the website JESUS’ GENERAL, and not understood that it was satire!
If you are interested in science, science education, or just education, I urge you to visit this blogsite presented by KU science students.It’s sure to be worth your time.Thanks, Pat from RED STATE RABBLE.
http://kcfs.org/kusfs
Nathan, how about Matthew 5:44, 7:1, Luke 6:27-38, for starters.
Jesus commands a panzer divison who woulda known, Go Jesus General!
Nathan - if I went out anc claimed to be “teaching about Jesus” that claim does not make it true. Jesus’ teachings seemed to emphasize love and forgiveness; Saul seems to have gone much more back to the “old covenant” - particularly his focus on gays, etc.
The whole idea of a false prophet is that he would claim to be teaching about the Christ but would in fact be distorting it. Looking at more recent examples I might consider Vernon Howell; or the guy with the “Lord’s Resistence Army” in Uganda; or that guy they just arrested in Utah or wherever they caught him.
Thanks, TM.Gotta, go.I’ll be back when Nathan pulls that foot out of his mouth.Might be a while, Huh?
Ben,
If you can show how Paul was distorting Christs teachings… then you might have a point.
I understand the whole idea of a false prophet.
Nathan - I am reminded of what a Nun once told me - whenever she needed spiritual uplift she would read the Gospels, particularly the “red words”. They seem to be very different from what you find in Saul’s writings.
Lets see,
Matthew 5:44
I don’t see tolerance there.
Matthew 7:1
I don’t see tolerance there either.
And in Luke, nothing about tolerance there either.
I wish God would stop pushing so hard. I never used to weigh this much!
Ben,
I would disagree. Untill you actually produce a point to argue over that you think Paul contradicts Jesus teachings I have nothing to argue against.
Indeed P. Julius and reeses peanut butter cups are the tools of satan
Well, Nathan, therein lies the central problem with the Bible and it’s adherents: Too many people pick and choose which parts to believe and which parts to discard, and a given passage can be interpreted in millions of ways. So much for the immutable Word of God.
Nathan - actually I have no desire to change your religion. My thing is that I do not want it taught as science in schools. Just as I would oppose teaching “Intelligent Falling” above so I oppose teaching similar fanciful musings as science.
TM - absolutely correct. That is why someone’s interpretations should not become law of the land.
Ben,
ID was not created by Christians. It was and is something scientists brought forward.
Christians just latch onto it because they can say the intelligent disigner is God.
I couldn’t care less if it is taught.
My point has alwasy been that evolution should be taught with a critical eye and not with a blind belief.
Really, so Jehovah’s Witnesses that refuse blood transfusions and die for their belief in Jesus, THEY’RE considered radicals because they really DO die for Jesus..
But for everyone else, it’s only not radical if everyone else says it too? What reason would anyone have (aside from that reason JW’s give) would have to die for Jesus?
What happened to the ‘live at all costs- right to life crowd’?
“ID was not created by Christians. It was and is something scientists brought forward.”
FOOT STILL IN MOUTH.I’LL CHECK BACK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C-u6kdHuXE
we spend too much time on insignificant crap
Um, Nathan, if scientists proposed ID (which was a name just slapped on creationism to make it sound less religious) then that would imply that there would be some scientific backing to the myth. However, as the Dover case indicated, the creationists never presented any scientific evidence. Was there some better time other than a court case trying to determine the scientific validity of creationism to present the scientific data?
Doug,
“if scientists proposed ID (which was a name just slapped on creationism to make it sound less religious)”
ID has been both a philosophy and study by many for some time. It can be argued that it is indeed just another word for creationism in the essence that some form of Intelligence was involved.
“then that would imply that there would be some scientific backing to the myth.”
Adding myth is your opinion, there are scientists who do study this and do use studies like irreducable complexity to support ID.
“However, as the Dover case indicated, the creationists never presented any scientific evidence.”
This is a lie. Scientific evidence was presented, but the judge found that the board was basically using this to bring religion into the classroom.
You are mixing the theory of ID and what the board of education at the school did.
“Was there some better time other than a court case trying to determine the scientific validity of creationism to present the scientific data?”
Here you mix creationism into your argument again. The case was on ID.
The case was not to determine the scientific validity of ID. To even suggest that a court of law, one man, a judge is the ruling authority on what is scientifically valid is a mockery!
The judge was ruling on whether or not this was interjecting religion into the classroom in violation of the constitution.
The way the board went about trying to interject ID into the classroom was what brought this ruling upon them, not the theory of ID.
“ID was not created by Christians. It was and is something scientists brought forward.”
I don’t think so. Care to cite a source?
So, Nathan, what IS the evidence for ID? And evidence has to be testable, reproducible, experimental evidence. “Irreducable complexity” is NOT evidence.
If there was some scientific credibility to creationism/intelligent design then you’d think with the millions of dollars creationist (oops, intelligent design) groups get then they would have published something. Your irreducible complexity claim has already been shown to be invalid in the scientific realm with numerous studies showing Behe’s statement (it’s not a study since he didn’t actually publish anything supporting it) isn’t supported.
In the Dover case the creationists were charged with promoting religion in the schools in the guise of science. Therefore the best argument would be to show that creationism is a valid science by presenting the science. They couldn’t so the judge ruled accordingly.
Scientific theories are falsifiable, myths aren’t. Creationism isn’t falsifiable, therefore it would be regulated into the realm of myth. It’s pretty simple.
Wait, I thought the DI’s Wedge Document explicitly refer to a literal reinterpretation of the Bible.
The earth and everything in it was created last night at midnight (Pacific Daylight Time). We were all created with our memories in place. Everything around us was also created at the same time.
For example, I was created with memories of having put my dirty clothes in the hamper, done the dishes, and cleared my desk at work. Unfortunately, dirty clothes were created on my floor, dirty dishes in the sink, and a pile of paper on my desk. God has a sick sense of humor!
Now, PROVE that “theory” false!
And, Nathan, are you implying that Christians can’t be scientists?
Hows that foot taste Nathan?
I call mine the “Intelligent Alibi” theory - and it IS brought forward by a scientist!
(sarcasm off)
Either Nathan is busy compiling his reams of evidence, or he doesn’t have any to present. It has to be the latter, because there IS NO evidence to support ID. Or maybe he found something more worthwhile to do. I should do the same thing…
… How to say this succintly?
Say, for argument, you’ve got ‘liberal’ Christians, and ‘fundamentalist’ Christians. And the key distinguishing point is Biblical Literalism: 7 days creation, Noah’s ark historical fact, etc.
OK, so if you’re a literalist, then the earth is young, any indication of great age is just put there to test us, evolution only happens “within types” (i.e. dog breeds). There is no place in your theology for deep time, hence no room for intelligent design.
If you’re a ‘liberal’, then you accept the implications of deep time, you see Genesis as metaphorical, and you accept that evolution is a viable theory, that there’s no way to “prove” any location where it “couldn’t” have happened, and, again, there’s no room in your theology for intelligent design.
Oh, we define intelligent design as “faith that God just _had_ to design some features, and here’s the list” Good enough? This is really just the old “God of the Gaps” theology, and it’s really poor reasoning.
So where am I going? Here: Obviously fundamentalist Christians are not going to accept ID, with its tacit acceptance of deep time. “liberal” Christians don’t need it. Atheists obviously don’t want it.
So who — WHO — is supporting ID?
Here’s a paranoid theory: Satan. Sure. Think about it. Maybe Hugo Chavez is right. Oh, not about George W. in specific — but about Satan walking amongst us.
Listen, if you’re going to accept good and evil, and if you’re going to accept the existence of God, you’ve got to admit the possibility of Satan, too, right? And how would he go about working his evil will? By PRETENDING to be good, by PRETENDING to support fundamental Christians, but by working behind them scenes to make them look stupid, intolerant and evil.
Ken Ham? Could you take off your shoes, please? So we can confirm you don’t have cloven hooves?
(OK,OK, my tongue was in my cheek. Partway)
OK, _that’s_ not how to say it succinctly.
Thanks Alden. Maybe THAT explaind the dirty clothes and dishes!
Which one’s are the wingnuts exactly KSFarmgrl?
I don’t recall this saying these people would die for Jesus. They are killing in the name of Christ which is ridiculous. It’s just plain ignorance. These people who call themselves Christians but will kill for there beliefs are lunatic fringe. Same with Animal Rights people, Muslisms, any belief system that somehow people justify to kill with. I don’t however think it is a stretch to say the percentage of so called “christians” who would kill in the name of their God or belief is way lower than many others.Someone help me out here on the evolution vs. science debate (and I’m serious).How does science explain getting something out of nothing?
Mr KIA (that name sounds ominous),science does not explain “getting something out of nothing,” which is in fact a common ID/Creationism red herring. Science does explain getting something out of something. There are hundreds of good books you could read explaining the evidence supporting evolution, and hundreds of websites, or you could take some biology courses. There is an overwhelming body of evidence - far too much to try to list here. There are NO ID books explaining how ID works because there IS NO evidence supporting it.
Thanks again TM.
Alden—-question:”So who — WHO — is supporting ID?”
answer: Joel Borofsky.
Good luck talking logic and science with him.
Well I wouldn’t be so bold as to take the 7 days of creation as literal necessarily. I have a lot of questions about the old testament and creation and how time might have been measured in the book of Genesis. I don’t entirely understand evolution and really don’t care to. If it’s fact, I see it as the hand of God. Because, this all had to start somewhere.
Mr. KIA. obviously I am not a scientist, but I don’t believe there is such a thing as something from nothing.At least in science.
In religion you can have something from nothing.Like the vicarious atonement, and the virgin birth.
KIA - you may be right, but at present there is no evidence supporting the existence of a God (or Gods). Maybe folks should try reformulating their ideas of what God is.
Mr. Kia:
Ooh! Ooh! Lemme try!
Science is a game. It doesn’t _try_ to explain “origins” Scientists may try to do that, but when they do, they aren’t doing science.
Instead, science, properly done, starts with careful observation of the available facts around us. Construction of tools and instruments to more carefully observe the world is highly encouraged.
Then, science attempts to construct hypotheses to fit the facts together into a hypothesis.
Next, science devises tests to confirm the hypotheses.
Finally, a hypothesis that survives a reasonable level of testing is promoted to a theory.
That’s how the science game works.
What’s interesting about this is that it leaves no room for “miracles”. When a scientist finds something that can’t be explained by current theory, he(she) _ought_ to say “we really don’t know”.
So, science can prove that evolution is happening today. Science can show (by digging up rocks) that animals in deep time were different from the ones alive now. Science can examine morphological characteristics of creatures, alive and extinct, and construct ‘cladograms’ that describe tentative evolutionary scenarios. But science can never PROVE a specific evolutionary path actually occurred.
When you get far enough back, it all becomes conjecture and guesswork. This isn’t evidence one way or the other for or against God — it’s just that deep time is really, REALLY deep.
God is outside the rules of science. It simply can’t allow Him inside the game, because to do so would be to admit untestable hypotheses (i.e. “I hypothesize this happened because God said so.”). So, within the constraints of science, hypotheses regarding possible origins of life and very early creatures have been constructed.
The fact that these hypotheses are consistent with the proven theory of evolution doesn’t make them any more certain, despite anything Randy Scholfield may write on the editorial page. (Oh, hi Randy!).
Modern evolutionay _science_ is ‘parsimonious cladograms.’ It’s not “eohippus->mesohippus->horsey!” any more. You can read all about it in “In Search of Deep Time” by Henry Gee.
I’ve been looking for the perfect place to post this. I thought some of the specifics might be off (point mutations aren’t the primary form of allele changes; the 2nd law od TD only applies to closed systems) but it’s beautifully written. Each side should stay in its corner; Science shouldn’t use science to make assumptions about God’s existence and Religion shouldn’t use science to prove the existence of God. Two separate games, here.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Origins of LifeTheistic Evolution
The debate over creation and evolution continues tothis day. Unfortunately, in our universities and inthe media, only the extremist views are taken and noone ever discusses a rational, “middle of the road”view that can satisfy both sides. What this shortessay hopes to do is to discuss both extremes, pointout errors in those extreme views, and then synthesizea view on theistic evolution that draws from theauthor’s background as a seminary-trained presbyter ofthe Eastern Orthodox Christian Church.
On one end of the spectrum, there is the notion ofwhat we can term “atheistic evolution.” This is theview that science has adequately demonstrated thatlife has been around for billions of years and thatthe mechanism for change in the various life forms isevolution. The basis for evolution is simply, as wediscussed in class, natural selection favoring thesurvival of organisms with certain alleles that makethem better adapted to their environment and thereforebetter able to survive. In this view, there is no needfor a deity and the conclusion is that persons offaith are somewhat “silly and superstitious.” Lifeitself is nothing more than organized self-replicatingmolecules in nice neat little packages. There arethose who do point out that, despite the bestintentions of these scientists, they can notadequately explain, with the proofreading ability ofDNA polymerases - where only one mutation occurs perone million replications - how life on this planet hasevolved beyond a simple bacteria. There has not beenenough time to accumulate enough mutations to allowthe evolution from the first prokaryotic cells to acomplex multicellular rational organism like a human.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are theso-called “creationists”. These are individuals whoreject the theory of evolution and the commonly heldnotions of the geological age of the earth. They holdstrongly to an absolutely literal reading theJudeo-Christian Bible and argue that creation occurredabout 6,000 years ago over a period of six daysexactly as it is written in the Genesis creationaccount. Just type “creation vs. evolution” on aninternet search engine and see how many websites showup (many of which do not agree with each other) orbrowse the science section of your favorite bookstoreand you will see how vehemently the creationistsattack evolutionary biology (at least the 130 year oldoriginal Darwinian model).
Unfortunately, any logical person with a goodknowledge of Scripture will be able to point out thefollowing confusing points (which Creationists can notprovide answers for). They include:
1. God did not create time (the sun and the moon tomark the days and seasons) until the fourth day. Howlong then were the first 3 days without time tomeasure them?
2. In the absence of the warmth of a sun, space is achilly –270oC, only 3 oC above “absolute zero” wherethe random motion of the atoms themselves stops. Whythen would God create the plants on day 3 and thenkill them in the near absolute zero temperatures of aplanet that does not get the warmth of a sun’selectromagnetic radiation until day 4?
3. God did not say “Let there be…” and then name everysingle living organism on earth. Rather, on day 5, Godcommanded the waters to bring forth life. Scripturenever stated how this happened, it just states thatGod commanded it to happen. Likewise, God alsocommanded the earth to bring forth life, “and it wasso.” Again, no mechanism is mentioned, but only thatthe command was given.
4. How could Moses, to whom the authorship of Genesisis attributed, have been on hand to write down aliterally interpretable account of the creation thatoccurred on days 1 – 5 when humankind, and then onlyAdam and Eve, was not created until day 6?The argument for a literal interpretation of theGenesis account fails miserably when criticallyevaluated in the strict literal sense that thecreationists claim it must be read and accepted.
What does scripture really say about God and Hiscreation outside of the Genesis creation accounts?Several texts from the Old Testament provide us withthe answer and with an approach to evolutionaryscience.
Psalm 104 is a psalm that praises the Lord ofcreation. The first nine verses discuss the creationof the cosmos and the earth in a much different waythan the account one reads in Genesis 1. Mostimportantly, the psalm continues on praising andadmiring God for His continual and ongoing presenceand activity within creation. God causes grass to growfor the cattle (v14), God feeds his creation (v27-28), God ends life (v 29), God touches themountains and they smoke (v 32) and, most importantly,God sends for His Spirit and life is created (v. 30).In other words, God, from the moment of creation untilthe very present moment and on into the future, ispresent and active within His creation. God did notjust “wind the watch” 6,000 years ago and let it runat random. Instead the very harmony of nature isdependent upon a God who loves and participates increation.
Psalm 19 also contains verses that are relevant to thestudent of science who is also a Christian. Readingthe first six verses of the psalm, one finds that thevery cosmos itself is a declaration of the glory ofGod the creator. The heavens tell of His glory and thefirmament proclaims His handiwork. To whom do theyspeak? They speak to the wise person who observes andcontemplates them. One who observes and contemplatesnature is a scientist! So, it could be interpretedthat God’s glory is understood through the lens ofscience.
One of the lesser read texts of the Old Testament, theWisdom of Solomon, found in the so-called Apocryphaalso has something of merit for this discussion.Chapter 13 of this text, in its refutation ofidolatry, states men who are ignorant of God do not“…recognize the craftsman while playing heed to hisworks” (v. 1). It continues on, in verse 5, to statethat from “…created things comes a correspondingperception of their Creator.” Once again, it is theobserver of nature, the scientist, that should see thesplendor of God and His handiwork in creation.
Now, let us examine the notion of theistic evolution.How does it work? First of all, there is the notion ofa creator God. Divinity is completely and totallytranscendent to creation. The divine nature/essence,Divinity itself, is invisible, infinite, ineffable,incomprehensible, inconceivable, ever-existing andeternally the same. The material universe is whollyother than God and is created, not out of thetranscendent divine nature, but created out ofnothing, ex nihilo, by the will of God. So how doesGod interact with creation? God does so, in thistheistic model, by what are called the divineuncreated energies. This concept is used to describeGod’s love, grace, and eternal “embrace” of creationwhich issues forth from God’s divine nature uponcreation itself. It is through the divine energiesthat God interacts with creation to uphold andmaintain it. These divine energies are also the meansby which God can direct the “developmental” or“evolutionary” path that creation takes.
The correct understanding of the creation accounts inGenesis is not a story of how God created, but rathera story telling you that God created. The unlocking ofthat mystery of how God created has been left to thescientists. The idea being that as humankind learnsmore and more about God’s creation that humankind willdesire more and more to seek out that God of creation,of life, and of evolution. What to some appears as aGodless process of random mutations in a nucleic acidleading to higher and higher forms of life with noapparent “rhyme or reason” to others is actually theword and wisdom of God interacting with creationthrough the divine energies.
An Eastern Christian monk, John of Damascus, wrote inthe 7th century A.D. stating, “Some say that it is notimportant to study nature. We ought to know that theseare the words of the indolent and lazy. The study ofnature, which is the basis of theology, provestheological truth. The student will see the spirit ofGod in nature.”
Take this notion into account: the Second Law ofThermodynamics implies that after the Big Bang some 10billion years ago, that the materials formed in thatexplosion should have cooled down, condensed andfallen into complete disorder, perhaps even collapsinginto a big black hole. Somehow, though, matter becamemore organized and more complex and the first starscame into being and then the first planets and thenlater generations of stars and planets. Then, on someaverage planet orbiting an average star with in anaverage galaxy, the conditions arose for somemolecules to increase their complexity and to furtherorganize themselves into the first cell. From there,the cells continued to change and to evolve and becomemore and more complex until one day the universeitself became conscious and intelligent; then theuniverse could literally study itself. Evolutiondemonstrates that the cosmos itself is going fromdisorder and chaos to further increasing degrees oforder. The fact that you and I are here to discussthis issue of creation vs. evolution, in fact, defiesthe very Second Law of Thermodynamics that governs theuniverse itself.
In molecular biology and the study of DNA, it is knownthat the organic molecules called nitrogenous bases –the “letters” of the genetic code – can “flip-flop”out of and back into their natural molecularconfigurations. These odd transient changes inmolecular shape are called tautomers. Tautomers can“confuse” the DNA-replicating enzymes causing them toinsert incorrect DNA nitrogenous bases. As a result, amutation, a change in the genetic code, occurs. Isn’tit possible, that the God who is powerful enough tobring about the creation of the universe by His will,or who can touch the mountains and make them smoke,can also manipulate the very molecules of our DNAaccording to His will? Unfortunately, creationists, intheir arguments, imply that once God created, He justsat back and watched what happened. This borders onthe heresy of deism (God as the cosmic “watchmaker”and nothing more) and not the apostolic and orthodoxtheology of theism (God is present and active withincreation even now).
In conclusion, it is possible to accept the tenets ofmodern science, that the earth is 4.5 billion yearsold and life arose nearly 3.5 billion years ago whilestill maintaining and upholding one’s personalreligious beliefs in a creator deity. In fact, CharlesDarwin himself, when asked one time where the firstlink in the chain of his evolutionary theory was to befound, he replied, “It is riveted to the throne of theMost High.” Via the “middle road” of theisticevolution, one is not forced to be either “anevolutionist” or “a creationist”. One has the optionto be a “theistic evolutionist” who accepts modernscientific discoveries and the theory of evolutionwhile understanding that it is God who ultimatelydirects the formation, development, and evolution oflife on this planet, and perhaps, on other planets.These narrow categories of belief systems and thepitting of the 2 schools of thought against each otherare mostly fueled by the media and bynarrow-mindedness. Theistic evolution, on the otherhand, to one who chooses to view the world through theeyes of faith, allows one to be open-minded andunafraid of the advances in our scientific knowledgeconcerning the origins of life and the evolution oflife without forcing an abandonment of equallyimportant spiritual knowledge.
Rev. Dr. Steven C. Salaris, M.Div., Ph.D.Assistant Professor of BiologyDept. of Science and MathematicsConcordia CollegePresbyter, Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdioceseof North America
Mr. Kia: I have learned that arguing evolution/ID is like arguing abortion. You just get all riled up and no one changes their minds.
As a generalization, I think the attitude of mainstream science is this: Evolution is our theory. We have ways we think it occurred. We can’t prove that it occurred in those ways, but that doesn’t matter.
We represent science, and until someone can disprove what we can’t prove, well too bad. What we can’t prove stands!
In case I didn’t make that clear, good science doesn’t _try_ to explain “making something from nothing.” All that typing, and I forgot to answer the question. D’Oh!
I don’t know TM.It just depends on your outlook.You can live as if there is no existence of God at all. Or you can live as if everything is a miracle and a work of God.Just the way the earth works is evidence of God to me.The sunrise and sunset.The ocean and the ecosystem.The birth of any living thing.
Tara:
Keep looking.
Sorry. Seriously, it would have been a whole lot more effective if you had posted a link to Dr/Rev Salaris’ letter and summarized the main points.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
(Yes, this is from a dude who typed so much stuff he forgot to make his main point. Guilty as charged).
Ooh! Mr.Kia! Nice poetry! I like! Keepin’ it real!
Let me just add:
My kids.
Amen.
(no, I’m not biased. _All_ kids are miracles).
Here’s a nice short lecture from Stephen Hawking on the beginning of time.It’s also written for public consumption, in other words, you can understand it without a masters degree in physics.I thoroughly enjoy these public lectures, and if you’re hangin’ out on this thread, uou will too.http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html
But, but…I’m lazy. And the link is to a paid forum.
Oh well, I tried. I just don’t want Christians to feel threatened by evolutionary theory. All of the evidence supporting it doesn’t mean God is dead.
Mr. Wilner is correct - science doesn’t PROVE evolution; in fact, it doesn’t PROVE anything, and a good scientist will never use the word “prove” when discussing data or experimental evidence. However, the ID camp can hem and haw all they want about the so-called irreducible complexities and gaps in knowledge, but the fact is, whether they like it or not, there is OVERWHELMING scientific evidence to support evolution. There is NO evidence to support ID or Creationism - NONE. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is - even if there were far LESS scientific evidence for evolution, it would still be more evidence than exists for ID. Science is not perfect, but it is a rational, logical, rigorous methodology that is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. ID and Creationism are none of those. The burden is on the ID/creationists to provide evidence to support their conclusions. To date, they have not.
By the way, Mr KIA, many scientists believe that the fundamental laws of the universe ARE God. That provides a scientific basis for understanding AND allows for the kind of “miracles” that you list.I would add Penelope Cruz to that list
Hmm. That lecture looks “dated”. It speaks of an eventual “collapse” (”big crunch”). That was the current theory before the discovery that the universe’s speed of expansion is _accelerating_. String Theory, I believe, suggests the Universe can go on expanding forever; that collisions with multi-dimensional ‘branes’ are causing new universes to burst into existence, expand and fade all the time.
The page info shows the lecture was posted in Dec. 1999. It’s amazing how fast scientific theories can change. That’s what makes science so kewl.
Great post Tara.I take the middle ground with theistic evolution.
OK. Tara, sorry I complained.
Regarding your comment about people “feleing threatened” I’ve found myself musing on “brittle” vs “flexible” faith.
“Brittle” faith hears Richard Dawkins say “evolution disproves God!” and concludes: “evolution must be evil!”
“Flexible” faith hears it and says “Oh no it doesn’t! God is bigger than that!”
Alden, yes it’s a bit dated.String theory, or the “theory of everything” is still very new in the history of science.Quite interesting, but still some areas in the theory are not widely accepted yet.
Yes, I’d count myself in the latter of that statement Alden.
IDC was created by lawyer and evangelist Phil Johnson.
It’s true that Judge Jones considered the claims that ID advances and claims to be science. After considering that evidence, he rejected the claim that ID is science. What empirical claims it makes are not actually tests of ID, and indeed no such claims can be tested.
The creationist notions have always seemed so clumsy and inefficient to me- for an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being, it would be so much more elegant to simply put into motion that first law, to which all other laws of the universe are corollary, kick back and watch it all unfold!
Jed: How do you suppose those laws exist? What is the reason that there is order?
Nathan really needs to study up on the evolution of ID, it is just warmed over creationism. All they changed from the original text, was references to God.
Once again
RELIGION = CRAP
RELIGIOUS FANATICS = CRAP
ALL RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS - KISS MY GRITS BITCH
The argument that something is “mathematically impossible” is incorrect. I would prefer “mathematically almost infinitely improbable.” However, with the universe being infinite, as it is, and time being infinite as well, if the probability of something happening is greater than zero, no matter how large the odds against, then in an infinite amount of time the probability of it occurring is 1. Meaning it WILL happen. Time is a construct of man. We invented the concept to define relative occurrences. The amount of time that has passed since the formation of the earth is unfathomable to the bipedal, carbon-based ’sheep’ that inhabit it, since on average we get about 72 years to learn everything we can and then die. Some of us like the simplistic, spiritual answer to “Why are we here?” and some of us don’t. However, when it comes to education, it’s a matter of empirical evidence vs. mythology. Science is our best guess based on what we can see, touch, and feel. Mythology is an explanation based on lore, legend, belief, faith, prophecy, etc. Science may not always be 100% on the mark, but it at least is based as much on hard fact as possible. Some theories will never become law because it is impossible to prove them, yet they are used almost daily. That does not mean that since evolution as origin of species is not 100% conclusive that we should alternately substitute God as the missing link. I thought we had the frickin’ Scopes Monkey Trial a long time ago, had all sorts of writings, plays, movies (Inherit the Wind)…
Religion is poor science because it deviates from the scientific method in expecting you to draw conclusions based on inability to see, touch, taste, smell, or hear.
Alden:
String theory is far from new, and the scientific community as a whole regards it to be complete and utter BS. It’s the closest thing to religion inside science, since the ‘cult’ of String Theorists is very small… they’re a ‘flat earth society’ of sorts within the realm of science. Just because the Hawking lecture is dated doesn’t mean that it’s invalid; newness of an idea is not to be confused with refutation of earlier theory or law.
And when I say “far from new,” I mean 1960s-70s, not Galileo-style “far from new.”
Ok just saw the “Jesus Camp” excerpt on Olberman.
Really scary stuff. Little kids speking in tounges. I need to see the whole documentary.
In light of events today in government, I have ever more reason to fear Christo-fascism…..and oppose it.
Dinosaurs mention in the bible -JOB 40:15 thru chapter 41
…..”Just the way the earth works is evidence of God to me.The sunrise and sunset.The ocean and the ecosystem.The birth of any living thing.”==========================
The ebola virus. AIDS. Tsunamis. Typhoons. Stillbirths. Deformities. Mental retardation. Cancers. Drought. Flood.
Either you praise your God for everything, or you praise him for nothing. Don’t pick and choose.
As a Christian, I was shocked at what I saw being taught to the children at the Jesus Camp. At the same time, I am shocked at what I see being taught to the children in the public schools. I think we ought to avoid both.
Well hello Ick.Long time no see.Welcome.
All things dull and ugly,All creatures short and squat,All things rude and nasty,The Lord God made the lot.Each little snake that poisons,Each little wasp that stings,He made their brutish venom.He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,All evil great and small,All things foul and dangerous,The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,Each beastly little squid–Who made the spikey urchin?Who made the sharks? He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,All pox both great and small,Putrid, foul and gangrenous,The Lord God made them all.
Amen.
– Monty Python
Wiseman - just what do those verses say? I have Bibles at home but not here at work.
Right on Postal!
Still dying over this one
“ID was not created by Christians. It was and is something scientists brought forward.”
As Christians we are called to praise God for all things good and bad Ick. I haven’t experienced any as severe as you list. But have dealt with some serious problems with my children. Things I personally wouldn’t have felt I could get through. My feeling is these are times God has picked me up on his back and carried me through it.There’s a great song out right now by a band called Casting Crowns “I’ll praise you in this storm”. I will try and find the lyrics and post later.
Welcome to WE blog Reverend.Check back daily, Nathan’s always posting some real goodies like that one.Helps keep a sense of irony and humor.
I’m still waiting for some verification of Nathan’s claim. At least I can show that “Intelligent Alibi” in fact WAS brought forward by a scientist!
Ben…
In answer to your request of Wiseman:
Job 401 The LORD said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the LORD :
4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer-twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
7 “Brace yourself like a man;I will question you, and you shall answer me.
8 “Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath, look at every proud man and bring him low,
12 look at every proud man and humble him, crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you.
15 “Look at the behemoth,which I made along with youand which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes,or trap him and pierce his nose?
Job 411 “Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhookor tie down his tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through his noseor pierce his jaw with a hook?
3 Will he keep begging you for mercy?Will he speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will he make an agreement with youfor you to take him as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of him like a birdor put him on a leash for your girls?
6 Will traders barter for him?Will they divide him up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill his hide with harpoonsor his head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on him,you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing him is false;the mere sight of him is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse him.Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12 “I will not fail to speak of his limbs,his strength and his graceful form.
13 Who can strip off his outer coat?Who would approach him with a bridle?
14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth,ringed about with his fearsome teeth?
15 His back has rows of shieldstightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the nextthat no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from his nostrilsas from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21 His breath sets coals ablaze,and flames dart from his mouth.
22 Strength resides in his neck;dismay goes before him.
23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined;they are firm and immovable.
24 His chest is hard as rock,hard as a lower millstone.
25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified;they retreat before his thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches him has no effect,nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron he treats like strawand bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make him flee;slingstones are like chaff to him.
29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw;he laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 His undersides are jagged potsherds,leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldronand stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake;one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is his equal—a creature without fear.
34 He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud.”
I don’t see a donisaur. I do, however, see a dragon:
“18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from his nostrilsas from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21 His breath sets coals ablaze,and flames dart from his mouth.”
I don’t recall any fire-breating dinisaurs.
A VOLCANOE.
How many people take the Bible litterally instead of metaphorically?If you do, then you need to pluck your eyes out, sell everything you own and give all the money to charity, then squeeze through the needle’s eye before you can talk about heaven.
…..”As Christians we are called to praise God for all things good and bad Ick.”==========================Really? That must be why I so often hear, “My son was born yesterday. How can you look at his cleft palate and not see God’s love?”
http://www.lpch.org/photos/greystone/ei_0108.jpg
Or, “Did you see that typhoon in the Philipines that wiped out an entire village of 1200 people? Man, Good is good!”
http://img1.travelblog.org/Photos/9494/38999/t/202340-Raveshwaran–Typhoon-Destruction-0.jpg
And just the other day I swore I heard, “You know that 16-year old girl in Colorado who was shot in the head running away from that molester? How can her family ever count their blessings?”
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/gallery/060928bailey/060928bailey_1.jpg?size=l
The Bible talks about unicorns too, should scientists spending their days looking for the remains of unicorns?
Yes, Ick. Good thing God reached down and pushed my father off that roof exactly 12 years ago tommorow.Now that he’s been in worse shape than Chris Reeves all this time, we can look at this poor man and say, gee, I may be mentally physically and financially at the end of my rope, BUT,THANK GOD I’M NOT HIM!!It’s been SUCH A BLESSING for these past short 12 yrs.Thank you God, thank you Jesus.The lord works in mysterious ways, and everything happens for his reasons, you know!!