During her State of the State speech Wednesday, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius didn’t mention the evolution flap, the State Board of Education or her earlier proposal to make the 10-member board advisory and have a Cabinet-level education secretary. She shouldn’t let it drop. Though the new moderate majority on the state board already has begun to undo some of the damage done by the conservative-led board, there is no guarantee that this board’s work will survive the next set of elections. That could mean five changes to the science standards in 10 years. She and the Legislature still need to talk about long-term reform, via a constitutional amendment to replace the flawed 1966 one that set up the current board. As our editorial Friday concludes, “Education in Kansas deserves better than the ideological seesaw the state board has become.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
257 Comments
Well twice now, the people voted in good faith that the state ed board would not change evolution standards, and twice now the conservatives p’d off the public. So hopefully at least for awhile, the moderates will retain the board.
Well that’s simply not true. The polling indicates that the majority of Kansans believe that evolution should be taught; along with the problems with evolutionary theory and alternative concepts.
Of course the Eagle in this instance case does not think the will of the people matters, since it embarrasses the editors when the NYT makes fun of it.
If we are going to our kids alternatives to evolution go ahead, but the class is called “comparitive religion”.
A couple of hundred years ago, lots of folks in the US thought slavery should be legal, too.
Many college-educated Americans can’t tell you how long it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun. Why rely on ignorance to set educational policy?
Or does outlander think that he knows science better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world who actually use evolutionary biology?
The current science standards have been rejected by the major science & science teaching organizations in the state and country. The new state board is just making sure that mainstream science is what gets taught in the classroom.
Not crackpot ID, creationism, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. (BBHNA)
Outlander, would you like a class on all the holes punched in the theory of Christianity?
Like that whole virgin birth story?
Leave science alone.
Whether the evolution “see saw” continues is up to the voters. Like it or not, if the voters keep returning zealots like the crazed loon Morris, then we will continue to see a back and forth position on evolution.
Not the greatest system in the world, but it is the one we have..a democracy with voters is like that–capricious and changing.
The really important fact here is that the rest of the world believes in evolution and for our children to be competitive they must understand science as the world does. If you want your children to be exposed to another way of believing then teach it to them at home or in church! I’m really tired of our state looking like a bunch of dumb hicks that are too stupid to breathe.
After reading this blog header by the EAGLE’s Rhonda Holman, I suggest leaving the Kansas Board of Education the way it is. I suspect Kansas voters are now alerted and educated to the issues and will vote more carefully in future years. Permitting the Kansas governor, with no particular education, to make a unilateral decision on state-wide education matters would be a grave mistake.
My second point: please prove to me the Kansas BOE could force Kansas teachers to teach anything they do not agree with. Teachers are not sheep, are highly educated and organized for that matter.
Now, PERHAPS, the Kansas BOE could prohibit something from being taught in the classroom, I don’t know. For example, I would like to see a legal opinion whether the BOE could prohibit the subject of “evolution” from being taught in the classroom … I doubt it.
So in the words of FDR, we have nothing to fear on this matter but fear itself.
“Well that’s simply not true. The polling indicates that the majority of Kansans believe that evolution should be taught;..”
NEGATIVE there outlander. Your side haas lost the election, the polls and the scientific debate. Your refusing to accept the reality of the situation does not require the rest of Kansas to become delusional. SO GIVE IT A REST!!!
Just so you know ASBESTOS, it is a fact that in a poll taken in the middle of last year, 72% of Kansans thought that evolution criticisms and alternatives should be taught. The Eagle had an article on it and there are numerous references to it on the web.
The state school board vote was a referendum on overbearing overreaching personalities like Connie Morris, not about the evolution debate.
The point is, the controversy is not going away.
The point, outlander, is that curriculum decisions shouldn’t be driven by popular misunderstandings.
Fifty years ago, many Kansans thought that schools should be segregated by race.
Don’t forget that creationist Iris VanMeter of SE Kansas chose not to run for the state board again. Do you consider her an “overbearing overreaching” personality? (Her imported-from-Idaho son-in-law who ran in her place was soundly defeated, too, despite the Discovery Institute blanketing the airwaves with ads on the Christian radio stations.)
outlander, you still labor under the misconception that curriculum should be decided by those who don’t know anything about the topic.
It probably is best that the board continue to be elected as opposed to the Governor appointing someone.
SO FAR we have been fortunate. The Kansas voters were at least intelligent enough to reject far right whackaloons like Shallenburger and chatty Kathy’s last opponent. (I don’t remember his name?
Eventually the Kansas voters may slip and elect a zealot to the highest office. I do not want such a person in charge of placing a like minded zealot in charge of education.
I think evolution was created by a higher power.
political_mom
People do evil things and people will continue to do evil things whether they base it on religion or not.
Fifty years ago, many Kansans thought that schools should be segregated by race, and, we should have kept it that way.
“Outlander, would you like a class on all the holes punched in the theory of Christianity?
Like that whole virgin birth story?
Leave science alone.”
Posted by: political_mom | January 13, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I would PMom!
No wait, nm…3 courses in Philosophy, Comparative Religions, living in a Buddhist Country, etc. etc. hear it all the time, every day.
My faith holds. :)
The difference between evolution and ID is this:
Evolution is based on only that which can be verified with empirical, hands-on data, with the application of the scientific method. It is the attempt of man to define his environment without having to resort to invoking the supernatural.
ID seeks to define that which has not yet been scientifically proven by assuming that since we cannot prove a causation behind evolution, that a supernatural force must exist. And that supernatural force is responsible for the universe.
However much I believe in the existence of God, I believe in the difference between science and religion. I have no problem with God, but I do have a problem with commingling science and faith. If science ever empirically proves the existence of God, it will then be perfectly okay to teach it in schools. Just because you believe something does not give you the right to force the teaching of it to schoolchildren, who are young, impressionable, and their PARENTS are trying to raise them in their own moral and religious image. It is the job of the PARENTS of the children to teach them their religious and moral lessons, not the public schools. Just because ID offers a more ‘cut and dried’ explanation of the origin of species, doesn’t make it necessarily factual, nor does it make it any less faith-based.
“Just because ID offers a more ‘cut and dried’ explanation of the origin of species, doesn’t make it necessarily factual, nor does it make it any less faith-based.”
Well it doesn’t make it ‘cut and dried’, far from it, because it is mumbo jumbo. It is BS with no science at all. ID IS faith based and only based in Christian fundamentalism. The ID/Creo movement is the same as the Wahabists Fundamentalists in the Middle east. There is no difference in motivations, and it is hijacking the original faith.
Truley this is the “original sin” practiced by the so called and self proclaimed faithful.
ASBESTOS: You just worship at another altar, that’s all. Glory be to the the Darwin, and the Dawkins, and the Sagan… Amen.
What is the (d)evolution of sin?
There is no gravity …
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Maybe they are not realizing the gravity of the situation Ben. :)
;^)
“ASBESTOS: You just worship at another altar, that’s all. Glory be to the the Darwin, and the Dawkins, and the Sagan… Amen.”
No i do not worship Darwin, I UNDERSTAND his scientific proposal. ADDITIONALLY who the HELL are you to determine what is and is not acceptable to religion? WHom appointed you all knowing and all seeing?? I think what you are trying to do was reserved for Jesus. YOu are out of place with your faith and your ego.
YOU committed an original sin: you interperted the word of God to satisfy your own frailties of spirit and weakness of ego.
Looks like somebody’s trolling with my nic. I sure wasn’t posting at 7:02 pm yesterday.
That’s what’ll happen when the slimeballs can’t come up with a cogent rebuttal. What an a$$hat.
“ADDITIONALLY who the HELL are you to determine what is and is not acceptable to religion?” -ASBESTOS
Chuckle….Yet you are the one who accused me of “original sin”!!!???
The fact is ASBESTOS, I made no comments whatsoever about religion until you brought it up. I have also made absolutely no comment about what is acceptable to religion, although I really have no idea what your point is.
Your arguments are disingenuous, false, and frankly make no sense.
Consider the details of ID and put them in a wider context. In so doing, we need not focus on any religion or “God”. The “first cause” should be a separate issue, or at least dealth with later after clarity is brought to the discussion.A major problem with this “fight” is that the debate is too often shaped as “either-or”, or perhaps, “science-religion”,”I’m right, so you are wrong” (or a nut). Thes are false dichotomies. The two views (evolution-I.D.)can, and have been integrated–they compliment each other. This is done WITHOUT a need to refer to religion.
Second: Intelligent design has at least two branches that get comingled making a third. Taken together, we have four parts to the controversy when we add the scientific data for evolution.
Some I.D. views are based only on science. This point is under appreciated or publicized. Other views appear to combine science and religon, while “Creationism” weighs heavily on the “God” issue.
The media rarely separate these four, nor do bloggers. How about a look at the best three pieces of evidence for evolution and for ID? Stick to evidence that is strictly derived from science.
Too much emotion has also clouded the issue.
Teach the strengths and weaknesses of using reason, and scientific analysis (which goes beyond strict double blind studies, etc.)
Perspective
Sure . . . while we’re at it, let’s teach the evidence for/against the Apollo moon landings, for/against the Holocaust happening . . .
The old state board of ed adopted a severely flawed set of standards according to the majority of science & science teaching organizations in the country. Funny how the IDcreationism proponents tend to ignore that little fact.
So who’s better equipped to judge what should comprise a science curriculum: scientists and science teachers, or folks without any such training?
When you need your car fixed, do you rely on a plumber with no expertise in auto mechanics?
I *think* that the science side has shot ourselves in the foot because we tend to be snots. Condesending. Assholes, essentially. I’ve been guilty of this.
But it’s just…astounding…that people who haven’t taken anything past high school science survey think that they are more qualified to evaluate scientific theories more than, well, scientists. Is this snotty? Condescending? Maybe.
Also, molecular genetics is the worst thing to happen to the creationist argument. We’ve been classifying organisms and evolutionary lineages based on morphology (structure) of organisms for many many years. In the last 20, we’ve been able to sequence the complete or partial genomes of many organisms. The result? We’ve had to reclassify quite a bit, but for the most part DNA evidence has supported the previous taxonomies.
That’s a good example of empirical data. And it’s an incredibly strong part of the evidence for evolution.
I can say with near certainty that green plants evolved from green algae, which along with red and brown algae, evolved from cyanobacteria. We look at the structures that they share and don’t share, and the molecular data confirms this.
I find it impossible chalk up all of this evidence and data (fitting beautifully and harmoniously together) to a simple, “God is testing our faith”. Uh, WHY? Why would he do that? WHY give us the brains and tools to figure out this stuff, and have it all be false?
I think literal creationism underestimates God’s abilities.
Tara,
There is what the Bible says about creation and then there is what people say about creation.
I will stick with what the Bible says.
It in no way limits God’s abilities.
If anything it shows you how great He truely is.
Tara,
Molecular Genetics is hardly the worst thing to happen to creationist.
It doesn’t even begin to explain evolution on the scale the evolutionists would have us believe.
Hi Nathan!
Well, I do understand that creationists believe in evolution on a small scale. You don’t have a problem with the idea of bacteria changing to resist antibiotics, for example.
But where do you draw the line? Between species? Strictly speaking, we have seen speciation in the lab. The most common definition of speciation is when two organisms can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Then, they are different species, if I remember correctly. I imagine you wouldn’t have a problem with accepting the speciation of a certain genera of green algae, for example.
Then, where is the line where you say “This is not possible?”
You haven’t addressed the question of WHY God would try and test his follower’s faith by providing so much empirical evidence for evolution. To me, it makes more sense to believe that there was no way that the people in Moses’ day would understand genetics, heredity and evolution. So the creation stories are a simple, abbrievated way of telling us that God created life, and this sketch of how it happened. He left the details for us to figure out, using the reason that separates us from animals. To me, creationists are holding God to this abbreviated story, and rejecting any information that further clarifies it.
Forgive all the algae references. It’s my field of study. And of course, despite my beliefs, I wouldn’t want any of my theories about God nudging us toward the explanations taught in a science classroom. That’s speculation, not science.
Tsk, tsk, Nathan, you’re forgetting to echo the party line of the former state board of education: “There is no religion in the state science standards.”
Tara, you’re right about scientists shooting themselves in the foot through arrogance or condescension. Our country seems to be the ultimate Everyman’s Dream; where one’s potential is unlimited, where one can break through the barriers of poverty or bias to become successful.
Unfortunately, there’s a flip side to this happy picture of equality and egalitarianism: that those who don’t know a damn thing about a topic are just as qualified to pass judgment on it as those who’ve spent years, decades even, studying that phenomena.
Anti-intellectualism continues to grow, too, fostered by a leader who’s proud to have been a “C” student, who appoints political hacks to oversee scientific agencies and censor their scientists. What we have in Kansas is just another result of that virulent mindset.
The days of the inquisition are alive and well again. The only difference is todays’ cadre of IDers don’t get to kill the non-believers; at least not yet. Give em time, though; in Kansas, I wouldn’t be surprised if burning at the stake became legal.
TEST
ID’s World View & Future Plans
About a dozen years ago, Phillip Johnson, the acknowledged father of the ID movement, resurrected Intelligent Design and assembled a group of people to introduce these ideas into society. The primary seat of ID is the Center for Science and Culture (CSC, which is amply funded by and housed at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington). Its Web site (http://www.discover y.org) states that “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Two well-known proponents are Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University and William A. Dembski of Baylor University.
The ID movement initially focuses on disproving evolution and allowing for the possibility of an unspecified designer in science (perhaps God, perhaps aliens from outer space). They claim that scientists have a naturalistic bias and that ID is scientific and not religious, despite the fact that it does not provide any description of the designer, nor any mechanistic model by which the design was effectuated. At best, this is disingenuous, as we will see from their own words.
This movement attempts to distance itself from its close relative, Genesis-based Creation Science. The goal of the creationists is to provide scientific support for the literal truth of the stories in Genesis. But at least they have a model: Genesis. And they are honest about their religious basis. Unfortunately for them, evidence conclusively demonstrates that the Genesis account is not a scientifically valid theory for cosmology, geology, physics, or biology.
But the ID movement has a much larger goal than simply discrediting evolution. Phillip Johnson and other ID proponents have formulated a strategic plan they call the “Wedge.” Evolution is only the initial target of the Wedge’s edge, to be followed by an attack on all of science, and ultimately by profound changes in our society, culture, and government. They wish to change much more than the content of science; they want to change the process of doing science, and with it the entire character of American society. Here are their own words, excerpted from their plan, the “Wedge Strategy” (http://www.antievolu tion.org/features/wedge.html):
“Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism1 and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip Johnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Governing Goals
• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Twenty Year Goals
• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
The above quotes clearly demonstrate that Intelligent Design’s claim to be non-religious is false. It is also obvious that the ID movement has aims far beyond countering evolution in its intent to return society to the “idyllic” and “moral” culture that prevailed in Europe prior to the Enlightenment. Most importantly, the preservation of many freedoms, including the freedom to choose any religion, is not consistent with ID philosophy and goals. The writings of the leading senior fellows make this nostalgia for the Dark Ages frighteningly clear:
“From the sixth century up to the Enlightenment it is safe to say that the West was thoroughly imbued with Christian ideals and that Western intellectual elites were overwhelmingly Christian. False ideas that undermined the very foundations of the Christian faith (e.g., denying the resurrection or the Trinity) were swiftly challenged and uprooted. Since the enlightenment, however, we have not so much lacked the means to combat false ideas as the will and clarity.” (William A. Dembski & Jay Wesley Richards, Unapologetic Apologetics, Intervarsity Press, 2001, p. 20.) The scientific picture of the world championed since the Enlightenment is not just wrong but massively wrong. Indeed entire fields of inquiry, especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design. (William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Intervarsity Press, 1999, p. 224.)
John Mark Reynolds is a CSC fellow on the faculty at Biola University (listed by Access Research Network as an ID College, http://www.arn.org/college.htm). He writes, “Torrey Honors Institute (at Biola) is at war with the modern culture. Torrey does not want to ‘get along’ with materialism, secularism, naturalism, post-modernism, radical feminism, or spiritualism. We want to win over every facet of the culture, from the arts to the sciences, for the Kingdom of Christ.” (J.M. Reynolds, “Origin of Torrey,” Torrey Honors Institute, Biola University, http://www.biola.edu/academics/torrey/origin.cfm.)
ID’s Current Strategies & Tactics
The Intelligent Design movement has already targeted several states in an attempt to alter the K-12 science standards. They have presented an array of arguments that are meant to appear “fair and balanced” but actually mask their true intentions. They want the definition of science altered to accommodate divine agency. They do not accept the essence of science; the foundation that has made it so successful as a special way of learning about the world: science as the search for natural causes for natural phenomena.
Here are some common tactics, many of which have already been employed in New Mexico, Kansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Louisiana, and many other states:
• Place ID advocates on school boards and science standards writing committees.
• Go as public as possible in print and visual media.
• Make the inclusion of ID in science classes seem like a free-speech and academic freedom issue.
• Make scientists seem like the dogmatists.
• Claim that “Darwinism” is a religion, but ID is science.
• Claim that “others” are biased, and that teaching ID is only fair.
• Cite popular poll results and ignore the scientific consensus.
• Refer to ID in scientific sounding rather than religious language.
• Redefine science to allow supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
• Settle for any change or modification in their goals, and declare anything as a victory.
• Create loopholes in state science standards, using innocuous- sounding language, to allow the presentation of socalled “evidence against evolution.”
Given the reactionary and theocratic nature underlying ID, one might think that most Americans would not lend much credence to the movement. But, in fact, ID has been spreading rapidly at both the state and national levels. The Discovery Institute now has state subsidiaries in Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio. These subsidiaries began with the establishment of the Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) in Kansas, which has now branched out into New Mexico. New Mexico now has its own ID Web site: http://www.nmidnet.org/. The Kansas IDnet site is at: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork. org/. IDnet also helped establish another state subsidiary in Ohio, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO), http://www. sciohio.org/.
ID advocates now sit on state and local boards, in state houses, and in seats of the U.S. Congress. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is a strong opponent of evolution. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is an ID advocate with close ties to CSC fellows. He introduced language in the U.S. Senate’s No Child Left Behind Act language that sanctioned teaching the “controversy” surrounding evolution; it passed the Senate by a preliminary vote of 91 to 8 (see http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/ index.php3?program=CRSCstories &command=view&id=1172 and http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis10 7/evolution_update0601.html). A primary author of that Senate language was Phillip Johnson! That language does not appear in the final NCLB act, but survived in the committee report. Furthermore, the law itself contains prohibitions against the federal government “mandating … academic achievement standards…” (NCLB, page 55). Santorum has also criticized President John F. Kennedy for his belief in the separation of Church and State (see Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, April 25, 2003, p. A04). Other Senators and Congressmen are openly or clandestinely supportive of ID’s claims. Antievolution rhetoric and actions are the wedge to moving the U.S. toward a theocracy. Underestimating the power and influence of the ID movement would be a grave mistake.
The ID movement wants to bypass scientific peer review and go directly into public school science classrooms. But ID includes no theory other than “The Designer Did It.” No scientific article promoting ID has ever been published in any mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Nevertheless, they argue that it is legitimate science. To the ID supporters, supernatural interventions should be part of science. They want the scientific community to accept miracles as part of the scientific method, the exact antithesis of natural explanations of natural phenomena. But as we have seen, their objections to evolution are merely the “wedge” to ultimately completely overhaul all science, and eventually our culture. That is the real threat. Recognizing the threat is only the first step. All scientists, as well as teachers, parents, and citizens need to get involved in local and state efforts to develop strong, unequivocal science standards, to ensure high-quality textbooks, to improve science education at all levels, and to engage in politics as the need arises.
Dr. Marshall BermanPast Vice President, New Mexico State Board of EducationSandia National Laboratories manager, retiredFounder and Past President, Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education (CESE)Past President, New Mexico Academy of ScienceExecutive Director, retired, Council on Competitiveness, Washington DC
Past University of New Mexico-Sandia Distinguished Professor of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
Howdy Tara!!I bet you sure miss the ice storms like the huge one we’re in now?
Anway, instead of just inserting my own snarky opinions, I’ll refer to Dr. Berman’s wirting (above).I see the tactics he lists are flaccidly employed above by at least one regular here.
ID advocates now sit on state and local boards, in state houses, and in seats of the U.S. Congress. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is a strong opponent of evolution. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is an ID advocate with close ties to CSC fellows. He introduced language in the U.S. Senate’s No Child Left Behind Act language that sanctioned teaching the “controversy” surrounding evolution; it passed the Senate by a preliminary vote of 91 to 8
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/01/simple_answers_to_stupid_quest.php
More stew-pidity from the ID boys.
Tracy: You mis-characterize Brownback’s position. Advocating teaching the problems inherent in Darwinian theory is not anti-evolution. It is anti-ignorance.
outie, I don’t twist anything concerning sammy.Those words are a direct quote from Dr. Berman.He is MORE THAN qualified to refute your position, which originates from your own ignorance of the science.
Dr. Berman has you nailed.Didn’t you read from the experts?You’re toeing the line for them with the tactics outlined:Place ID advocates on school boards and science standards writing committees.
• Go as public as possible in print and visual media.
• Make the inclusion of ID in science classes seem like a free-speech and academic freedom issue.
• Make scientists seem like the dogmatists.
• Claim that “Darwinism” is a religion, but ID is science.
• Claim that “others” are biased, and that teaching ID is only fair.
• Cite popular poll results and ignore the scientific consensus.
• Refer to ID in scientific sounding rather than religious language.
• Redefine science to allow supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
• Settle for any change or modification in their goals, and declare anything as a victory.
• Create loopholes in state science standards, using innocuous- sounding language, to allow the presentation of socalled “evidence against evolution.”
Just wondering which creation story you see as true outie?Gen 1 or Gen 2?They are in conflict you know?
You sure have that copy and paste machine humming this morning. Trying to win via sheer volume?
The “wedge” document is no secret. The Discovery Institute published it on its website.
Why are some so set against (afraid of?)teaching the problems inherent in Darwinian theory?It is the truth.
BTW, there is NO ‘evidence against’ evolution.Only pieces of the puzzle we haven’t found YET.If your evidence is the gaps,then it’s not evidence at all.
Why don’t we teach the problems with creationism instead, since they are HUGE and MANY?I did the cut and paste so that you can read the REAL expert.(knowing you wouldn’t bother with a link)BTW, cut n’ paste is not a ‘bad’ thing, it’s GOOD.I don’t have anything to “win”.Just presenting evidence from experts.I’m not sure what the prize is, but as always you are free to come to your own conclusions.I just wish you’d base that conclusion on evidence, not truthiness.
outlander
You may teach ID in class.
You have my leave to do so. Here is all I need from you first.
You must prove that God exists. I won’t accept pictures or recordings. Technology makes that too easy to fake.
A small miracle or artifact with supernatural powers will suffice.
“BTW, there is NO ‘evidence against’ evolution.Only pieces of the puzzle we haven’t found YET.”
Gosh Tracy. That sounds just like you have faith.
OK JR, I will. Just as soon as you prove God doesn’t exist.
How do you “prove” a negative??
Tracy,
There is no conflict between Genesis 1 and 2 concerning Creation.
Tracy,
No evidence against Evolution?
LOL
I am still trying to get someone to show me the evidence for it.
I see a bunch of speculation and assumption…
This has nothing to do with faith according to ID advocates (liers).It’s about science and the standards written concerning the teaching thereof.
Nathan, we don’t need to talk about creation then.This is about science remember?
let’s see your evidence against
Tara,
You ask where I draw the line?
Easy, I am glad you asked.
In Evolutionary theory there are actuall about 6 different levels of Evolution we are talking about.
1. Creation of the Universe.
2. Creation of the Elements
3. Creation of Planets Stars
4. Creation of Life
5. Life Evolving from one organism to the vast multitude we have today.
6. The changes withing in a species… Natural Selection.
I draw the line at number 6.
There you have it.
Tracy,
You made an accusation about the Bible, either you can prove it or you can’t.
You brought it up, not me.
In the century since he proposed it, Mr. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has become nearly universally accepted by biologists, but has proven controversial among the general public. Darwin’s critics raise five principle objections to teaching evolution:
1. Evolution is not solidly demonstrated.
“Evolution is just a theory,”
Darwin’s critics point out, as if theory meant lack of knowledge, some kind of guess. Scientists, however, use the word theory in a very different sense than the general public does. Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain. Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is “just a theory.”
2. There are no fossil intermediates.
“No one ever saw a fin on the way to becoming a leg,”
critics claim, pointing to the many gaps in the fossil record in Darwin’s day. Since then, however, most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found. A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling.
3. The intelligent design argument.
“The organs of living creatures are too complex for a random process to have producedthe existence of a clock is evidence of the existence of a clockmaker.”
Biologists do not agree. The intermediates in the evolution of the mammalian ear can be seen in fossils, and many intermediate “eyes” are known in various invertebrates. These intermediate forms arose because they have valuebeing able to detect light a little is better than not being able to detect it at all. Complex structures like eyes evolved as a progression of slight improvements.
4. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
“A jumble of soda cans doesn’t by itself jump neatly into a stackthings become more disorganized due to random events, not more organized.”
Biologists point out that this argument ignores what the second law really says: disorder increases in a closed system, which the earth most certainly is not. Energy continually enters the biosphere from the sun, fueling life and all the processes that organize it. Just as a mother’s energy “organizes” a child’s otherwise messy room, so the sun through photosynthesis powers the organization of life on earth.
5. Proteins are too improbable.
“Hemoglobin has 141 amino acids. The probability that the first one would be leucine is 1/20, and that all 141 would be the ones they are by chance is (1/20)141, an impossibly rare event.”
This is statistical foolishness you cannot use probability to argue backwards. The probability that a student in a classroom has a particular birthday is 1/365; arguing this way, the probability that everyone in a class of 50 would have the birthdays they do is (1/365)50, and yet there the class sits.6. Natural selection does not imply evolution.”No scientist has come up with an experiment where fish evolve into frogs and leap away from predators.”
Is microevolution (evolution within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution among species)? Most biologists that have studied the problem think so. Some kinds of animals produced by man-made selection are remarkably distinctive. If future biologists only had Chihuahuas, dachshunds, and greyhounds from the fossil record, they would surely consider them to be different species, perhaps even different genera. While all dogs are in fact the same species and can interbreed, laboratory selection experiments easily create forms that cannot interbreed and thus would in nature be considered different species. Thus production of radically different forms has indeed been observed, repeatedly. To object that evolution still does not explain really major differences, like between fish and amphibians, simply takes us back to point 2these changes take millions of years, and are seen clearly in the fossil record.
7. The irreducible complexity argument.
The intricate molecular machinery of the cell cannot be explained by evolution from simpler stages. Because each part of a complex cellular process like blood clotting is essential to the overall process, how can natural selection fashion any one part?
What’s wrong with this argument is that each part of a complex molecular machine evolves as part of the system. Natural selection can act on a complex system because at every stage of its evolution the system functions. Parts that improve function are added, and, because of alter changes, become essential. The mammalian blood clotting system, for example, has evolved from much simpler systems. The core clotting system evolved at the dawn of the vertebrates 600 million years ago, and is found today in lampreys, the most primitive fish. One hundred million years later, as vertebrates evolved, proteins were added to the clotting system making it sensitive to substances released from damaged tissues and so greatly increasing its sensitivity. Fifty million years later a third component was added, triggering clotting by contact with the jagged surfaces produced by injury. At each stage as the clotting system evolved to become more complex, its overall performance came to depend on the added elements. Mammalian clotting, which utilizes all three pathways, no longer functions if any one of them is disabled. Blood clotting has become “irreducibly complex”as the result of Darwinian evolution.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has proven controversial among the general public, although the commonly raised objections are without scientific merit.
Genesis 1:25-27(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image…. So God created man in his own image. Genesis 2:18-19(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Genesis 1:27(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 2:18-22(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them…. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Pretending that the bible does not contradict itself is just silly.
And Cain took a wife from the Land of Nod….
Yet, they were the only humans on the earth at the time?
Once again, I say:Why defend the offensive science standards with faith and religion?If you wanna go down that road of silliness okay, but it’s nothing to do with science.BTW, I’m sure I can point out at least 50 more contradictions in Genesis alone.
The whole bible story is silly really. Why on earth would God be punishing all his creation for the sin of one woman? And then to atone for that sin, he sends his son to die a horrible death to make up for HER mistake?
In the meanwhile, God advocates killing those who are different, killing those who dont’ believe, and even then, he floods the whole world to drown and rebuild it again with Noah’s people, and yet, we still have non believers out there.
It just doesn’t make sense.
Morning mom.You know I’m christian, but when you try to talk reality to a few christians they wanna claim that you are an evil heritic.What a shame.
Genesis 22:2Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, … and offer him there for a burnt offering. Genesis 16:15And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
Genesis 21:2-3For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age …. And Abraham called him Isaac.
Genesis 25:1-2Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
Kinda’ gives you the impression that the author(s) didn’t mean for it to be history or science huh?
Yay,
Another Christian bashing thread.
And Tracy, being Christian isn’t a part-time belief or when it’s convenient.
JM, being a christian doesn’t mean that you check your brain in at your baptism, and claim that science and evolution are anti-christian.
I’m not anti-christian….I’m pro-reality.
The discussion which should be had is whether the current popular election of state school board members under the constitutional amendmnent ratified in 1966, following the first big school finance crisis in the state, is best for education. I am of the belief that it is not, for the reason given above. There is again no perfect way to do it; my preference is for a “cabinet” level appointment by the governor, subject to the advice and consent of the state senate.
I appreciate the argument that with the state providing the funding for the schools, the taxpayers should have the say on how the schools are run by and through the elected members of the board. However, it seems to me that running the schools is too important to be left to the vagaries of the populace; and if the political will is that the schools, run by a governor’s appointee, aren’t doing well, there is a way, by not reelecting the governor who appointed the head of the department of education on the state level.
JM, believing just what you wanna believe outta the bible conveniently?I believe that many parts of the bible ARE litterally true, but many are not, and are not meant to be read as though they are.
Oh yeah.How easily I am mislead.This isn’t about religion at all.It’s about science.Where’s all that evidence for ID?
Political Mom,
“Where did Cain find his wife?”
Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.
It is obvious that Cain simply married one of his sisters.
No matter what I say Tracy, it will be twisted around. And if I start making sense I will get the usual treatment by liberals and get cursed at or called names.
Evolution has been turned into a faith based science, if there is such a thing. They want people to make quantum leaps of understanding on things they don’t really know about, so they make up theories. Then they change these theories every decade or so, so they can better defeat arguments against it. They change the theories instead of practicing cause and effect science. They will violate any principle of science in order to make their point. This is not science.
And if that doesn’t work, just shout down the opposers.
But Nathan, that’s not what the bible SAYS.
No, this is about why we dont’ teach religion in a science classroom. For those who sit here and say that they want to denounce science in favor of a creationist view, almost all of the people who push that view are Christians. And they get very irate when it is shown how silly the bible’s words are in reality.
So if we’re going to discuss which is MORE improbable- science or religion, we have to have this discussion.
Tracy,
You make a very common mistake many critics of the bible make when they try to discredit it.
You don’t really look at what is being said.
What happened in Genesis Chapter one is a chronological description of God’s creation.
Chapter 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first 5 days while Chapter 2:7-25 is a discription about what took place in the Garden of Eden.
The passage you site is no contradiction. God did create animals, one of each kind, for Adam to name.
What is silly is to think that God created ALL of the animals to populate the entire world right there in front of Adam so he could name them. That would be kind of chaotic…
These are not contradictions.
It is sad that you say you are a Christian yet denounce the very book which Christianity is based upon.
Pee,This is even MORE reason why we SHOULD have a religion class in schools – NOT Bible study – more of a history and comparative study of various religions.
To everyone,
I don’t want religion taught in the classroom.
I don’t support ID being taught in the classroom.
What I support and have always wanted is the truth about evolution being taught in the classroom.
I am fully prepared to have a discussion about the Bible and to answer any of these supposed contradictions.
I am fully prepared to discuss with you why I don’t think the Bible is silly at all.
At the age of 12, my son still maintains a tenuous belief in Santa Clause.
It is sweetly innocent and naive and really quite harmless.
As I tried to help him hold on to his childish faith this last Xmas, I found myself sounding in arguement much like outlander or Nathan or JM.
The difference is? I did not tell him to go forward and inflict his views on others.
Golf, spot on; I advocate such a class routinely. One issue which will arise, however, is with those who will object to any comparative study among the several religions. This is something I do not understand, but as sure as I’m here this day, it will happen.
Goofytesticles, they already have comparative religion classes in college. What is taught though, is usually based on what that college wants to teach. Do you think it’d be any different in public schools?
I’ll bet you and people like Nathan would have a literal spit fit if a muslim was hired to teach a religion class in public school, the same reasons I would be scared to death to have a fundamentalist christian teach religion in public schools.
No way, just leave it out.
Ah, no slams on Christians, JM. No slams on Jews or Muslims, either. By the way, Islam believes the literal belief of the Qu’ran which treats the origins of life with the same story of Genesis. Adam and Abraham are prophets in Islam as they are in Judea and Christian beliefs.
The fact remains that mathmeticians should decide math curriculm. Historians should decide the history class study plan. Coaches should run gym class.
And scientists should determine what is studied in science class.
Political mom,
What is it specifically then, which is giving you such a hard time figuring out where Cain hot his wife from?
Heck no!!! I’d GLADLY welcome a muslim teaching a religion class. In fact, what I’d REALLY like: a class with a teacher (of any faith) and multiple guest speakers of various religions – Christian, Jew, Mormon, Muslim…with the STRICT instructions that they are to present what their beliefs are – not to recruit.
I DID have a class like this at KU – althought it was strictly about religious cults – moonies, hare krishnas, jehovah’s witnesses, etc. VERY enlightening, and highly applicable to HS students.
See, just the fact that you lumped them as cults..shows extreme bias.
And as I pointed out to you long ago, the JW’s you learned about, wasn’t accurate in the least.
Pee,This was a class at a very liberal state university. Jehovah’s Witnesses came to our class and spoke. We were required to do an “immersion” project, and some people in our class did so with the JWs.
No one doubted that the fit the description of a cult. My immersion was with a highly charismatic Christian church. Many would probably argue that this was not a cult, but in the loose definition of our class, it was.
The point is:In many subjects in school, there is always a right or wrong answer. Math, English, History, Science…
Religion falls into social studies – where there isn’t always a right answer. At a very early age, kids should be taught to think, to reason, to go beyond what they see every day. There will be some parents intimidated by that logic, fearful that they’ll lose their kids to a religion other than what they choose. Personally, I think that’s…uhh, what did you say earlier? …”hooey”.
In my daughters confirmation class last year (United Methodist, thank you for asking), they visited multiple other churches for the purpose of education and enlightenment. And, *shock* not one single kid left the class to go join somewhere else. It’s about education.
Our public schools fail when they don’t provide that level of exposure.
*cough* Yes, I said “hooey”.
I feel so…trailer parky.
Ah, Golf, right again IMHO.
Golfnut:”Our public schools fail when they don’t provide that level of exposure.”
Do you mean our schools should take the kids to different sunday schools to expose them to religion?
I think not! Evolution is not up for debate in science.
Religious studies should be held outside the science classroom.
Testicles, as you know, I grew up also learning about the other religions. But do you think for one minute that the Catholic parents are going to allow the criticism of their religion to be taught to their children in a public school setting? Nor the Baptist, nor the Muslim…it just won’t happen.
As a liberal, don’t you think that it would be a good day for us IF all the information presented to our kids were in doubt of religion? Because that is what would happen, the good the bad and the ugly would need to be taught. And most like me, would say – hey, this is all just bullhooey. I’d be thrilled! But it won’t ever happen because there is no way anyone is going to allow someone in public school to criticise the teachings of their religion.
Trailer trash to say hooey? You treat me like this, but think you’re extending an olive branch to meet me? I could have found a better word, would you prefer me to say horseshit? Gosh it must make you feel you wasted a whole lot of money on those dual learnin degrees when little ole trailer trash me ripped apart most of your arguments for other topics.
I do appreciate you at least making a point. I just don’t agree with it.
Political Mom,
KSGolfnut was making fun of himself.
Sheesh….
JM, you didn’t bring any evidence for ID.I showed you mine. (in laymen’s terms)Now you show me yours.
I don’t know why you wanna make me a bad guy for believeing in Christ AND science.Millions of people believe the same way. It’s called THEISTIC EVOLUTION.If you would like, I could provide you with names of clergy and scientists alike, from your area who endorse, preach and teach theistic evolution.
Balls, I belong to the same denomination.At our church, nobody condemns you for being middle of the road, or on either side of the fence with this issue.I sit beside somebody in sunday school that only believes in young earth creationism, and that’s fine!OUR religion is not about sitting there with several hundred people that all think exactly like you do.
Tracy,
Our religion is one of truth.
Quite frankly, you have to completely reject what the Bible says to believe in Evolution.
The only contradiction is between the Bible and Evolution.
They are almost completely at odds with each other on the account of creation.
Only if you completely dismiss what Genesis says can you believe Evolution.
nathan says, if you’re not a hardline fundie, you’re not a true christian.
See, Testicles…this is EXACTLY what I’m talking about.
Political Mom,
I never said you are not a true Christian.
To be a Christian you must have faith in Christ. Hence the name.
However, that doesn’t preclude you from being a very uneducated one…
However,
I find it very disconcerting that a Christian would openly dismiss and ridicule what the Bible says.
Tracy,
I believe there is some substance to nature’s ability to adapt, but not to evolve to the effect of trans species.
As far as bringing facts to ID.
You ask me to bring facts to a faith.
Next time you are in a panic stop in a car skidding along the road ask yourself, faith or fact? Besides expletives which I know you will jokingly throw in.
What do you reach for? or should I say Who? Do you reach for Darwin’s Theory on Evolution or perhaps some treatise on Global Warming; maybe the Democratic Party Platform while you are skidding along?
Or maybe it’s just a biochemical response and at the end you look to the heavens and say “phew!”
I am glad you believe in Christ and no one can take that away from you.
WSClark said “The fact remains that mathmeticians should decide math curriculm. Historians should decide the history class study plan. Coaches should run gym class.
And scientists should determine what is studied in science class.”
Amen, WS!!!
How best to make *sure* that happens, though? A whacko governor could just as easily appoint a Corkins-like education commish, or more Connie Morris clones to the state board.
The old state board broke a lot of its own rules during the last couple of years – commissioner hiring, science & sex ed standards, travel policies. The voters are the only ones who can hold them accountable at this point, and voters are easily swayed by Discovery Institute-sponsored ads on the radio.
We need a higher turnout of voters who recognize the Orwellian fallacies of ‘fair and balanced’ and ‘teach the controversy.’
Um, Nathan, I’m not a Christian. Or any other religion.
Political Mom,
It was the general “you” not speciifically directed to you.
It was in reply to your saying I was telling someone they are not a True Christian.
You shouldn’t put words in my mouth. I speak fine on my own.
JM, you’re right.If I have a close call,I thank God not Darwin.Although neither one has anything to do with my close call.
Nathan, saying you have to believe in one or the other is complete and total nonsense. Period.Nonsense.Go ahead and tell me why?
Worker,Please re-read what I wrote above. Your comments do not reflect what I suggested.
Pee,Holy cow! Are you feeling insecure today? Can I not poke a little fun at my own use of the word “hooey”? If you choose to infer that YOUR use of it makes you somewhat less cultured…that’s up to you.
Moreover, in the year or so that we’ve been typing on these boards, I don’t recall you EVER “ripping apart” any of my arguments. Example: I give clear, factual data regarding the economic impact of raising the minimum wage – supply, demand, law of diminishing return, price discretion, etc – and you respond with “Bull, that’s not how it is”
Ok, yeah, you really ripped apart my argument.
If you think you have to believe everything or reject everything then account for this:Bible verses that even fundamentalists don’t take literally…
Here are some verses which come directly from the Bible that even fundamentalists do not take literally for today, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Take a look for yourself…
“Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)
This verse says that women can’t speak in church. Period. It is completely ignored today. Applying this verse to the modern day church would be ancient, absurd and nonsensical.
When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, fundamentalists suddenly insist that they must be interpreted literally, word for word!
When it comes to this verse, however, they admit the facts. They acknowledge that it was only meant for that day. The truth is that the Apostle Paul wrote this verse because, during his time, women and men sat on opposite sides of the church aisle. Women would yell questions across the aisle to their husbands, causing a disruption of the service.
It would be all too easy for a fundamentalist who disliked women to use this verse to exclude women from participating in the service, just as fundamentalists who dislike gay people currently misuse those seemingly anti-gay scriptures to exclude people who are gay.
Realizing that a particular scripture was only relevant for its time (and should not be applied literally to our modern day) is an interpretational option that is conveniently ignored when it comes to the verses which discuss homosexuality.
“Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Upon visiting any fundamentalist church, you will discover that more than a few women have short haircuts. This verse, however, indicates that women should have long hair, as their “head must be covered.”
It has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? Arab fundamentalists require women to put a veil over their heads and punish them if they do not. The fact of the matter is that the length of your hair has nothing to do with your spiritual condition.
“If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin…” (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)
“But if … evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…” (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
If a man discovers that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, all the men in town can murder her by flinging stones at her young female body as she screams in pain.
Is this the word of God? Hardly.
The command to stone to death a young girl who is not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night is simply an ugly man-made rule of murder that found its way into the Biblical text.
WHY are fundamentalists so afraid to admit the obvious, that such verses like the one listed above are simply not the Word of God? How mature is one’s faith if one cannot even admit that a verse which commands that young girls be stoned to death isn’t the Word of God?
Here are the facts . . .
The belief in Biblical times was that if a woman was indeed a virgin, she would bleed on her wedding night because her first sexual intercourse would result in the breaking of the hymen, the thin tissue that covers the vagina. This blood was considered the “evidence” of her virginity that the scripture speaks of.
Medical science has since discovered that the hymen is often already broken in many young girls because of their participation in athletic sports and things like horseback riding. Quite tragically, this indicates that many girls who actually were virgins on their wedding night were nonetheless stoned to death because they were ignorant of this scientific fact. Little did many young girls in Biblical times know that their wedding nights would end in their own murder.
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)
While fundamentalists insist (due to their pre-existing bigotry) that all seemingly anti-gay scriptures be taken literally, without exception, they admit that the above verse was not meant to be taken literally even though the words above were spoken by Jesus Himself.
This proves that fundamentalists are willing to say that certain scriptures weren’t meant to be believed literally, even those which contain the actual words of Jesus Christ!
“One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
If you were born to an unwed mother, the Bible says that you shouldn’t be allowed in church. Do “Bible-believing” fundamentalists follow this rule? Nope. They acknowledge that this verse was meant for a different time.
Yes, even fundamentalists acknowledge that certain scriptures were only meant to be applied to the particular time and place in which they were written.
When it comes to those scripture verses which seem to speak against homosexuality, however, they suddenly and indignantly demand that every word be followed to the letter and applied to our modern day!
The idea of refusing membership in the church to a child born to an unwed mother is seen as being unreasonable today, even though the scripture instructs it. The idea of quoting scripture to abuse people who are gay and lesbian is just as unreasonable and antiquated.
“Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)
“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)
“Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back .” (Titus 2:9)
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. ” (1 Peter 2:18)
Slaves should obey their masters? Hardly. Slavery was one of the most offensive institutions to ever befall humanity. Sadly, the scriptures condoned it, and, as you can see from the above verses, demanded that slaves obey their masters…even cruel ones. Are those verses the “Word of God?” Of course not. They are merely reflective of cultural biases which found their way into the Biblical text.
“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avengeditself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stoppedin the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day.”(Joshua 10:13 NIV)The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. If the Bible were the “inerrant, literal Word of God,” as people like Jerry Falwell claim, surely God would have known that it was the Earth, and not the sun which had stopped.
In February of 1616, religious authorities asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about Galileo’s claim that the Sun is at the center of the planets’ motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move.
On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”.
Conclusion
When it comes to the scriptural verses which seem to be against homosexuality, fundamentalists boldly declare their belief in the “infallible, inerrant Word of God”, demanding that every single word be taken literally, without exception. But when it comes to the awkward verses listed above, they become much less sure of themselves. So much less sure, in fact, that they don’t follow what their own Bible says.
“Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Balls,What is hooey,and why does it ALWAYS come in bunches?
I do have to admit, you’d say “BULL” in all caps – so…it was rather compelling.
Tracy,I’m really not sure, but when I say it, I feel a very strong desire to have a pronto pup and a funnel cake.
All hail Tracy, king of copy and paste!
If ya can’t defeat the argument, overwhelm it with words.
The time for talk is past – the time to read and learn is present:
Human Body Inspires Engineering Design…
Cells Use Zip Codes to Determine Their Body Location…
Evolutionist Lost Faith Over Flawed Geology Lesson…
Evolutionists Fret Over Persistent Creationism…
Are Evolutionists Converging on a Story of Vertebrates?
Take a moment and visit an insightful, thinking website covering science as it should be practiced:http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm
That’s a very interesting site Bond.Thanks
Sigh.
Testicles, I do resort back to my hickness, yes. I do! It’s part of who I am. But I can promise you that I can act just as refined just as much as anyone else.
The difference is that I don’t need to put on aires to be me.Fake isn’t me.
I’ll throw in a “ya’ll” for good measure.
Tracy,
It will take me a bit to write a response to your post.
There is a big difference in the sociological contexts of women in the Church and the clear cut saying that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
You are using mere parlor tricks Tracy.
You can’t defend your liberal Christian views by trying to show the absurdity of biblical verses by taking them out of context.
There is not any confusion over the verses which tell why homosexuality is wrong.
Did the Bible say that women who spoke in church were an abomination in the eys of the Lord?
Nope. To try to compare the two is disingenuious on your part.
On another note, Christians don’t use the verse to exclude Gays and those that do are wrong.
I don’t exclude gays, I openly welcome them into the Church.
However, Homosexuality is clearly wrong.
Yet again you confuse the issue.
I will post a more well thought out response in the morning ( my morning, it is almost 11 here now.)
Oh give me a break outie.That’s just childish.The copy and paste is good reliable stuff from good reliable professionals. I don’t give a hoot about drowning you out, or whatever you think is going on.I thought you were actually interested in discussing the topic.Guess not……..Got that evidence for ID/against evolution yet?It’s sooooo easy to do.If it’s out there, you can use this new fangled thingy called a S-E-A-R-C-H E-N-G-I-N-E.
You could have your evidence in minutes, IF it exists.But NOOOOOOOOO,you have to come back and pretend that copy and paste is somehow sub-standard. I feel it would be a much better starting point for real discussion, instead of wasting your time distributing snark and unfounded opinions.
Nathan,Once again, I’m not confused at all.I’m just pointing out how easy is it for some to claim the bible IS litteral, when conveinent to their argument.BTW, since outie hates the copy and paste…let me just say this:Those passages and the included narrative were written by JERRY FALLWELL.I’d bet a buck two ninety eight that if you knew that before you would have responded differently.
Thanks mom.I love ya’ll.
Parlor tricks?sheesh
I’m giving you a straight forward account of what I believe…WITH some facts and logic to support WHY I believe this way.No tricks, deceit, underlying motives, etc.sheesh
Why is this an adversarial thing?It’s not on MY part.I’m not looking to drown you out or change you in some profound way.I’m just stating the truth as I understand it.
Tracy: I would rather post my own thoughts than to copy someone else’s argument. Of course anyone could go out and find counter arguments on the net, to the stuff you copy and paste. What good does that do? Just shows that it is all out there. If I can’t think of something original or at least a different way of saying it, why bother?
It’s not that I am against occasionally posting something via copy and paste, I just think it can be overdone.
Pee,So, if I had said “hickish” instead of “trailer parky” it would have been ok?
Actually I aspire to be trailer parky…and live in one of those multi-millionaire RV parks when I’m older, traveling the country in my RV.
And I do love Pronto pups too. So there.
If I don’t use facts and logical arguments (cutnpaste)to support my opinions, IT DON’T MEAN SQUAT.If you won’t buy into arguments that I support, and given plainly, logically by folks with the doctorates degrees in the areas discussed….well, I really don’t expect you to buy into ‘just my opinion’, especially unsupported by any sources.Sorry if I don’t play the way you want me to.
You want I should just bloviate unsupported opinions and snark all day long?No thanks, I love to do that.Every now and then though, there’s a point of view I feel is worth supporting.
Okay, so where’s the evidence that ID is science, and evolution is false? Huh?I’m waaaaaiting………
P.S. I wrote all that crap.
What do a divorce in Oklahoma and a tornado have in common?……..
……Either way someone is losing a trailer.
hmm, one of the trolls gets rather irritated at cutting pasting articles to support a position too outlander.
Bringing supporting evidence to a discussion isn’t unoriginal, it’s good policy.
Journalists, writers, all have to provide sources for their works as well. They teach you that in high school writing.
KIA! Don’t encourage him.
:D
Yeah, now ain’t that funny that outie wants to admonish me for doing the proper journalistic thing?
Here’s some interesting things from human evolution:
Some Vestigial Traits in Humans
Trait Description
Ear-wiggling musclesThree small muscles around each ear that are large and important in some mammals, such as dogs, turning the ears toward a source of sound. Few people can wiggle their ears, and none can turn them toward sound.
Tail Present in human and all vertebrate embryos.In humans, the tail is reduced; most adults only have three to five tiny tail bones and, occasionally, a trace of a tail-extending muscle.
Appendix Structure which presumably had a digestive function in some of our ancestors, like the cecum of some herbivores. In humans, it varies in length from 5–15 cm, and some people are born without one.
Wisdom teeth Molars that are often useless and sometimes even trapped in the jawbone. Some people never develop wisdom teeth.
Based on a suggestion by Dr. Leslie Dendy, Department of Science and Technology, University of New Mexico, Los Alamos.
Face it mom,you had a tail at one point.You little devil, you.HA
I love Pronto Pups, too. In fact, I treat myself to two per year – at each of the two semi-annual meetings of the International Brotherhood of the TrailerPark & Hick & Redneck & Hillbilly & GoatRoper Association……
….Riverfest and the State Fair.
How is marriage like being in a tornado?…………….In the beginning it’s a lot of blowing and sucking – and in the end you lose your house.
I already knew that Tracy, matter of fact, some people are still born with them today.
And webbed toes.
Testicles…YOU, attend hickfest?Isn’t that beneath you m’lord?
Glad you discovered what vestigial means Tracy. :)
Whales have spines and Giraffes have 7 cervical vertebrae just like humans. Rodents and horses don’t have gall bladders; humans and rabbits do.
Horses have 18 pair of ribs; humans have 12 pair.
Rats can reproduced in a 21 day gestation cycle; 9 months for humans.
The sagittal crest in the skull of apes may keep them from forming an advanced brain. Why do apes keep their sagittal crest and where is the vestigial sagital crest in humans? (sagittal suture in humans)Why do sagittal crests in Chimpanzees rarely occur? (sagittal crest used for temporal muscle attachment for chewing)
Why have chimpanzees remained the same after millions of years when they have 96 percent DNA similarities to humans? (that’s 40,000,000 gene differences in 3 billion gene molecules.)
Why do humans have opposable thumbs and walk upright and chimpanzees have opposable thumbs on all four (hands and feet) are only occasionally walk upright?
If apes are our ancestors, why do we keep them in zoos and use them for research? (Planet of the Apes)
If it is so simple that even a caveman can do it, then why wasn’t cable television brought earlier in the advent of man? (Geico Commercial)
What is the spark of life? Does it involve fireworks or a book of matches?
When is the last time you conversed in Swahili with a chimp?
This evolution issue always gets a huge amount of comments. I’m sort of a quantitative observer.
Humans love to create and propagate stories. Creationists have a story. Evolutionists have a story. Their intent is to capture other people’s minds and spirits.
Somebody said I hadn’t read Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene”. True. I was working on remembrances of other people’s reviews in the 1970’s. So I read it. I’m reading one of his arguments, and thinking, “This is circular reasoning.” Then at the end he says, This is close to circular reasoning.” No, Dr. Dawkins, it’s not CLOSE to circular reasoning, it IS circular reasoning.
He presents arguments and then says, “This isn’t really correct, but I’m giving you an argument you can understand.” mmHmm, Dr. Dawkins.
He presents mutually-contradictory arguments: “Accept this. If you don’t here’s my alternative. Accept the latter.”
Dawkins presents views opposed to the late Stephen Gould. But in the evolutionists’ pantheon, they are both gods.
That many Kansans reject both Dawkins and Gould doesn’t mean these Kansans are boobs. It means they recognize DISCREPANCIES. It means that many Kansans are pretty SMART.
I read The Onion link provided by Dr. Ben Huie on “Intelligent Gravity”. I’ve read The Onion since before it went online. It’s a comic (satiric, parody) publication using a newspaper format. Sometimes it’s hilarious, but mostly lamely sophomoric. “Gabriel Burkett” is a total fiction. The article’s photo shows Dr. John Sulston, 2002 Med/Physiology Nobel Laureate with a fake digitized “slide” in the background.
How many readers here think that this is a valid scientific anti-evolution presentation, i.e. using fantasy and fraud to advance an ideology?
Or consider the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, and its blogodomia inspired “Pastafarian” “religion”. The FSM was created by an Oregon State graduate student, Bobby Henderson.
It’s okay to engage in totally fake imaginative ideas. Except you can’t do that to legitimately present opposition to people’s ideas that you oppose, i.e. to promulgate “this is what they believe,” when they don’t. That’s called fraud.
Tracy, do you think fraud-promulgation is “scientific”. If you do, you don’t understand science. Ben, you also screwed up, didn’t you?
Why? Because you took pro-evolutionists fantasies, and tried to put them into the mouths of anti-evolutionsists. That’s fraud, boys.
The cleverness of the Onion people is, they can’t be sued for libel, because there is no “Gabriel Burkett. Except they were stupid. They can be sued for libel by Oral Roberts University, the putative place of “degree conferring” of “Gabriel Burkett”. They created a fictional person, and a fictional “Evangelical Center of Faith-Based Reason”, but they tied these things to a REAL university. So if The Onion gets sued, and its insurer says, “We can’t cover you anymore,” that’s GOOD, and so The Onion either goes bankrupt, or gets smart, that’s RIGHT isn’t it?
Like if pro-evolutionists make up phony stories like “Intelligent Gravity”, and then, even if it’s totally fictitious, but they name real institutions as the seed beds of their own fictional ideas, that’s fraud, isn’t it?
I always run in the RiverRun, and I take the kids to hear the Pops Concert and see the fireworks. I try to avoid any other event.
heartlander, don’t get all bent out of shape about some satire. The FSM was conceived of the unholy KS science standards, born of a scientist’s mind, and suffered under Connie Morris.
outlander, you have *yet* to explain why non-experts should be deciding what needs to be taught in science class.
You’ve also not addressed why you’re so in love with the current science standards, when the majority of science and science teaching organizations in Kansas and the U.S. came out strongly against their adoption.
How is it that you – or Connie Morris, or Kathy Martin, or Steve Abrams – know science better than all of those tens of thousands of experts who’ve made science their career?
I find it really interesting that Charles Darwin, who had family standing, married into a major industrialist family, the Wedgwoods, and mainly a “soft-science” sociologist (read the “Voyage of the Beagle” where most of the observations were on people) stole Alfred Wallace’s proposition of natural selection (Wallace was much more of a real explorer than Darwin but didn’t possess the “pedigree” of Darwin). So Darwn, the industrial-capitalist thief took credit for a “peasant’s” idea.
Then the Victorian press took up “Darwin’s Idea”. which was actually Wallace’s, and promoted things like “Piltdown Man”.
And then you have people like “Dr” Richard Leakey, who only has a high school diploma.
And Dr. Richard Dawkins, who has a docorate degree in animal pscycology, sociology (etology)trying tp reinvent the definiton of gene, that geneticists reject.
There is a THREAD here: parents who refused to carry out their parental duties, and sent their children away to be raised by OTHERS.
This ideology is also represented by “Public Education”. It is FORCED INDOCTRINATION. Most of you won’t “get” this.
Wow, this moved fast. If I’m not too late, I do want to address:”6. The changes withing in a species… Natural Selection.
I draw the line at number 6.
There you have it.”
Thank you for this. I have always wondered where the boundary between the so-called micro and macro evolution is.
But as I said before, using the biological species definition…we have observed it in the lab. Sure, you may not be able to see the subtle morphological differences that render it a new species, but they fit your #6, none the less. You might have to revamp that idea.
Also, your statement “molecular genetics doesn’t even begin to explain evolution on the scale the evolutionists would have us believe”…care to elaborate? I’m especially interested in your answer, since molecular systematics is the crux of my research. If you can teach me something, great.
Tracy, I remember the ice storm a few years back. When the sun came out and illuminated all of the ice-covered trees, it was the most beautiful thing I’d ever seen. Last night I told my mom “That’s awesome, please take pictures. You’re so lucky!”She was not amused.
Tara – I’m not surprised … ;^)
That ice storm of 2005 was really beautiful.
Scientist examine a frog in a lab.
1. They cut off one front of the frog and yell at it to jump.The frog jumped.2. They cut off the other front leg and yell at the frog to jump.The frog jumped.3. They cut off one of the hind legs and yelled at the frog to jump.The frog jumped with some difficulty.4. They cut off the last leg and yelled at the frog to jump.
The frog did not jump.
Their Conclusion: If you cut off all the legs of a frog, the frog becomes deaf.
Well…….the absence hasn’t been long enough heartlander. I see you’re back blogging all sorts of anti-science rhetoric again. Isn’t about time you start bashing public education as well?………..and you call yourself a man of science……………truly pathetic.
Apophis, it’s okay, I’ve studied a lot more science, and done a lot more science than you can comprehend. You should read John Sulston’s autoiography, posted at
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2002/sulston-autobio.html
Dr. Sulston said he loved playing with toys. Me too. That’s what science is. It’s not dogma. It isn’t dogma. It’s exploring.
actually heartlander, you have no idea how much I have or haven’t read. As usual, you make asinine assumptions about me. You return as you left the blog, an elitist who makes boisterous claims about yourself. One might wonder…….. if heartlander is the brilliant scientist he claims to be, why isn’t heartlander currently a practicing scientist? Why does heartlander NOT practice medicine if he claims an MD?
I think these questions question your credibility mr. elitist.
heartlander and outlander both have yet to explain why their knowledge of science is so much better than that of the tens of thousands of scientists who panned the 2005 KS state science standards.
All we’ve seen so far are attacks against the personal lives of Dawkins (the man the creationists love to hate) and Darwin (who lived by the unenlightened mores of his time).
Yet to come:evolution = atheismevolution = Hitlerevolution => immoralitycreationism = True Christianity(TM) [oops, guess nathan used that one]
C’mon, if we *really* want to start making ad hominem attacks . . . Ted Haggard, anyone?
CSA: If you think I am going to discuss anything with a person with an attitude like yours, you are mistaken.
I thought it was a reasonable question.
Yes, p-mom, it is a reasonable question, but outlander’s avoided it three or four times now.
It is not a reasonable question. The thread is about the issue, not the people on the blog.
Apophis, I came here to give my wife a chance to give Kansas parents and their children life saviing care they didn’t have. That they received this care is recorded in WE front-page articles, my wife’s Davis-Moore/Kake People on Your Side Award, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and Discovery Channel shows. Sorry that you don’t understand that sacrificing for a bettter good is worthwhile. I’m not an elitist. I gave up my career because my wife was amazingly talented and capable of helping children. I am sorry that your undertanding is limited by your blinders.
Some bloggers have said Kansas science education standards have to follow “experts” concensus. That’s quintessentially elitist, is it not?
Apophis wants a ” democratic science curriculum defined by authoratative elitist scientists”. Raise your hands if you see this to be self-contradictory.
We have heard the argument that THE PEOPLE do can’t be trusted to decide what their children shoul be taught. We have heared that “the experts” determine the curriculum. Raise your hands if you think this is an elitist proposition.
I don’t mind being called an “elitist”. But, I just want people to understand that , provebially speaking, a pot calling somebody else black, is something WEBlog reeaders need to thoughtfully consider.
Tara,
I am talking about changing kind, not some technical definition of speciation we have refined today to explain the slight variances between things.
So, the line is drawn at Natural Selection.
Evolutionists have little more than speculation and assumption past Natural Selection.
Tracy,
Another reason why I find your accusations against the Bible faulty and questionable is that you follow the same classic pattern of many people who try to attack the Bible.
You simply try to take one verse and compare it to another to show conflict without taking the Bible in it’s context.
Let’s start with your using 1 Corinthians 14:34.
The Bible makes it’s self very clear on women in the church through out, yet you purposefully try to isolate this one verse which was used in a specific instance by Paul.
Even then you fail to look at the context of the verse it’s self!“The key to Paul’s meaning in 1 Corinthians 14:34 in enjoining silence upon women in the churches is found in the immediate context. It refers to women benefiting or learning from what is taking place in the church and not to a public ministry for women, which the Scriptures elsewhere affirm. Paul says, “If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.” This is directly related to the statement, “for it is a shame (literally, indecorous) for women to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:35). This is in the context of Paul’s correction of disorder and confusion in the church (v. 33), which undoubtedly resulted from the women being segregated from the men and their undisciplined manner of speaking out publicly and causing a disturbance. It is also clear from the text that the subjection of the women is primarily to their own husbands, since they were to ask their husbands at home if they wanted to learn anything.”>>>>Taken by an article about Women in the ministry by Joseph R. Flower<<<<<You try to compare this with homosexuality.
The Bible is very clear about homosexuality:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8 – On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.9 – Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,10 – nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
If you would like to discuss this verse and why you think it shouldn’t apply today that is a different discussion.
This is why I say you are using mere parlor tricks Tracy, because you do the same thing any other critic of the Bible does, you try to take verses out of their context and compare them to make a point which is false.
This is why I say it is very disconcerting for a Christian to be doing this. How can you on one hand claim to believe what the Bible says about Christ yet on the other denounce it at every turn when it pertains to Creation and other things?
“I am talking about changing kind, not some technical definition of speciation we have refined today to explain the slight variances between things.”
Ok. Then what is this “kind” that you speak of? Unless you want to throw out the entire system of taxonomy, you need to clarify. You’ve admitted that evolution can occur between species. Are you now saying that evolution can change one species into another, but can’t change genera?
If you’re going by looks or something like that, keep in mind that Brassica oleracea has evolved into cabbage, broccoli, kale, brussel sprouts and probably other stuff. Yet, these are all the same species, if I remember correctly. Would you call broccoli and cabbage the same “kind” or organism?
If I understand you correctly, we cannot rely on the genome sequences to determine the degrees of difference. So what then? Looks?
Also, I would be amused and curious of your reaction if I tried to claim expertise on electrical/mechanical engineering. Or what it’s like to be in the military.
A good book for everyone to read: What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr. It’s not snotty, condescending or overly technical. It’s a great primer for those interested in evolutionary theory.
“Brassica oleracea has evolved into cabbage, broccoli, kale, brussel sprouts and probably other stuff.”
Right, I forgot to mention that WE did this. So this is not a controversial point or anything.
Tara,
“Then what is this “kind” that you speak of?”
Simple. Take all the different species of dog. Wolf, Coyote, domestic… They are all 4 legged basic dogs.
They will never be anything but dogs.
You might be able to breed them a hundred different ways to end up with the Taco Bell mascot, but it is still a dog.
That is what I am talking about when I say kind.
“You’ve admitted that evolution can occur between species.”
No I have not. I have admitted that Natural Selection can cause change within kind.
“Are you now saying that evolution can change one species into another, but can’t change genera?”
I am saying that “Evolution” will never change a dog into anything other than a different kind of dog, no matter how you want to classify it by species.
You are playing the name game. No matter how you want to classify things and name them it doesn’t change the fact that a human didn’t evolve from a one celled organism billions of years ago which was created by some unknown way.
“If you’re going by looks or something like that, keep in mind that Brassica oleracea has evolved into cabbage, broccoli, kale, brussel sprouts and probably other stuff. Yet, these are all the same species, if I remember correctly. Would you call broccoli and cabbage the same “kind” or organism?”
Evolved? How about Bred into those different kinds of plants? That is hardly “Evolution.” When that Broccoli sprouts wings and flies away you or starts a revolution for its freedom we can start talking about it evolving.
“If I understand you correctly, we cannot rely on the genome sequences to determine the degrees of difference. So what then? Looks?”
No. We can rely on the genome to determine differences. I am not saying there is no difference between a Bearded Collie and a German shepherd. I am saying that both of them are the same kind of animal and will not be mutating into a bird in a million years.
“Also, I would be amused and curious of your reaction if I tried to claim expertise on electrical/mechanical engineering. Or what it’s like to be in the military.”
I am not claiming to be an expert in this field of study.
I am interested Tara,
I have told you where I draw the line on Evolution.
Where is yours?
Do you believe that life began fron nothing?
Do you believe that the universe came from nothing?
“And Dr. Richard Dawkins, who has a docorate degree in animal pscycology, sociology (etology)trying tp reinvent the definiton of gene, that geneticists reject.”
Sigh. . . heartlander, what do hope to accomplish with patent nonsense like this?
I guess you prefer winning an argument dishonestly to losing honorably.
P.S. I realize criticizing heartlander’s disingenuous nonsense was a mistake, particularly (but also because) he’s capable of being more intellectually honest and engaginf on other topics (perhaps lacking the same emotional involvement), and also because it’s guaranteed to drag the thread off-topic (I believe I criticized Apophis once for doing the same thing).
Sorry, folks.
Lets talk seriously about Evolutionary theory.
As I have said, there are several different sections to discuss.
The problem is that when you try to talk to someone about why Evolution is wrong they bring up all the examples for Natural Selection.
There is much more to Evolutionary theory than Natural Selection.
There is the creation of the Universe.
There is the creation of the Elements.
There is the creation of the Stars and Planets.
There is the Creation of Life
There is the change in life from that one life form to everything we have now.
And finally there is Natural Selection.
So why is it that whenever the Evolutionary thoery supporters start talking about Evolution all we get is examples of Natural Selection?
There is a bunch of speculative evidence for Speciation, but past that where is the evidence for life, the elements, the planets/stars or the universe?
They love to talk about all their empiracle evidence, but have you ever actually read what they teach about the creation of life or the universe?
My science books called it a “spark” that created life.
I wonder what they teach today?
What exactly does Evolutionary theory say about the creation of life?
And yet you want to sit here and ridicule those of us with your demands for empiracle evidence?
Evolutionary Theory is more of a philosophy than a hard science.
It’s believers start with the premise of Evolution and find all the data they can to support that premise.
“Where is yours?
Do you believe that life began fron nothing?
Do you believe that the universe came from nothing?”
I know that we have been able to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic material on hot lava rocks, an environment that was probably prevalent billions of years ago. It was this that was the origin of life, according to my textbooks.
I guess I would throw in an asterick there. Honestly, I can accept the scientific explanation that life began from these organic compounds, and we haven’t filled in the gaps yet (still can’t create life in the laboratory). But part of me feels it’s much more likely that God breathed life into these compounds, setting off a billion year chain that gets us here. Some sort of life energy, if you will.
However, this is not science. It’s nothing more than a hunch, fueled by my faith. I’d never attempt to publish a paper on my idea. And if tomorrow, we DO create life from nonlife, I won’t let my faith-based hunch blind me to the science. Because there is NO SCIENCE in the world that could negate His existence. It’s an entirely different field.
As for the beginning of the universe, I HAVE NO IDEA. I’ve never studied cosmology (is that right?), or biogenesis, for that matter. That lava rock thing came from Intro Bio 1. I’m really only qualified to speak on the evolution of algae. And all of the evidence I see, all of the things I’ve learned, they all make sense to me.
I’ve basically accepted that I won’t have all the answers in this lifetime. If I get to heaven (God willing!), I’ll get to ask.
Until then, we can only explain the world around us using empirical evidence. All of the evidence points to evolution. I can’t say it enough, it all fits together. It’s amazing. I mean, my whole entire degree and prospective career path is based on God trying to test our faith? I think not.
More likely, God dumbed down the whole creation process for Moses. And now with time and growth, we’re getting a picture of the how.
“There is a bunch of speculative evidence for Speciation, but past that where is the evidence for life, the elements, the planets/stars or the universe?”
Two different fields, Nathan. You seem to think that there’s a branch of science called Disproving the Bible. And the big-bang theorists and geologists and evolutionists all conspire together to disprove the existence of God.
Cosmologists (help me i don’t even know if that’s an actual field) and biologists probably have very little overlapping knowledge.
heartlander said, “Some bloggers have said Kansas science education standards have to follow “experts” concensus. That’s quintessentially elitist, is it not?”
So, while we’re at it, let’s have those who are ignorant of history write the history curriculum, and folks with no math background decide what should be taught in math classes. Next, let’s have lifelong city dwellers decide an ag curriculum. Does this make sense to you?
If not, then why do you make an exception for the science standards – that what gets taught in science class should be decided by those who lack knowledge of it? Kathy Martin & Connie Morris were to ostensibly sit in judgment of science at the Topeka ID show in May 2005. Yet both admitted they hadn’t even read the standards which they were so busy criticizing. Amazingly, most of the pro-ID witnesses brought in – at taxpayer expense – to criticize the good draft of the standards hadn’t even bothered to read through them.
heartlander, you rail that teachers are unqualified to teach their subjects, yet you reject the idea that experts in the field – whom you label perjoratively as ‘elite’ – should make the decisions about what should be taught in science class. Do you see your logical disconnect here?
JM, my question to heartlander & outlander stands to you, or anyone else here: those who support the IDcreationist standards adopted in 2005 should be ready to explain why their understanding of science is so much greater than that of the mainstream science community.
I too have created life instantly and it seems to have evolved from wallboard. When I failed to have a leaking roof fixed right away, hundreds of thousands of mold spores spontaneously generated in my house.
Some were just tiny black specks, but they soon developed into larger specks. I called a specialist, he said there was “Fungus Among us” and I should treat the vermin with some solutions of 15 percent acetic acid.
So I rushed to Dillons and bought a bottle of the secret formula. Soon the house smelled of Wishbone Salad dressing mix and I was contemplating of repainting with an oil base paint to balance out the flora extermination mixture.
I have made the corrolation of porous asphalt rooves and rainwater now in creating fungus on surfaces where there was none.
I also pondered what the poor caveman would do as there were no Dillons back in the day.
I reflected on the incident and felt perplex about my emotional attachment to the fungus and whether or not I killed off an advanced species.
Soon, I got over it and prepared myself some leafy green salad with some blue cheese dressing and slyly winked at my freshly painted walls.
that should be 5 percent acetic acid (by volume of course.) :)
It’s because they read the Bible and the Bible cannot possibly be wrong….
If the Bible was written today, it would be laughed off of the bookshelves. Yet people believe the words in it like there’s no tomorrow.
“Yet people believe the words in it like there’s no tomorrow.”Posted by: Wayreth21 | January 16, 2007 at 06:18 AM
Are you a prophet Wayreth21?
Rage, sorry, I mispelled ethologist. Ethology is the study of animal behavior, individual and group. This puts it into the genre of psychology /sociology as a science field. (The word originally meant a theatrical mime, in essence something of a clown. See the Oxford English Dictionary.)
In “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins made a novel proposition, that the geneticists’ definition of a gene, also known as a cistron, to wit, a polynucleotide (DNA) that coded for the production of a specific protein, was unhelpful in understanding natural selection. So he proposed a new definition of a “gene” to include multiple cistrons and even non-protein-coding parts of DNA, sometimes located on different chromosomes, that in combination conveyed heritable properties, and possessed survival value, such that natural selection operated on them as a group.
The idea of genetic complexes was well established, but Dawkins’, whose own expertise was not in genetics, felt that he was qualified to rewrite geneticists’ terminology because he possessed a special insight on the relation between genetic material and natural selection that the geneticists lacked.
His proposal was rejected. Why? Because scientific terminology has meaning. Geneticists and molecular biologists had created a definition for “gene”, it had been used in scientific conferences, grant applications and research papers for many years, and it was conceptually taught in colleges and universities world-wide.
In order to advance a body of knowledge, it is important to maintain vocabulary consistency. If I were doing library research, as I was once wont to do, and came across a 10 year old article that repeatedly used the word “gene”, but that word’s meaning was “obsolete” due to Dawkins’ successful reinvention of the term, so I had to constantly remind myself, “this ‘gene’ means something completely different from today’s ‘gene’,” it would stir unnecessary confusion in my mind, and in the minds of all people who read the relatively recent scientific literature.
Do scientific terms’ meanings change over time? Yes. When physicists think of “atom” they think of something far more complex than what it meant a century ago. Nevertheless, the essential construct that the atom is the smallest unit that gives an element its unique chemical properties (which are similar to those of other elements in the same column on the periodic table, but not exactly the same), was called an atom then, and is still called an atom today.
In analogy, no molecular biologist said, “We need to redefine ‘atom’ to mean a cluster of traditional-definition ‘atoms’ because that is more useful to me and my colleagues.”
The conventional practice is to create new nomenclature that corresponds new ideas, which maintain the meaning of established terms.
Dawkins’ view of genes interacting was not original. We already knew that genetic expression was regulated through inhibitors and promoters–these were necessary to prevent all genes from outputting uniform levels of all proteins.
We knew that the genes coding for the alpha and beta chains of hemoglobin were regulated to produce the same numbers of complementary chains, because each functioning quad-plex macromolecule required two alpha chains and two beta chains.
We already knew that the synthesis of heme porphyrin rings was regulated to produce one ring for every hemoglobin quad-plex molecule.
We already knew that packaging of hemoglobin molecules within specialized non-nucleated cells called erythrocytes, generated amazing properties, such that hemoglobin molecules changed shape while in the capillaries, as they were offloading oxygen in a somewhat low pH environment (as CO2/carbonic acid was picked up from respirating tissues), and then they changed shape again to enable them to efficiently pick up oxygen in the lung in a more basic environment (due to the egress of C02/carbonic acid from erythrocytes).
I know a bit about this, because I did research in this area.
At any rate, it was, and is useful to understand that one gene produces alpha hemoglobin, and another produces beta hemoglobin, and several genes produce proteins that assemble porphyrin rings, including transporting and inserting their iron ion cores, which Tara knows something about with respect to similar, but not identical porphyric ring/iron/protein complexes that enable photonic energy to be captured and converted to chemical energy in the phenomenon we know as photosynthesis.
Metallo-ring-protein complexes of many forms are ubiquitous, because metal ions are superb moiety-binding and electron-transfer agents.
In summary, Dawkins’ attempt to create a new meaning for “gene” failed, rightfully so, because his proposal’s adoption would have been extremely disruptive to the field of molecular genetics. Had he been a geneticist, he would have understood this, but he made a choice early in his life to become an expert in visible animal behavior, not invisible biological molecules’ behavior, and so he did not appreciate the inappropriateness of his proposal.
Heartlander, you’re a NUT.WTH you talking about fraud for?Nathan, if everything in the bible is a cohesive natural history for you, well, I’m happy for you.I’m not going to play scripture wars with you.
I present the best evidence from the finest mids of our time, and you fundies just go ape-shit!
As far as the religous stuff goes,here’s what I believe, and that makes me christian (full-time JM).Everything else discussed about the bible is just yadayada.
We believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty,maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only son of God,eternally begotten of the Father,God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made,of one being with the Father.Through him all things were made.For us and for our salvationhe came down from heaven:by the power of the Holy Spirithe became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,and was made man.For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose againin accordance with the Scriptures;he ascended into heavenand is seated at the right hand of the Father.He will come again in gloryto judge the living and the dead,and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].With the Father and the Sonhe is worshipped and glorified.He has spoken through the Prophets.We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.We look for the resurrection of the dead,and the life of the world to come. AMEN
If you accept this creed, then nothing any fundamentalist taunts you with matters. You are a christian. Period.
I’m not the one you need to convince Tracy. :)
Thank GOD!
Good morning JM.
I’m a skeptic.
Darwin’s theft of Alfred Wallace’s privately-communicated theory of natural selection doesn’t pass the smell test. If this was really Darwin’s idea, two decades after his Beagle trip, why did he only present it AFTER somebody else told him this exact idea? Wallace didn’t have “standing” in Victorian society. But he collected over 100,000 species of tropical insects.
I am skeptical when somebody who controlled hominid excavations in East Africa called himself “Doctor” but his formal education ended at high school. (Richard Leakey received an honorary doctorate.)
I am skeptical when a social scientist tries to disrupt molecular biologists’ scientific term definitions.
I am skeptical when scientists work on origin of life projects, and devise multiple hypotheses, but their success in the laboratory is zip, zilch, nada. Lous Pasteur, and Rudolph Virchow, who were laboratory scientists extraordinaire, concluded “life comes from life”.
I am skeptical when academicians put down little people in the heartland of America as ignorant boobs, when these little people expertly furnish the food that the academicians rely upon to exist. I’d be happy to see Richard Dawkins raise his own food. If he did, he wouldn’t have time to write a book putting down food producers.
Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” overlooks the reality that belief in God makes the lives of America’s farmers and farmworkers tolerable. Dawkins is a really smart person and everyone here should read his books, but upon doing so, the most acute minds here will realize, if they read his works carefully, Dawkins is intellectually dishonest. Darwin was dishonest.
If some of you personally want to follow dishonesty, that’s fine. If you want Kansas children to follow dishonesty, that’s not your prerogative. It’s illegitimate for you to say, “You have to pay me to teach your children things that you find repugnant.” You have every right to set up schools and voluntarily enroll kids who want to follow your thinking. You have ZERO right to compel OTHER PEOPLE’S children, under state law and lawyers’ myopic vision (court rulings) to attend your classes and be indoctrinated. You may be EMPOWERED to do so, but POWER and RIGHT are not the same thing. Conflating these is a recipe for social destruction.
You have zero right to compell our kids to endure the phony bit about “teaching the controversy”.There is no controversy, except in your mind.I don’t give two flips what Dawkins says,or how you feel about him.Let professional science educators decide what’s taught in science.If you don’t want your kids to learn science then send em to a private school where they teach creation.
If you feel persecuted as a “little ignorant boob”,well, if the foo shits………
heartlander states, “If you want Kansas children to follow dishonesty, that’s not your prerogative.”
Now, you claim that following the recommendations of mainstream scientists is dishonest?
Some of you, who are teachers, don’t like my ideas. Fine. What are you? You’re fundamentally PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS OF CHILDREN. Of course you are this. You manage your classes. Clases comprised of you and OTHER PEOPLE’s CHILDREN.
You can do this because you’re more qualified to raise other people’s children than those people (parents) are. That’s elitism. It’s astoundingly hubristic. Children do not exist to be “managed” by people who are not their parents, or people whom parents or children do not themselves select.
Every good teacher believes “I can get people to select me to be their teacher.” Only bad teachers rely on the dishonest precept, “People will be enrolled in my class because they have no choice, because if they try to evade me, only those whose parents have influence in the system can do this, and the rest will be arrested for truancy, and their parents will be prosecuted for enabling truancy.”
Apophis has said, I want to destroy public education. He’s completely wrong. I believe in taxpayer-funded childhood education. But I oppose the ideology that conflates teaching with compulsory-attendance professional childhood management. These are entirely different precepts.
I have a student, whom after intensively teaching, I handed off to the operators of a private online math-education program. He asked me for help in the following problems:
“Simplify(5 + 6i)/ (3 – 2i)”
i is the square root of -1, and the task of “simplification” is to create a mathematically equivalent expression that does not contain i in the denominator (divisor).
“Calculate the discriminant of the quadratic equation 3x^2 + 2x + 1 to determine the nature of the solutions to the equation.”
The problem doesn’t require full numeric solutions, only a description of the NATURE of the solutions. So what is the discriminant here? For a quadratic equation of the form ax^2 + bx + c, the discriminant is b^2 – 4ac. So in this case it is 2^2 – 4(3)(1) = -8. The nature of the solutions is two complex conjugates (combinations of real rational numbers and imaginary numbers).
Factor 27p^3 – 64q^3
Here I helped him by using polynomial long division, which is better that memorizing a formula. He got it really quickly.
Am I an “elitist” for teaching a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD how to solve these ALGEBRA II/precalculus problems? It depends on your definition of “elitist”. I just identified an amazingly talented 11 year old a while back, and “fed his brain” because he could think, as a 6th grader, in ways different from his classmates. His school was set up to give him a mass-production regimen according to professional child management constructs, which would have had him do the above problems at age 16-17.
There are some of you WEBlog readers, perhaps including Apophis and Tracy, who could have solved the preceding problems at age 13–if you had math teachers who did not envision themselves to be professional classroom managers.
Math isn’t my strongest suit. It might have been, had I received great teaching when I was young. I don’t know. I know I’m decently good in it, and I love to teach inquiring minds. I taught med students and M.D. residents long ago. It’s not a “demotion” to teach knowledge-thirsty children. It’s a fulfilling experience for me. I like “connecting” with young “nerds”.
Correction 3x^2 + 2x + 1=0
Correction: ax^2 + bx + c = 0
A museum for the masses:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2794652Dinosaurs and Humans Co-exist
:)
Well, this has surely degenerated into some really laughable stuff.heartlander says we teach our kids wrong cause science ain’t biblical.And now a Fred Flinstone ‘museum’ from Ken Ham?This is a comedy of sorts.
Wiiiilmaaaaaaa!!!!!!
Tracy,
The point is that the school is not teaching our kids science when it comes to evolution.
Have you read what the text books say?
In many circumstances they are still using pictures and drawings long ago found to be fraud to support evolution.
They say that life began from some “spark”
That the universe was created from nothing…
This is not science. It is not evidence.
You sit here and talk about letting the scientists figure out what to teach about science.
Well, what do we do when we don’t think telling our kids that life came from some “spark” constitutes science?
I guess this is where we are simply labeled Christian fundamentalists because we have a valid disagreeent with this crap being taught in the schools?
It has nothing to do with religion or my faith.
It has everything to do with Evolutionary theory being taught with lies and evidence no better than what I am ridiculed for having when it comes to my faith.
Nathan,
Okay!
Tracy,
I am glad that you have faith in Christ.
I am not taunting you. You were the one who decided to say that the Bible was wrong on Creation, you were the one trying to take verses and show contradiction in the Bible, you were the one to say the Bible is silly.
Yet you feel as if you are the one being taunted? Please.
Now you say you are not going to play scripture wars with me?
If you can’t finish something you really shouldn’t start.
I encourage you to study the Bible in context to read what it says from start to finish.
The Bible is a wonderful book written by many different people.
It is holds true to one theme throughout and you might see that it is not as contradictory as you seem to think.
I am not engaging you in any scripture war, I am preaching the truth.
You were the one to bring up your misconceptions about the Bible.
It is not a “scripture war” for me to simply point out the errors you bring to the table.
What is it they say?
If you can’t swim with the sharks, don’t get in the pool.
I never said you were not a Christian.
What I did say several times is that I find it odd that you can find faith in Christ yet at the same time denounce the very book which holds the accounts of His teachings, the prophecy of His coming, His followers, and telling of His Fathers wonderful creation.
You see, you can’t say the Bible is silly, contradicts it’s self and then turn around and recite the very words from it to show your faith.
Well, actually, I guess you can. You did.
I find still find it disconcerting that a Christian would so openly attack what the Bible has to say.
If I were you Nathan,I’d present my own version of the science (along with your evidence and/or sources) and get with the good people who institute the science standards to see if you can get the real thing taught.Being a citizen/activist is a valid approach to this!
Tracy,
Are you serious?
Let me see, you, the others here, and everyone else immediately label anyone who dares defy the Evolution regime as little more than a Christian fundamentalist.
I do what I can, when I can.
Evolutionists wont debate, because they think it is beeath them, they wont take any criticism because they know there is no alternative.
You act like it has not already been done for the past decade, like I am the first one to have a problem with this.
Okay Nate.I didn’t say the bible is silly.I said that pretending that it does not contradict itself in places is silly.
“I am not taunting you.”"Yet you feel as if you are the one being taunted? Please”
“If you can’t finish something you really shouldn’t start.”
Main Entry: tauntPronunciation: ‘tont, ‘täntFunction: noun: a sarcastic challenge or insult
“If you can’t swim with the sharks, don’t get in the pool.”
I plainly showed that the bible does contradict itself.And then I professed my faith.Who says I can’t do that?You says?You’re taunting me again!
And I know what the overall theme and message of the book is.
“Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Yeah, I’m serious.I’m not taunting.Being a citizen activist and petitioning you govt for changes is what it’s all about!I don’t propose to silence your opinions or even change them.
I don’t attack what the bible says.I intrepret in a different way than you prefer.So do millions of other folks.There’s no need for disconcert.It’s just a fact that christians have many different ways to interpret and teach the bible.
Tracy, I am curious. You have been so blatantly critical of Christianity and the Bible, yet claim to be a Christian.
Just so we know where you stand as a Christian; do you believe that Jesus is God? That he died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and rose again?
Tracy,
Saying the Bible is full of contradictions is not an interpretation.
You specifically cited verses to portray the Bible in a negative light in regards to women, slavery, and even mischaracterized a passage from Mark.
You completely reject what the bible says in Genesis.
That is not simple interpretational differences.
nathan said, “Evolutionists wont debate, because they think it is beeath them, they wont take any criticism because they know there is no alternative.”
Take a look at one of the many reputable science journals sometime, nathan. They’re chock-full of folks sniping at each others’ data, methodology, and analyses. After all, if you can *use the evidence* to refute a long-standing concept, you’re well on your way to a Nobel prize.
The ‘evolutionists’ didn’t show up at the Topeka PR farce held in May 2005, but the scientists *have* shown up where it counts: in the labs, in the peer-reviewed literature, and in the courtroom.
Scientists are among the most prideful, arrogant, rude people I’ve ever known. There are few things they seem to enjoy more than knocking down another scientist’s arguments in the scientific arena. Note that this arena is made up of other experts in the field, NOT the court of public opinion. The scientists’ boycott of the 2005 Topeka ID hearings was being supported because it was right, not because of any orders from on high.
Like it or not, becoming a scientist takes years of study and education, and some folks just won’t make it, just as others will never become concert pianists or NBA stars. Should the anti-science board members have also set themselves up as arbiters of classical music, or as NBA referees?
The pro-ID standards have been reviewed by scientists and wholly knocked down. These IDcreationists have an overtly political agenda, one that is less concerned about the education of Kansas’ kids than it is the solidification of an anti-science attitude in the general public.
Consider the guys who found that ulcers *aren’t* caused by stress, as previously thought, but by the Heliobacter pylori organism. Their findings weren’t accepted until they could support them with evidence. They received a trip to Stockholm and nice chunk of change for their efforts.
The ones who haven’t shown up where it counts are the IDcreationism proponents. No research, no credible peer-reviewed publications, no testable hypothesis; after all, how can you ever prove that God *didn’t* design everything? They’re playing a PR game, period, one designed to wreak havoc on science and as Tracy pointed out with the Wedge Document, remake society in *their* version of His image.
heartlander, breathe . . . you’re capable of much more rational discourse than you’re showing here.
Why is it that you insist that science teachers are all unqualified hacks, yet science standards can be decided by those who don’t know jack about science?
Do you still claim that it is dishonest to follow the recommendations of the mainstream science community regarding the state science standards?
Again if the Bible was written today it would be laughed off of the bookshelves if it even made it there. Just because a book is old and people have been brainwashed to believe its true doesn’t make it so.
Much the same as people who thought the Earth was flat, or that the Earth was the center of the universe. These things have been debunked, yet they were believed to be true for many hundreds of years.
CSA. thanksI’m not doing, saying or being anything wrong,OR even out of the norm.Nathan,My beliefs ARE mainstream.Many thousands of religous professionals agree that the bible does contradict itself in some places.That’s not heresy.That’s not to say that you can’t or shouldn’t believe I’m wrong.I’m okay with that.You also keep implying there’s something unchristian about what I’m saying.Simply not true.
outie,I’ll repeat this for you.Here’s what I believe:
We believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty,maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only son of God,eternally begotten of the Father,God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made,of one being with the Father.Through him all things were made.For us and for our salvationhe came down from heaven:by the power of the Holy Spirithe became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,and was made man.For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose againin accordance with the Scriptures;he ascended into heavenand is seated at the right hand of the Father.He will come again in gloryto judge the living and the dead,and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].With the Father and the Sonhe is worshipped and glorified.He has spoken through the Prophets.We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.We look for the resurrection of the dead,and the life of the world to come. AMEN
There’s some plainly unscientific things in the creed that MUST be taken on faith, or I believe you cannot call yourself a christian.I have faith and believe those things, regardless of how miraculous they are.I believe the creed.I’ve been baptised.I worship.I pray.
So is the bottom line the fact that I don’t believe in the litteral translation of Genesis?If that’s the problem with what I’m saying, then I suggest that you don’t believe in the mainstream view.I have no problem with that.
Tracy,
This is not a popularity contest.
Jesus didn’t command our beliefs to be mainstream…
It is true that many Christians today disregard Genesis. They don’t do this our of any thoughtful study or discourse, but merely out of conveinence.
Just like you, they can’t support their arguents.
It is conveinent for you to reject what Genesis says.
When it comes to bashing the Bible, yes, I will say you are not being very Christian.
I am not debating these “many thousands” of “religious professionals,” I am debating you.
So far, you have been woefully inept at showing me these contradictions.
Interpretational differences come into play when discussing things like pre-trib, mid-trib, post trib… Speaking in tongues…
Simply dismissing what Genesis says is not interpretation.
It is called ignorance.
Tracy,
Once again, simply saying something is mainstream is not evidence for your dismissal of Genesis.
I believe Satan tricked Eve in thinking something too… It didn’t make her right.
Nathan, you’re taunting again.How naughty.
How do I know that you’re not deluded by the devil, as you suggest I am?
Here’s a good vacation destination for folks who don’t want their kids to learn about evolution:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2794652
I don’t dismiss what Genesis says.I just believe that what it says is metaphor and/or analogy.
God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand.If you understand you have failed.~Saint Augustine
Sorry if I don’t live up to your standards Nathan.I AM woefully inadequate.I confess.Please forgive me.
There ought to be a way for the more mainstream new board to write the policy to exclude further fundamentalist mischief.
Maybe put something like this into the standards?
“Evolution, being the universal scientifically accepted theory on origins, shall be taught excusively as the theory of origins unless and until other such theories are shown to have any scientific relevance.”
Kansas is a national and international laughingstock every time we get a couple new bible bangers on the board. There ought to be a way to eliminate this.
Tracy,
Instead of actually trying to support your alleged interpretation you choose to be obtuse.
Just admit that you can’t support what you say.
Lets try this:
What information do you have which leads you to believe Genesis is nothing more than a metaphor or analogy?
Tracy, you said it yourself…
“We believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty,maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen.”
You are a creationist. This is the Apostle’s creed and you state this is what you believe.
If Genesis is 100% literal truth no allegory no metaphor. Then please answer these questions If Adam and eve were the only humans and their children married each other then there would be a traceable genetic bottleneck.
There are millions of species of animal how did Noah fit them into the Ark? How he he feed them. Many animals require special food Kolas only eat Euplatays Pandas bamboo. How did Kangaroos get to the ark swim?
What happened to the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths etc. get left off of the Ark?
Noahs family if they were the only survivors of the flood you’d have the genetic bottleneck problem again along with every species. Yet humans show great diversity. Black, white, Asian. Indian. ect How did Indians get to the New World spread across the continents all within the last few thousand years.
It always seems when I ask such questions to creationist/iders I never get an answer.
Sollie, YOU’RE RIGHT!Earlier in the thread I’ve said that I believe in theistic evolution.In a nutshell, that means I believe that evolution is god’s plan on earth, and as such, he (metaphorically) is the ‘guiding hand’ in evolution.
If I say this enough times,one of ya’ll are goana get it!
Nathan,if you want me to be wrong about something, Okay.I’ll be wrong for ya’.God scooped up a handful of dirt,breathed into his hand,and…..WA-LA!!He made man.I admit it.Now we agree.
Does that make you a super soul saver or something?I mean, I just don’t get why this is some contest for you.In any case, I concede.Your superior intellect prevails….ONCE AGAIN!
BTW, Sol….that’s the Nicene creed of 325 A.D.(modern version)
Tracy said,
“Well, this has surely degenerated into some really laughable stuff.heartlander says we teach our kids wrong cause science ain’t biblical.”
All you readers can search this or any other blog to which I have posted. Guess what? I NEVER MADE the statement, or anything close to it, that Tracy “attributed” to me. This part of the dishonesty that I protest. Tracy, I understand that falsely putting words into other people’s mouths can be an effective propaganda technique. And if that’s what you want to do, I’m going to alert readers to your modus operandi.
CSA, on teachers’ qualifications, here are some of my real-world experiences, among many:
I was the top student in mathematics in my high school. Of the top four students, not ONE of them was encouraged by his advisor to consider teaching high school math. Even though we were called to the blackboard to give our classmates presentations of our solutions, with our teachers asking questions as we presented, which really constituted early teacher training. In an honest system, we should have been lobbied to become teachers. Instead we were advised to pursue engineering and computer science careers.
Three of us were granted weekend access to the physics lab to conduct interesting experiments, such as evacuating glass tubes, sealing their ends and applying a Tesla coil, generating purple phosphorescence. We were trying to figure out how to build a gas laser, and we got part of the way there, exciting atoms with high voltages and getting them to emit primary-excitement and secondary-excitement photons. Our experiments were not in the textbooks or physics-class lab manuals of 35 years ago. They aren’t found in such today, either.
I got to spend nearly 2 years, more than 1500 hours doing molecular genetics research as an undergraduate. I say I “got” to do this, because the scientist-training regimen at Berkeley provided such time and training opportunity. Plus, I spent several hundred hours researching and writing a comprehensive literature review on circadian rhythms, the pineal gland, and melatonin.
There were a dozen or so undergrads learning how to do cutting edge research in my department. Not one of them was pursuing an ed degree. The teacher-training programs don’t allow future science-teacher students to do research. The science-course curriculum is truncated. I did not create this regimen.
Teachers are trained to follow expert-devised regimens. The teachers are not considered to be experts here, only adherent minions. Don’t blame me that teachers get expert-written textbooks, lab manuals, guidelines and standards. But that’s elitism. Experts pass down their ideas, which must be adhered to.
Do these high-school-biology-curriculum experts know how to successfully perform biological field experiments such as raising a corn or wheat crop in Kansas, or raising a herd of cattle, to put food on the tables of millions of Americans? I don’t think so. If they pray, and believe God is controlling the outcome, then who among the non-Kansas-residing, non-food-producing cadre of experts has the authority to compel Kansas food producers to submit their children to the non-food-producers’ “biology standards”? That is completely elitist, and it is bogus. Let these experts come to Kansas and produce food, i.e. vital biological products. If they don’t want to do this, it’s their prerogative. But it isn’t their prerogative to tell people who do produce the food what biological science is. Because farmers are DOING REAL BIOLOGY.
Tracy,
You refuse to explain why you believe what you do.
Instead you are being obtuse about it.
It is not a contest for me. You made statements about the Bible which are false.
It is the duty of any Christian to correct someone when they are purposefully distorting the word of God.
I have shown how you are wrong on all of your so called contradictions and if you would actually tell me why you think what you do about Genesis I would show you how you are wrong on that too.
Perhaps that is why you refuse to actually explain yourself?
Dingus,
The answers to your questions are simple.
“If Adam and eve were the only humans and their children married each other then there would be a traceable genetic bottleneck.”
I am not sure what you mean by genetic bottleneck. However, when man was created he was created perfect. Man used to live to be hundreds of years old. Through out time after man sinned against God our genetics have become less perfect. If anything, the genetic code is constantly getting worse, not better. If you do trace back in time the population you do come up with support for the current population coinciding with Biblical history.
“There are millions of species of animal how did Noah fit them into the Ark?”
Species are classified by humans today. They were not treated as such in the time of Noah. The Bible says one of each KIND was taken onto the Ark, not one of each species. Only land dwelling air breathing animals were brought onto the ark, not insects, birds, or fish.
“How he he feed them. Many animals require special food Kolas only eat Euplatays Pandas bamboo.”
Good question. I don’t readily know how or if each animal’s specific diet was met on the Ark. Honestly, you don’t know if at that time those animals had that type of dietary requirement either. You assume that the creature you see today was the same as what was placed on the ark some 4000 years ago. Not every minute detail was explained in the Bible.
“How did Kangaroos get to the ark swim?”
Again, you assume that kangaroos were in Australia before the flood. I believe that it was the flood which changed the way the major landmasses were before the flood and that animals migrated from where the ark landed to where they are now. Besides, God brought the animals to Noah.
“What happened to the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths etc. get left off of the Ark?”
No.
“Noahs family if they were the only survivors of the flood you’d have the genetic bottleneck problem again along with every species.”
Again, I am not sure what you mean by genetic bottle neck.
“How did Indians get to the New World spread across the continents all within the last few thousand years.”
Well, if you believe that a flood actually occurred it would have changed the landscape of the Earth quite a bit. The Bible describes Noah’s children going out to settle. Over time people have come to be where they are today. 4000 years is plenty of time for people to migrate that distance.
Sorry, heartlander, I’m not playing your little game. ksagnostic wasted quite enough time on that, and I have neither the time nor the patience.
Those interested in the tempest-in-a-teapot regarding Dawkins heartlander mentioned earlier can find a good description of it here:http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/gfiles.shtml
Taking technical disagreements between scientists to try to discredit the whole theory is an old, old tactic. The vitality of science is–of course–precisely its never-ending, vehement disagreements. That’s how science progresses.
Like heartlander’s other red herrings, it had absolutely no relevance to the issue being debated here. It is only relevant as yet more personal innuendo against Dawkins, which was predictable, because, in case you haven’t noticed, folks, innuendo is all heartlander’s got.
“Again, I am not sure what you mean by genetic bottle neck.”
Let’s suppose an act of God eliminated the entire population of humans, minus one man and one woman. They would breed and eventually inhabit the earth. BUT, the gene pool of humans would be a mix of the two original genomes, minus the occasional mutation. Suppose you had a white couple left over from this act of God. In 6,000 years, would the resulting population resemble the genetic diversity we have today?
It’s a good point to bring up…if the original gene pool consisted of Adam and Eve, how do we have such diversity among men today? Besides stuff like hair color and eye color, think of the hundreds of thousands of genetic diseases. How do we have such a wide array if man was only reproducing from a single couple, for only 6,000 years? Keep in mind how rare a mutation is: They occur quite frequently, but they often result in death or the organism or no change. The translation of DNA has sort of a “proofreading” mechanism to prevent mutations, but some still pass through. It is a rare event when a frameshift mutation actually causes a change in phenotype. It makes more sense to have a bigger population to begin with…
“Through out time after man sinned against God our genetics have become less perfect. If anything, the genetic code is constantly getting worse, not better.”
Where in the Bible does it say that our genetic code has gotten less perfect, and it getting worse? More importantly, please explain HOW sin would cause a change in genome. A man sins, and a nucleotide base is taken away or inserted?
“Suppose you had a white couple left over from this act of God. In 6,000 years, would the resulting population resemble the genetic diversity we have today?”
Forgot to answer my own question. The answer is no, and this is called the bottleneck effect. THe diversity is huge at the bottom of the bottle, and after the event it shrinks to the bottleneck, and spreads out very slowly. But it’s not as big as the original state of diversity (if that makes sense)
With my original example of a white couple left over, you could make this any race, really. Keep in mind that 4-6 genes control skin color and these vary in dominance. So to end up with a different race from two genomes… knowing how often mutations occur… would take a VERY long time, much much longer than 6000 years. That’s a whole lotta alleles to account for.
“HOW sin would cause a change in genome. A man sins, and a nucleotide base is taken away or inserted?”
Interesting question.
Genes and the etiologies of various mutations. Genetic drift. Types of human genome drifting that we couldn’t possibly know of for various reasons.
Often wondered about such terms such as God’s light, God’s Word and God’s Will.
We know the effects of certain types of radiation on Genes. What if God set forth a band a radiating light unlike any that we know. It would attuned to all of human harmonics on the micro-electrical scale capable of affecting bio-chemical changes at the most elemental levels. hmmmmmm
God’s Word. What if the Word of God after a few hundred more years of study turned out to be the missing understanding of what makes things tick. The spark of life generated from nothingness because nothingness only existed in the minds of humans who did not understand that there cannot be nothing. The something was an unknown super macro existence of commands only known to God.
Let’s say humans thousands of years from now, figure out a tiny portion of God’s Word and are able to affect the outcome of things by invoking these super macros that we thought were nothingness. They rid the world of disease and make crops invulnerable to insects and disease. hmmmmmmm
God’s Will. Perhaps the Will of God is more than what just involves choice. Perhaps it involves a stimuli of feedback that we have yet to understand. We look at feedback as positive or negative. What if there was trinary, quatenrary and so forth and so on, infinite choices by patterns so complex we cannot yet understand.
Weather patterns for instance. Because of the complexities of a huge Global feedback system we simply don’t have the understanding yet to make precise calculations on how plankton will be generated in one part of the oceans.
But if we finally understood a tiny portion of God’s Will on making choice was really understanding feedback on an infinetely larger scale of complexities, then we might be able to force our Will to affect the outcome of plankton growth in an area.
Maybe we don’t understand the science behind God yet, because we can’t figure out what’s in front of us.
Or is it?
heartlander, you persist in lauding your own accomplishments, but haven’t addressed the issue:
Why do you continually blast science teachers for being unqualified to teach science, but are okay with state science standards being written by those who don’t have a clue about science?
Honestly, you’ve made your antipathy toward science teachers quite clear in the past; we get that part.
Let’s say that we get our dream: that all science teachers have at least one degree in each and every topic they teach.
You’d have these teachers accept standards that have been blasted by the mainstream science community, by the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists across the world who are represented by organizations like the AAAS, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc.?
Riiiight.
Then again, the only groups that praise the current IDcreationist standards are the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research.
In fact, here’s an excerpt from a fundraising letter from the latter:
July 2005
Dear Friend of creation evangelism,
Warm summer time greetings from the frontlines of the battle. Creation research and education regularly stride ahead through the ICR Graduate School, and the message of Biblical inerrancy and authority continues to penetrate society through the ICR work. God is showing Himself strong through it all. Thank you for your prayer partnership.
Enclosed you will find the July issue of “Acts & Facts,” our monthly creation magazine. I trust it will be a great blessing as you see how the work and message of ICR is impacting the public schools in places as varied as Kansas and Latvia. In Kansas, ICR’s behind the scenes consultation is encouraging a great effort, which might begin a national dethroning of evolution’s monopoly in the schools. In Latvia…
You mean you really believe these the folks who should be deciding what kids learn in *science* class?
Sorry, that last sentence wasn’t from the ICR newletter; that was mine, and should read “You mena you really believe these are the folks who should decide what kids learn in *science* class?”
‘mena’ => ‘mean’
ugh
Kansas contacts for clergy with common sense. (read as supporting evolution)
St James Lutheran ChurchKansas City, MOPastor John L. Backus, II
Plymouth Congregational Church (UCC)Lawrence, KSPeter Luckey, Senior Pastor
Unity Church of ChristianityTopeka, KSThe Rev. Michael Jamison
University United Methodist ChurchWichita, KSThe Rev. Phillip Shull
Progressive Christian GatheringWinfield, KSThe Rev. Allen Polen
Real science is being discussed with headlines like:
Fossil Non-Embryos Quench Cambrian Explosion Fuse
Evolutionary Reversal: Is the Neanderthal Category Collapsing?
Is Legal Hammerlocking the Way to Win a Scientific Controversy?
Are Cellular Motors Related by Evolution?
SETI: A Systematic Theology
at http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm
Give it a read to be in the know!
Tracy,
Are you still trying to make this a popularity contest or something?
I asked you to show me your supporting evidence or reasoning for why you believe what you do, not give me a list of others who believe what you do.
I would gladly discuss this with any of those people listed too.
Nathan, here’s 10,000 more good pastors.There’s also sermons from them.No I don’t care about popular.Or winning anything.Just doing what I believe the lord wants me to do.
Evolution SundayFeb. 11th at a Church near you!Join us in celebrating God’s plan on earth.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun2007.htm
Read some of the sermons, please.These people are professionals who are far better at supporting and explaining what I believe.Putting it in my words just doesn’t do justice.Some really good sermons,at least the ones I’ve read.
Nathan
How old do you believe the Earth to be?
When you can actually back up what you say, let me know.
It is obvious you are unwilling to do so or simply unable.
JR,
Around 6,000 years plus or minus a bit.
Nathan, that is my backup.I’m not going to rephrase it for you.Sorry.You’re taunting again.See ya.
If you’re unwilling or unable to read the ‘backup’ provided,I guess we’re done.
I don’t think there can be any reasonable discussion with you Nathan.
I do not wish to hurt your feelings or make you question your faith. But honestly? If you really believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old you are beyond irrational. We may as well discuss the Easter Bunny.
Tracy,
I read through it. It is a bunch of links.
If there is some highlight you would like to bring to my attention, then please do so.
However, I find it a farse that their motto seems to be about bringing religion and science togehter.
I have no problem with science. I love science.
I have yet to be a member of a church which has a disdain for science.
It is a problem with the theory of Evolution, not science in general.
Any of y’all consider Creative Evolution?
Not a single one of us understands the Mind or Will of God. Hate it for you if you think you do.
Now scientists and theologists alike should come to one conclusion. It would be one HELL of a coincidence for life to just happen here and no where else in the solar system. So, a little help from God.
Also, time is not a constant. Even the bible said folks lived for hundreds of years. Why not now? Time was different, in at least the way we measure it (revolutions around the sun)
So, what is the harm in joining the band wagons? Science can’t prove the ’spark of life’ anymore than Christians can PROVE that God breathed life into Adam.
JR,
I believe in God, that He sent his only son Jesus to die for all of mankinds sins, and you want to call me too irrational to talk with because I believe the Earth is only around 6000 years old?
If that is where you have to draw the line, as odd as it is, then so be it.
Sol, just a couple of questions.
The argument that God must exist because we’re the only life discovered so far in this solar system is just the argument from incredulity. Besides, betcha if life was found on elsewhere, the creationists would claim it as evidence for God’s existence anyway.
What do you mean by “Also, time is not a constant. Even the bible said folks lived for hundreds of years. Why not now? Time was different, in at least the way we measure it (revolutions around the sun)”
How is time not a constant?
What non-scriptural evidence is there for humans having a lifetime of hundreds of years, 6000 years ago?
How has the way we orbit the Sun changed during the last 6000 years?
nathan stated that he doesn’t have a problem with science, just biology.
Hate to break it to you, nathan, but evolution is supported by evidence from molecular biology, population biology, anthropology, molecular biology, genomics, paleontology, geology, developmental biology, genetics, medicine, and biochemistry.
nathan, you do have a problem with science.
It is a theory of Christian Jews. Didn’t mean to state it as fact.
When the universe was created, everything was at the center. It exploded and moved outward. Think of a bouncing red ball. As we move farther from the center, the red ball (bouncing at the same rate) would cover more space with each bounce. Relational time has slowed down. As time appears to progress at a standard rate for us, relative time has slowed down.
This approach covers several topics of science and religion. It would cover that he Earth has only been around for 6,000 years or 250 billion years (whatever science is declaring). The difference is in perceived time.
On the spiritual side, on the seventh day He rested. A derived meaning that all was completed. The world should be perfect.
He sent His Son to save us. Meaning, the ball hasn’t bounced its seventh bounce yet. When it does, God’s work is complete.
tired of creationist monkeys
Where is the link between monkey and man then?
Why has Man evolved to the point where we are and there are STILL monkeys running around?
solie
You approach this far too simplistically.
Evolution does not hold that man rose from ape. It holds that apes and man have a common ancestor.
BUT by trying to work God into the parameters of science you are at least trying to be rational.
T.O.C.M.,
Evolutionary theory doesn’t draw on the core or all of all those fields of science.
Yet again, I have no problem with science, only the Theory of Evolution.
If you would like to discuss specifics instead of being general I’m game.
We could start with the science behind Evolutions explanation for the beginning of life?
I’m just going to say this one last time. It isn’t an accident that the evolution quarrels erupt only in rural regions. The people are closer to the land. They deeply intuitively understand natural cycles.They’re practicing applied biologists. Now, we can deny this and say they are stupid hicks, but if they were, we and our urban-suburban families would be starving.
I learned a lot of biology outside of class, and applying evolutionary theory, when I accepted it, had nothing to do with what I learned. Try catching fish without understanding them. Try hunting without understanding wildlife behavior. Try raising flowers and vegetables without understanding plants, soil, water and nutrients.
Read any gardening book. You won’t find much, if any mention of evolution. But it is a biology book.
My wife and I have taught human biology to med students, residents, nurses and respiratory therapists. Evolution never came up. Not because we took pains to exclude it, but it was irrelevant. I’ve mainly focused in more recent years on math, physics and chemistry. In these science subjects, natural selection is irrelevant.
Why don’t I teach biology, and push ID? Maybe I should–but not really. I’m not an ideologue. I’d rather teach than indoctrinate. And ID may be false. I prefer to teach things that involve problem-solving. Which teaches kids how to analyze matters at hand.
Schools could offer courses in comparative philosophies and in them address ID and natural selection’s plusses and minuses. But they don’t. So bloggers here who have said that ID can be studied in a comparative religion course are being totally disingenuous, since there are no such courses in K-12 schools, and there will never be.
I reject intellectual dishonesty. Some people here think that makes me an “elitist”. Whatever floats your boat.
I’m a pretty good teacher, as measured by very, very high standardized math and science scores achieved by my students. But I think I am an excellent teacher, as measured by a completely different parameter: my students’ becoming teachers, and their students’ loving them.
True teaching is not a compulsory-attendance professional classroom management scheme. It is a voluntary relationship. I’ve taught people who “don’t have to be here”. And some decided not to be there. Others did. So I gave the latter the best of my knowledge and experience. I did what other teachers did, when I selected them to be my teachers, even though I didn’t have to. I don’t know how that makes me an “elitist”. I think it makes me a small-d democrat.
As I mentioned earlier helping an 8th grader do problems I never saw until I was in 11th grade. I think with a system that invested fully in my intellectual development I might have been able to do them, and by 11th grade been doing advanced mathematics, but that’s retro-speculation. What isn’t speculation is that two years ago, I was lucky–and I think he was too– to identify an extraordinarily deep-thinking 11 year old, who was struggling in prealgebra, so I decided to invest in him, bypassing the obstacles of a professional childhood management paradigm that was impeding his intellectual development. And medically and legally speaking, he had a “learning disorder” that oddly disproportionately affects boys, but that didn’t stop me, it was a challenge. I figured, if I tried, I’d learn some things I didn’t previously understand. And, voila! it happened. Somedays he was on, somedays he was really on, and these were totally fun for me. Some days he was off, and this was really frustrating. I think I could have raised his on/off ratio if he wasn’t spending most of his days in a professional classroom management system, but that’s a speculative hypothesis. I think it is correct, but I was not given the opportunity to experimentally test it.
Teaching-learning dynamics are fascinating. I like having an audience of many people, being a performer at heart. But I prefer one-on-one interaction. It’s a fluid bilateral communication experience. It enables personalized guidance.
Sollie, I’ve been saying all along that I’m a proponent of Theistic Evolution.Our world, and it’s evolution are just a small part of God and his creations.Until science can prove why and how our universe began, and what existed previous to this beginning,well, I’ll believe theistic evolution.I’m pretty sure that science will never have these answers, so I’ll always be a christian who believes in evolution.
JR,
You are interjecting rationality and irrationality into this discussion based on your standards of what is and is not rational.
Why don’t you simply discuss with us what it is you wish to discuss and leave the petty labeling out of it?
Nathan, I do understand your point of view, just for the record.In you view (I think), if I’m willing to accept some pretty incredible things (listed in the Nicene creed), then it’s silly of me to not buy the whole package.Young earth creation and all.I do see your point.It is a valid argument for your beliefs.
There are inconsistencies with both theories. No one was around to jot down for the Bible what happened. It was given to man later to include. The Word and Will of God are never easily understood. We may never understand the Will of God.
That being said, who has the balls to stand up and say “This is what happened…” as no one can prove it. Science can’t and neither can Christians. Who is to say that when the Bible states “And God created Man” that –poof- there was a perfectly formed man? Are you that linked to God to dare say you know that is exactly what happened?
I have no doubt in my mind that God created everything around me. That is my faith. I also have absolutely NO idea how He did it or how long it took in MY perception of time. To say that you do, says that you know the Will and Works of God.
Scientists, you can not prove how life began on earth but have a theory that some ’spark’ started it. Believing in something that can not be proven. Welcome to the world of Faith.
Evolutioning theory does NOT deal with the origins of life. Nor does cosmology.
I strongly doubt that schools are flatly stating that life began with a “spark”–that’s just Nathan’s spin.
More likely, they’re talking about the Miller-Urey experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
“Evolutioning”. . wow, my typos are getting creatively strange. . .
By golly sollie….we do agree!
Will wonders never cease? What’s next dogs and cats living together?
For God’s sake NO.I’m a prejudiced dog lover.Got a picture of my youngest daughter Adeline (the dog),right here by me.
I may give a little on creation,but man…….I gotta draw the line at cats.HA
I have a woman. Ergo, I have cats. If you have found a way to foil the evil algorithm, do tell !!!! (Two dogs, three cats, freakin Animal Farm !!!!!)
Good luck with that.Divine intervention?Pray for her to get a cat allergy.Lord have mercy!
Sol, I have a woman (my wife) who detests cats. So, change in women in order for you? HA!
heartlander you stated, “So bloggers here who have said that ID can be studied in a comparative religion course are being totally disingenuous, since there are no such courses in K-12 schools, and there will never be.”
These two high schools do offer comparative religion courses:Pelham High SchoolPelham, AL
Oxford High SchoolRowland Heights, CA
The previous incarnation of the KS state board of education declined to consider establishing guidelines for comparative religion courses. See, they didn’t want IDcreationism taught in comparative religion where it belongs – they wanted to inject it into the science curriculum.
*****************************
Equating a gardening book with a comprehensive biology textbook is like saying a guide to home wiring is equivalent to Jackson’s E&M text – a massively invalid comparison.
*****************************
Just noticed that heartlander hasn’t justified his statements that science curriculum should be decided by non-science-literate folks, while teachers must have advanced degrees in each science topic taught.
Sol, you wrote that “I have no doubt in my mind that God created everything around me. That is my faith. I also have absolutely NO idea how He did it or how long it took in MY perception of time. To say that you do, says that you know the Will and Works of God.”
But that’s the point! I also believe in His power and magnificent presence in our lives. The ID folks, with their changing notions of ’specified complexity’ and ‘irreducible complexity,’ state that God *cannot* be responsible for snowflakes or sunsets, but that *only* He could rearrange DNA.
It’s the ID proponents who seek to limit God’s omnipotence and omnipresence by forcing God to occupy the ever-decreasing gaps in our knowledge, and by giving Him credit only for phenomena we don’t yet understand.
ID is bad science, but worse theology. The God I believe in is too big to be forced flagellum-end-first into a test tube.
Rage,
Evolutionary Theory does deal with the orgins of life.
But it appears as if you don’t think so.
So please feel free to share with me what Evolutionary theory deals with then?
On top of that, I know about the miller/Urey experiment.
It didn’t prove anything more than if you manipulate the environment of your experiment enough and change the starting variables enough you would end up with still not even enough amino acids for life in a toxic solution to said amino acids.
Is that the experiment you are talking about?
That is the “science” we are teaching in the schools?
SolDevVB,
Is the Bible not the word of God?
Last time I checked it was.
So when it tells us in Genesis how God created the world, I believe it.
Genesis is no different than the accounts of Jesus in the New Testament.
Jesus quoted the scripture and studied the Old Testament.
So why do you doubt what it says?
I am not arrogant to think I know Gods ways when he told us exactly what his ways were in Genesis.
“When I am judging a theory, I ask myself whether, if I were God, I would have arranged the world in such a way.”
Albert Einstein
Quoted in E T Bell, Mathematics: Queen and Servant of Science
Nathan
First off, there are too many versions of the Bible with too many translations and differences. Second, each time the Bible has been re-written it has been changed.
OK, God created the heavens and earth and all that are in them in 6 days. On the 7th he rested. How long is one of God’s days? Surely He doesn’t measure them by the sun rising and falling on a planet he JUST created does He?
The point is interpretation. Look at the differences in the available Bibles to show you that. Look at the preachers and evangelists that preach the same scripture, but with far differing meaning.
SolDevVB,
Which Bible translations are you talking about?
Almost every VERSION of the Bible is translated from the same master document.
The many different Bibles we have today are written in different styles to enhance learning or to suit a certain style.
NIV = Basically a paraphrased version.
KJV = Old English translation
NKJV = Modernized language
NASB = Word for word translation
These Bibles are not retranslations. They are takin from the same documents and written in different ways.
So I have no idea what you are talking about when you say retranslated and all the different versions.
Any rudemntary study of this would show you what I am talking about.
As far as Genesis goes:
The same word for day in Genesis was used in other instances through out the Old Testament. So the author fully intended for it to be read as an actual day.
Genesis also describes the rising and setting of the sun and calls them days.
So, they were days by our standards.
Genesis 1:4-5
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Seems pretty clear to me that is describing one day.
So where is your confusion?
SolDevVB,
Which Bible translations are you talking about?
Almost every VERSION of the Bible is translated from the same master document.
The many different Bibles we have today are written in different styles to enhance learning or to suit a certain style.
NIV = Basically a paraphrased version.
KJV = Old English translation
NKJV = Modernized language
NASB = Word for word translation
These Bibles are not retranslations. They are takin from the same documents and written in different ways.
So I have no idea what you are talking about when you say retranslated and all the different versions.
Any rudemntary study of this would show you what I am talking about.
As far as Genesis goes:
The same word for day in Genesis was used in other instances through out the Old Testament. So the author fully intended for it to be read as an actual day.
Genesis also describes the rising and setting of the sun and calls them days.
So, they were days by our standards.
Genesis 1:4-5
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Seems pretty clear to me that is describing one day.
So where is your confusion?
Many knowledges I have found here I would come back http://boyspanking.iespana.es/
Funny, interresting, nice, … this is your blog http://boyspanking.iespana.es/
Doesn`t matter what you say, but how…!! But you said it well http://boyspanking.iespana.es/
Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/