Appropriately, documentary focuses on faith, not science

A low point in our state’s education history is the subject of a new, re-edited documentary, “Kansas vs. Darwin,” that is debuting today at the Kansas International Film Festival in Overland Park. The film centers on the evolution hearings that the State Board of Education held in May 2005 and includes interviews with “the characters who captured the world’s attention.”
The filmmakers originally released the documentary a little more than a year ago, including discussions about cells and molecular biology that were over the heads of most viewers, the Lawrence Journal-World reported. So they re-edited the film, focusing more on the politics of faith and less on science.
That seems appropriate, as that’s what state board members did, too.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

260 Comments

  1. Tara
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    Dammit.

    The problem is, when we dumb down scienc-y things for the general public, we are encouraging the ignorance.

    This is fine most of the time because people who don’t “believe in evolution” don’t particularly matter to the field of scientific inquiry. Let them have their beliefs, they’re not hurting anyone.

    But when they’re trying to mess with the classrooms, we cannot allow them to breeze past all the tough stuff, the hard science, and still influence the curriculum. If you want to change the science curriculum, you damn well better have a strong science background.

    Thank goodness we won’t have to worry about that for a long time. I think Kansas learned their lesson and probably won’t vote nutjobs into the BOE again (fingers crossed)

  2. Posted September 17, 2007 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    Well, we can only hope, Tara!!

  3. Posted September 17, 2007 at 2:55 am | Permalink

    “The problem is, when we dumb down scienc-y things for the general public, we are encouraging the ignorance.”

    I completely agree, Tara. If it went over the heads of people, well. . .that’s too bad. Maybe they needed clearer explanations. Or maybe, in our tabloid culture, people just don’t like thinking that hard!

    Taking the science out–when THIS issue is involved–just strengthens the hand of the antiscience forces that caused this debacle in the first place.

    While I haven’t seen the movie, if it does what Phillip said–”focusing more on the politics of faith and less on science”–that opens the door framing the issue as a contest between competing faith ideologies (e.g. conservative Christians vs. moderates), and obsfucates the real issue: the importance of having good science education in the first place.

  4. writerdog
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    To make thing even more confusing, those that believe in Creationism are now using science to back their claims but end by pointing out the same conclusions that Evolutionist have on certain subjects. Namely that once you get to a certain point there is no explanation. The Evolutionist say we simply have not found the answers pass this point and the Creationist say they know the answer and it is God. Which is the same argument in a sense that the Intelligent design people have ( yes there is a difference between I.D. and Creationism. I.D. comes to the same conclusion but state as of yet they do not know was the designer) that life is so complex that it had to have been designed. All three theories reach only to a certain point and can not prove their theory pass it.

  5. kelly
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Too bad the documentary isn’t showing in Wichita. We have two seats on the State Board of Ed up for election nest year, including the possible re-election campaign of one of the anti-science members Steve Abrams.

  6. Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    So…who cares if the world laughs at Kansas? We keep the faith and we have god on our side…..right?

  7. Rob
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Prove it! If you cannot prove evolution (and you cannot) it has no more right to be in the classroom than intelligent design or creationism. All “theories” should have equal right to be taught until one can be proven correct and the others proven false. Brownlee continually proves that he is a bigoted fool.

  8. lindainks55
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    yep, why shouldn’t the world laugh at Kansans? There are so many laughable people residing here who wouldn’t EVER be capable of understanding science no matter how far you dumbed it down for them. i.e., the poster who has no comprehension of the words “scientific theory.”

    thinkfirst, sadly, you summed the situation up well.

  9. lindainks55
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    yep, why shouldn’t the world laugh at Kansans? There are so many laughable people residing here who wouldn’t EVER be capable of understanding science no matter how far you dumbed it down for them. i.e., the poster who has no comprehension of the words “scientific theory.”

    thinkfirst, sadly, you summed the situation up well.

  10. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Science theory is not religious theory, and the two shouldn’t be taught equally as if they had anything to do with one another.

  11. Joe Williams
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    Funny how the creationist are demanding equal time in Science Classes in Government Schools.

    Sure! I will allow you to have equal time, so long as you allow equal time for Evolution in Sunday School Classes and Church Sermons. Deal?

  12. outlander
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    It is simply not true that presentation of the criticisms of the macro-evolution/Darwinian theory is dumbing down anything. In fact, it is bordering on intellectual child abuse to hide the unresolved problems with the theory and present it as fact. Because it is not.

    The practical scientific value of the theory is constantly overstated. Actually, a student can become anything they want to be without believing in macro-evolution/Darwinian theory. They can understand life processes and evolutionary changes within species without going the additional incredible step to think that all life on earth today has as it ancestor a single cell organism.

  13. Joe Williams
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Evolution Theory never states the origin of life nor that everything originated from a single cell organism.

    But I will tell you this! Word for Word, the Bible is no science text book. And it has no scientific value at all.

    If you want to trade in the Periodic Table for the New Testament. Go ahead! I don’t care, just as you don’t try to force your beliefs on other people.

    Evolution is not a belief. It’s science! Major difference. Sure! It doesn’t explain everything, nor that is what it’s intention. You Christians are pitting a small segment of Science as an explanation of everything, like the Bible is to you. Evolution is but a very small branch of science.

    Just like the Church said that God created the Earth and the Universe revolves around the Earth. Science discovered, through a branch of science called Astronomy, that no; we revolve around the Sun.

    Well! That person was shunned, tortured and discredited for that.

  14. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    So conversely, if we present only one religion to our children, say it’s fact, and present only one church to that child..it’s intellectual child abuse?

    You know, I agree with that. And how many religious right parents would be appauled at that?

  15. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    Y’know, it’s really simple; if you want your child to be a scientist, teach him evolution. If you want your child sweeping out the lab, teach him creationism.

  16. Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Let’s see if the Creationists and ID backers can get the Bible to agree with itself on “origins” That could be interesting…

  17. I believe in both
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    anyone who believes that evolution could be God’s way of creating is limiting the focus of God.

    Isn’t it possble that God’s “days” were actually millions */- of years?

    Both ideas may be correct, and if we refuse to consider all possibilites we are limiting ourselves…… More importantly by failing to present both to our children we are unfairly limiting them.

  18. Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Can ANY Creationist say that they know 100% exactly WHAT GOD did in Creation??? I dont think so!!

    Can any scientist say they know with 100% accuracy what happened at the beginning of all things??I dont think so!!

    I have never had a problem with either of these… I personally dont know why there IS a problem…

    They dont deal with the SAME issues… The Bible is not a scientific text book… Science is not about Theology… Maybe SOME day we will get this straight???

  19. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Both,”Isn’t it possble that God’s “days” were actually millions */- of years?”

    If you’re an eternal being, there’s no such thing as time.

  20. Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Ahhh yes, Jed, how true!!

  21. Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Jed see Eccl. 3… good quote there about eternity… and themind of man…

  22. Bggeek
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    “Prove it! If you cannot prove evolution (and you cannot) it has no more right to be in the classroom than intelligent design or creationism. All “theories” should have equal right to be taught until one can be proven correct and the others proven false.”

    Let’s see how much you really understand the issue. What would it take to prove evolution false? (Hint: there’s quite a bit of conceivable evidence which would do the trick if found. Second hint: lack of transition fossils is NOT the answer. A) there is no lack. B) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)

    Now, what would it take to prove creationism false? Can you name anything?

  23. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    I am a believer in creationism who under no circumstances thinks it should be taught in public schools. The darwinians might be very surprised to know how many science teachers in our public schools believe in ID and evolution. My sister-in-law is one of those. She doesn’t mix them in her classroom but can explain to you why she believes in both. She has a masters in Earth Science by the way. They didn’t make her sweep the lab floor once. Maybe tolerance is needed by the libs on this. Does the idea that there might be two theories worthy of consideration scare you that much?

  24. Max
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Why not teach a multitude of theories of the begining?

    None of them can be proven, so why not cover them all?

    We indoctrinate our kids today, we don’t teach them to have an open mind and we don’t teach them to think for themselves.

  25. littlejohn
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    So they re-edited the film, focusing more on the politics of faith and less on science.That seems appropriate, as that’s what state board members did, too.Posted by Phillip Brownlee

    September 17, 2007 in Science | Permalink

    ANd they were blasted for it. How is that appropriate. COncentrate on the science. Isn’t that what the discussion is about? SO it about science? Or discrediting the faith of many? WIth what? Intellectual discourse? Or SCIENCE!Stick with the science. Without the science, it’s just another competing theory.

  26. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Chas not sure what your beliefs on ID is but was this the verse you were referring to.

    “11 He has made everything appropriate to its time, and has put the timeless into their hearts, without men’s ever discovering, from beginning to end, the work which God has done.”

    Man isn’t capable of understanding God’s time. Therefore the age of the earth as measured by man really has no relevance to the theory of ID.

    Was this what you referring to? Do you actually believe in something the bible says without opening it for interpretation? Not trying to pick an argument, just wondering?

  27. Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Sure BgGeek… Lack of faith, or faith in another religion… Thats easy!!

  28. Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    If you think Kansas is bad check out Kentucky on the Topix forums — we’re bloody brilliant. The Hmong sex forum is great too.

  29. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Bggeek(?),”Now, what would it take to prove creationism false? Can you name anything?”

    Yeah, my back hurts!Assuming of course, that this creator is halfway intelligent. A spine is a perfect structure for a life form that is supported by water. When horizontal and supported by four legs, it works well enough. But when raised vertically, all sorts of structural stresses occur. You’ve got three choices here:
    1. Evolution2. A stupid creator3. A malicious creator

  30. Max
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    KSgrm, I think you can just pick and choose which verses to believe.

  31. Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Yes, KsGrm, Eccl. 3:11 — Thats as good a translation as any… Not the one I had in mind, but its OK…

    Mankind is incapable of understanding the Infinite…

  32. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Thanks Max that is probably right.

    Jed so are you saying man should still be crawling on the ground? What an amazing creation we are. My question has always been - If indeed we are the result of evolution - Why did it quit? For thousands of year we have been in this upright form - that is documented by recent history - why did evolution stop? Maybe we should have sprouted wings so we wouldn’t have to carry this weight around all the time. Anything would be an improvement for your aching back.

  33. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    Thank you Chas for not trying to give me man’s translation for that verse. There just may be hope for you yet.

  34. Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    See, KsGrm, we agree on this one!! Amazing, isnt it??

  35. Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    “Maybe we should have sprouted wings so we wouldn’t have to carry this weight around all the time.”– KsGrm –

    Actually, we HAVE done that… the Wheel… boats… trains, planes, automobiles… in short, transportation… keeps us from carrying our weight around all the time… I would consider that a part of the overall “evolutionary” cycle…

  36. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Well Chas that is one way of looking at it but it wouldn’t be something you could bring into a science classroom. It also wouldn’t explain the absence of evolutionary change in the last couple of thousand years.

  37. Rob
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Bggeek(?),”Now, what would it take to prove creationism false? Can you name anything?”

    Of course. “Faith” in creation begins with undeniable facts that the bible, archaeology and historians have shown to be accurate. If archaeological digs were to continually show that places and events in the bible were not true - this would be rather convincing proof that the bible could not be considered seriously as a historical document. But that is contrary to what is actually being discovered. Each year more and more digs are uncovering more evidence that what is stated in the bible is in fact true. Creationists do not base their beliefs on “blind faith”… our human skepticism forces us to doubt our faith from time to time. But there are irrefutable facts that are discovered constantly that “help us” re-affirm our faith in God.

    You have the freedom to believe what you will. As christians we believe that God gave us that freewill to do just that. The fact is… the bible states that “most” people will NOT believe… narrow is the path that leads to righteousness… broad is the path of least resistance. If I said that I didn’t care that you or anyone else does not believe - I would be lying. Not because I want to win an argument or because I want everyone to be just like me… but because as a christian I care about the salvation of others. Eternity is a long time to be apart from your creator.

    And you know what… If I’m wrong… so what… I have led a good life and I will die some day none the worse for my sojourn here… but if you’re wrong….

  38. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Good answer Rob. I am surprised that so many non-believers miss that simple truth.

  39. Bggeek
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    “If indeed we are the result of evolution - Why did it quit?”

    It hasn’t quit, what gave you that idea?

    “For thousands of year we have been in this upright form”

    Primates have been walking upright for millions of years. Humans are only the latest (and last) primate to primarily walk upright (although others are capable of it in short bursts). See? Evolution hasn’t stopped at all.

    “Maybe we should have sprouted wings so we wouldn’t have to carry this weight around all the time.”

    If you’re serious about this it is a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.

  40. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Grannie,Who said evolution quit? You are assuming that we are somehow the end product of evolution. Unless something happens that destroys all life on earth (like if we royally screw the place up), we can be pretty sure that there will be further evolution, either of us or whatever replaces us.
    Evolution builds on existing structures, and structures that succeed for whatever reason survive (and being lucky helps) for as long as they’re successful, while those that may be only a bit less successful end up as extinct species (something like 98%+ of all species that have ever existed here). And yes, I like to think we’re pretty remarkable. How much of that is hubris only time will tell. Could be that in a few million years, our skeletons will be mounted in museums alongside not-too-flattering assessments of our intelligence. Or it could be that our brains are just too expensive an adaptation and we’ll be survived by more successful “lower species.” Just remember that when Darwin spoke of “survival of the fittest,” fitness is merely the ability to survive a particular set of momentary circumstances. The next set may require an altogether different set of traits.

  41. Steven Davis
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    “If you’re serious about this it is a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.”

    All any of the threads on evolution at the WE Blog do is demonstrate what a profound ignornace people who post here have about science, theory, and the topic of evolution.

    There is no point in arguing with people who have an investment of some sort in NOT understanding evolution. Please go on with your ignorance, but do us a favor, and don’t pass this willful ignorance on to your children — that would be an example of De-evolution.

  42. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Rob — What you are saying about archaeological digs is pretty much accurate… In that sense, the Bible, being produced in “historical” times, is fairly accurate as to places, buildings, etc. But that does NOT make it a SCIENTIFICALLY accurate book… And there is a HUGE difference there…

    I am sure you would agree with that…

  43. Bggeek
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    “Of course. “Faith” in creation begins with undeniable facts that the bible, archaeology and historians have shown to be accurate.”

    Except for little things like the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, the flood…

    “But that is contrary to what is actually being discovered. Each year more and more digs are uncovering more evidence that what is stated in the bible is in fact true.”

    The Empire State Building is in King Kong. The Empire State Building really exists. Yet King Kong is not a reliable historical source. Why? Because writing about things that actually exist and actually happened doesn’t serve one little bit as proof of miracles or the super-natural.

    “And you know what… If I’m wrong… so what… I have led a good life and I will die some day none the worse for my sojourn here… but if you’re wrong….”

    Ah, Pascal’s Wager my old friend. I see you every time I talk to creationists. What if you are wrong about the Islamic God? He’s made it pretty clear that Christians aren’t getting into his heaven? By your argument I should believe in the God who has the worst hell.

  44. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Bggeek,What if….. Each religion’s god has his/her own heaven for that faith’s faithful? Now the question becomes would I be allowed to take an occasional weekend off to visit my Muslim or Buddhist or Ba’Hai friends? And what would an atheist heaven look like?

  45. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Jed, since the body does not survey death, and our entire visual abilities are in the realm of physical body, How do we know that anything can actually be “seen” in any kind of Heaven??

  46. Max
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    How should abortion be taught in our public schools? Creation or Evolution?

  47. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Jed and Steven I didn’t put down evolution and if you understood it that way, sorry. I indeed believe that all life evolves to adapt to their environment. Hence the reason many instructors can teach evolution and still believe in ID. Why get so mad or act so arrogant - call me stupid or whatever because you don’t agree with me?

    I’ll allow you to believe anything you want. If you want evolution taught in the schools. Have at it. I have no problem with this. It is a theory, not fact, as loud as you shout you won’t change that.

    To each his own. It’s refreshing - try it.

    Steven does this mean we won’t be meeting in DC?

  48. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Time is an artificial construct created in man’s mind to put boundaries on events.

    We call how long men live, a lifetime. Lifetime guarantee of a product refers to its usability and warranty implications.

    The birth of a baby involves nine months more or less, of preparation before it is born.

    The numbers of letters and numbers on a calendar doesn’t indicate how long it takes to actually create the calendar.

    We don’t recall events in time when we sleep, but can reference a clock to get approximations of the hours slept.

    When we get in a car accident, our mind quickly analyzes the situation and the mind camera records the events for us. It seems like seconds last longer then they actually do.

    We are often rated in our work by our productivity. That is, what we do over time and how efficient we are along with the goods or service unit output measurement standard.

    The lifetime of volcano is measured in cycles. When the volcano no longer “works” we call it inactive, it never really dies.

    We have the four seasons, all of nature realizes these temperature changes naturally. Monarch butterflies go to a warmer place, birds fly south, bears hibernate and plants go “inactive.”

    We have eternal “truths” and temporary lapses. If we didn’t finish an exam, we didn’t have enough time.

    We get tickets for driving at a rate of speed over time called miles per hour.

    Scientists spend a lot of time finding out about time. It affects our understanding of space. It helps us to get a handle on how that dinosaur bone may be. It helps theorists to establish formulas like “E=MC^2.”

    We are crippled by time as well. When we try to figure out what the distance of star is from the earth, we use years and light years. However, a year on earth has more to do with seasons and earth’s rotational movements than it does with “how far” the star actually is. A star doesn’t have seasons nor is it influenced by a small blue planet’s rotation. Yet it is all we have.

    We have phrases and words, like “forever, whenever and someday.” We have words for calendar changes like tomorrow, moon phases and astrological events. We can rent by the hour, days or longer.

    Time is measured differently by different societies. Aztec calendars use ethereal and astrological events to map out their time from the beginning to the end of their earth. Farmers use growing seasons, unless your a horticulturists who grows plants in a greenhouse.

    We never know we our “time” is up. Holding our breath until we turn “blue” marks the amount of time until we pass out, but says little about how much time has actually passed.

    People in general can’t get a grip on eternity, it makes no sense to them. To them, there must be a beginning and an end.

    Yet the Bible in its wisdom tells us that our existence is measured from “dust to dust.” God describes Himself as “I am” for identity and for the purpose of existence without time parameters.

    We don’t really know how long it takes man to evolve, because we can’t connect cavemen (if they are indeed men) with modern men. So, we describe human events as periods called civilizations.

    By the time we actually think about something, it is already in the past, yet we can imagine thinking about something in this regard that may happen in the future. We sometimes call these predictions of events.

    The time it took you to read these, unknown trillions of bacteria have multiplied around the world, winds have circulated invisibly measured by meteorologists using rate over time measurements.

    We cannot understand God, because of our varied “rulers.” We cannot imagine some event in the past with 100 percent accuracy if we have not been there - yet it still occurred.

    We know neither our future nor can we calculate with any precision unknown events that occur in the future. Yet it will happen.

    How will you spend your “time” today. :)

    Evolution is neither right nor wrong. The stories in the Bible regarding “Creation” events is neither right nor wrong. We cannot know the past with precision because as Heisenberg once stated, the state of matter and energy is affected by our measuring of it. Thusly, we can never know what actually happened and when.

    We don’t even know the why and how most of the time either.

    However, it happened.

    Happened is a strange word don’t you think? It happened.

    “I am” describes “happenings” in a form we can never understand.

    Our center of existence befuddles us and we strike out with great jealousy and rage if it eludes us or assignment is outside our control.

    We are merely human, the people of “they were”, “they are” or “they will be”, but never “I am.”

  49. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    It’s a good thing, actually, that ID isnt arguing for all scientific “theory” not be taught in schools… After all, even after all these years, “gravity” is still labeleed as a “theory”, as is “relativity” among others…

  50. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    I like that post, Kansas… You ever read Tillich’s great sermon on Time??? If not, its a good read… AND a short one!!

  51. outlander
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    chas: Not a good analogy there; relating the “theory” of gravity to the “theory” of evolution.

    Now if that theory consisted or trying to demonstrate that over the ages gravity gradually developed, then you might have a valid comparison.

  52. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    God is identified as “I AM” which is the ROOT for the concept of Being… Thus, some of the great thologians have identified God as the “Ground of Being” - Paul Tillich in particular… in his “Systematic Theology”…

  53. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Chas,Interesting question. Maybe it could be answered this way; while sensory raw data is usually a product of the physical eye, vision as we experience it is a product of the creative mind. We are capable of visualizing things we haven’t actually seen, and what we see with our eyes is heavily tempered by our conceptual abilities. If the mind (an ephemeral substance if there ever was one) is what survives after death, as opposed to the simple monad of eastern religions, vision in some sense is possible. Otherwise, heaven would be no more than a return to the womb, which would probably be fine for about 9 months, and then we’d want out!

  54. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Outlander, the analogy is not that Gravity and Evolution are related… the analogy is that they are both understood scientifically as THEORY… as is Relativity…

  55. Ed Friedemann
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Some Kansans shouldn’t worry about evolving from apes, they haven’t evolved, they’re still apes or at least think like them.

    GMC70 likes his tinfoil hat and it’s down hill from there.

  56. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Jed, you ever read “Ancient Evenings,” by Norman Mailer… In a strange sort of way, Mailer in that strange book, sort of describes death/pre-reincarnation as exactly that… a womb like experience, not bounded by “time” Most interesting concept… And, I would have to agree with you, on the “visual” concept notion… as long as the mind is something that survives death… if indeed anything survives death…

    It would see, however, that at the moment of death, “time” ceases.

  57. Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    ** see = seem

  58. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Max,”How should abortion be taught in our public schools? Creation or Evolution?”

    How about as law?

  59. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Chas,I haven’t; Mailer and I don’t get along too well.Having never talked with anyone who actually died (not “near-death experiences”), and not having died myself, I’ll just have to file that under “I Don’t Know.”

  60. mrcontroversy
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Tara,As always, your beauty is only exceeded by your intelligence.

  61. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Chas,
    Also, if the mind doesn’t survive death, at least to my western sensibilities it isn’t an “I” that survives, whatever else might.

  62. Posted September 17, 2007 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    “…it isn’t an “I” that survives, whatever else might.”– Jed –

    And that is where the more “eastern” spirituality steps in… What survives is a “oneness” with the universe… or the “great knowledge” or something of that sort…

  63. Demis are smarter than Repukes but not by much
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    After all, even after all these years, “gravity” is still labeleed as a “theory”, as is “relativity” among others…

    I dont know what school you went to, but our schools taught the Laws of Gravity, not the theory of Gravity. There are some theories about gravity, but the basics are considered laws, not theories.

  64. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Outlander, you don’t agree that all religions should be taught to your kids?

    I love how you ignored my post…guess I must have proven my point.

  65. Rage
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    “I haven’t; Mailer and I don’t get along too well.”

    Oh well. Fug him.

  66. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    I don’t want creation taught in schools.

    What I would like is for the truth about Evolution to be taught in schools.

    It seems as if anything which contradicts the Holy Religion of Evolution is cast out as heresy.

    I think it was said earlier, that you can do anything you want to without having to accept the theory of Evolution.

    As much as people here would like to argue that Evolution doesn’t deal with the begining of life…

    Well, Evolution is not taught in a isolated way. It IS taught in conjunction with life begining with a “spark” in a puddle of goo.

    I have never seen Evolution taught or even heard anyone argue Evolution on the premise: Assume life, now Evolution.

    The problem with Evolution as a theory is that it is comprised of many different things which many people still disagree on.

    What part of Evolution is true?

    Can that in turn be tested? Duplicated? Observed?

  67. Posted September 17, 2007 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    It IS taught in conjunction with life begining with a “spark” in a puddle of goo.Posted by: Nathan | September 17, 2007 at 02:29 PM

    Please share with us the current textbook in which this is being taught.

    Thanks.

  68. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Tom,

    Can you share with us which textbooks address Evolution without the beginning of life?

    It has been awhile since I took HighSchool Biology, but my book most definately called it a “spark” because I made fun of it in class.

  69. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Let me do some looking and see what I can find.

  70. Posted September 17, 2007 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    I made fun of it in class.Posted by: Nathan | September 17, 2007 at 02:44 PM

    Ahhhhh….such a good student you must have been. Mocking the teachers because, after all, you were _born_ knowing more than they.

    :::eyeroll:::

  71. outlander
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Tom: If you take Darwin’s theory back far enough you logically have to arrive at the puddle of goo that Nathan mentioned. Basically single cell organisms. And before that, tiny clumps of protein. Of course you get to the point where certain systems are irreducibly complex, which is major problem for Darwinism.

    But if you don’t believe that life started there, then when and where? How did it get there?

  72. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Exactly outlander,

    Who here believes in Evolution by simply saying Assume life, now Evolution!

  73. Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Outlander,

    According to Nathan, there is no “back far enough.” He’s a young-earther, remember? Therefore, no possibility of evolution according to modern theories.

    Which, by the way, are not called “Darwinism” any more than what Nathan does is called “self-righteousism”

  74. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Chas,”What survives is a “oneness” with the universe… or the “great knowledge” or something of that sort…”

    A “oneness” with the universe and what? If there is no mind, there is no consciousness, no “I” to be at one with anything.

  75. Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    But, on the other hand, can anybody PROVE that God Did NOT start out Creation with a “spark” and a “puddle of goo”???

  76. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Chas theories are just that because they can’t be proven. Once a theory is proven it becomes a law as in gravity. That was taught waaay back when I was in school. Did you go to school in Kansas?

    Pmom not sure where your kids attend school but my grandkids have all been taught about ‘other’ religions. Nothing about Christianity but Hindu, Buddist, Muslim, and Wicca. You libs had better get up in arms. My granddaughter in Oregon was taught in kindergarten that it was ok for Heather to have two mommies or two daddies. She didn’t have a clue what sex was but she needed to know this because??

    While you are out there putting down others who have different beliefs at least be honest within the argument.

  77. Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Thats right Jed… it is sometimes described as a merger of self, into the “vastness of the universe” — meaning no more ‘I”

  78. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Chas don’t your legs ever get sore from all that stretching you do to straddle an issue. At least be honest enough to state your opinion and then stick to it. Whether we agree or not.

    Not everything is black and white but when you say creation might have been started with a spark and goo - where do you put God in that argument?

  79. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Chas,

    What God would you be talking about?

  80. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    I believe in the CHRISTIAN GOD, the One true God who sent his only son to die for our sins.

    I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the key to our salvation, my Lord and Savior.

    So what God are you talking about?

    Last time we talked, you said:

    “God is whatever you conceive of Him to be”

  81. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Chas,It had to start much further back than the spark and puddle of goo. First the universe had to create the elements, then the molecules that made up that puddle of wonderful goo.Much more elegant for god to create that first law of nature to which all the other laws are corollary and let everything happen from there. Even more elegant for god to BE that first law!

  82. Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    …creation might have been started with a spark and goo - where do you put God in that argument?

    Posted by: ksgrm | September 17, 2007 at 03:29 PM======================

    I already answered that….

  83. Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Thats the general idea, Jed

  84. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Granny,”My granddaughter in Oregon was taught in kindergarten that it was ok for Heather to have two mommies or two daddies. She didn’t have a clue what sex was but she needed to know this because??”

    Because too many kids are taught to hate Heather and make life miserable for her because their christian parents just can’t bring themselves to understand her two mommies!

  85. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Nathan,”God is whatever you conceive of Him to be.”

    I hate to tell you this, but that’s true of christians as well; if you all compared notes, I doubt you could find two christians who worship the same identical god.

  86. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Jed,

    Figuring that you constantly mischaracterize Christians and Christianity and constantly accuse them of things which you refuse to back up…

    I will take what you say as crap as usual:

    “I doubt you could find two christians who worship the same identical god.”

    I can find entire churches full of people who ALL believe that Christ is their Lord and Savior and the key to salvation.

    Now Chas on the other hand? He won’t admit to that…

    But then again, CHRISTIANS believe that to be the basic fundamental to being a Christian.

  87. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Jed I firmly believe that Nathan and I do worship the same God. That would be two.

    And Jed when I want my kids or grandkids taught something other that the three R’s shouldn’t I or their parents be making that decision?

    Isn’t that what this entire discussion is about. Teaching something in schools that the libs didn’t agree with. What right do you or any other lib have to teach my grandchild or any other child something so social as sexual orientation at the age of 5?

    It’s ok on one side but oh so wrong on the other. We have gone all day and the truth has finally emerged. It isn’t what they are being taught, it is what the libs think they should be taught. That is certainly refreshing.

  88. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Granny,”Once a theory is proven it becomes a law as in gravity.”

    I might point out that just like evolution, we have a pretty good body of evidence that gravity exists, and what happens when something is affected by gravity. How gravity works is vastly less understood than how evolution works. Let’s not get too free with “Law” of gravity if you’re unwilling to concede the point on evolution.

  89. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Nathan,

    Get your copy of the Yellow Pages. Open to “Churches.” Tell me how many Christian denominations you find there. Then tell me they all have identical beliefs.

    I’ll wait.

  90. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Tom,

    Doctrinal differences to not equate worshipping a different God.

    You claim was not about identical beliefs, it was about worshipping different Gods.

  91. Ed Friedemann
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    You’re not the end product of evolution, therefore you have not evolved into the capacity to understand the meaning or purpose of your existence.

    The best that you can come-up with now is to lust after power and manufacture gods into assuming the rolls of parents.

  92. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    I can go to a non=denomination Church of Christ to worship… Jesus!

    I can go to the Assemblies of God church to worship… Jesus!

    I can go to a Catholic church to worship… Jesus!

    I can go to the Orthodox Presbyeterian Chruch to worship… Jesus!

    I can go to the entire array of different Baptist churches to worship… Jesus!

    I can go to the Lutheran church to worship… Jesus!

  93. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    My claim??? Paste in “my claim.”

    Geeze, Nathan, you really don’t read very carefully, do you?

  94. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Nathan, Granny,Have you two actually compared detailed notes on exactly what your concept of god is? And do they exactly agree on every point? I didn’t think so. In fact it would be virtually impossible for any two people to conceptualize identical beings when they hear the word “god.” Most religious people get around this obstacle by not being too specific when comparing gods.

  95. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Ksgrm,

    This may come as a shock to you, but there’s only one “R”. “Writing” and “arithmetic” do start with “w” and “a” respectively.

  96. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Jed:

    If everytime I put a spark to a glob of goo I created life then I would give you that. Everytime I throw an apple in the air it comes down. Law

    Let’s not get too free with “Law” of gravity if you’re unwilling to concede the point on evolution.

    Posted by: Jed | September 17, 2007 at 04:08 PM

  97. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Tom very literally you are right. Ok

  98. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    When you say you can go into any service in any of that long list of various churches and worship Jesus! You are right… YOU can do that, as an individual… But perhaps what you dont understand is that the particular CHURCH you are in might not necessarily share the same interpretation of worshipping Jesus! as YOU have as an individual… THAT is what seems to be the mis-understanding here…

  99. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    I was raised when it was ‘reading, riting and rithamatic taught to the tune of a hickory stick’. I guess you are younger than me.

  100. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    The question isnt so much believing in Jesus… it’s WHICH Jesus… see???

  101. outlander
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant Jed? Because of their handicap, none of these men could experience the entire elephant. Yet their descriptions were correct, as far as they went.

    Similarly, no one can experience God in his entirety. We experience Him as we have sought Him out or as He has revealed Himself to us. It is no surprise that our perception of God may differ in certain ways. But I bet if you asked Nathan and Ksgrm to each list God’s attributes, there would be many on each list that were identical to the other’s.

  102. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Ed,”You’re not the end product of evolution, therefore you have not evolved into the capacity to understand the meaning or purpose of your existence.”

    Of course we aren’t the “end product” of evolution. There is no “end product” of evolution. Evolution is a short-term solution to the demands of a dynamic habitat, not a longterm goal, as much as you might like it to be.If you need a meaning or purpose to your existence, you’ll just have to invent your own. If you lack the creative wherewithall to do it yourself, there are a zillion or so televangelists that will gladly sell you theirs prepackaged for a generous donation.

  103. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    but, outie, none of them described an elephant!!!

  104. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Chas,

    Exactly.

  105. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Jed I am so sorry for you in your inability to find a place for yourself. How sad that you don’t know where you came from or where you are going.

    That is the peace in my belief. I know I came from God and one day will live with him for eternity. You can mock that as much as you like it won’t change it.

    If at the end of my life when the last breath leaves this body I inhabit now - I will leave believing that I am going to a far better place. If I didn’t then I won’t know that will I?

  106. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    but, outie, none of them described an elephant!!!

    Posted by: Chas. | September 17, 2007 at 04:33 PM

    Chas,

    Exactly.

    Posted by: Tom | September 17, 2007 at 04:37 PM

    Chas now see what you have done. You are supposed to be a shepherd of men and you are leading Tom away from the gate. I guess that is why you are an enigma to me.

  107. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Outie,I’m sure there would be many points of congruence, but just as many differences just between the two of them. If you add in the lists of all the other christians, you’d find that the differences so numerous, and the people so contentious over them that it must be assumed they’re talking about entirely different beings.

  108. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Your grandkids were taught religion in school? Yep, I’d have an issue with it.

    IF Heather had two mommies or two daddies, that is an appropriate discussion to have with the class, since the class is going to find out. I don’t see them talking about sex anywhere…did you?

    Is talking about having four grandparents talking about sex too?

  109. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    If we teach our kids the 3 “R’s” we are teaching them — W A R…

    I would hope we also teach them the 2 “R’s” — Respect & Responsibility!!! Without those, the other three are pretty stale!!

  110. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Granny,”If everytime I put a spark to a glob of goo I created life then I would give you that.”

    Actually life may have been created numerous times. Evolution has weeded it down to the one line we’ve discovered so far that has had the structure to survive everything the world has thrown at it (and the world ain’t done throwin’).

  111. outlander
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    “If you add in the lists of all the other christians, you’d find that the differences so numerous, and the people so contentious over them that it must be assumed they’re talking about entirely different beings.”

    That’s what is known as “legalism” Jed. You have put your finger on one of the problems facing Christian churches today.

    Christians will get so tied up in religion that we lose sight of the message of the saving gospel of Christ.

  112. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Granny,” How sad that you don’t know where you came from or where you are going.”

    Sorry to disappoint you, but it’s been a grand adventure! While I sometimes wish it were a bit less eventful, I wouldn’t trade lives with anyone- bank accounts maybe!

  113. Posted September 17, 2007 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Outie, thats why I keep saying that it is counter-productive to have a narrow view of the faith…

  114. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Outie,Unfortunately, that “Legalism” stems from the very root of humanity and is irresolvable, at least in this life. It isn’t “lost sight of,” it’s “never been found,” and we’re left entirely conceptually unequipped to find it. Please don’t give me that “faith” song and dance; that’s what got you in this mess to begin with!

  115. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Jed what you don’t realize about religion is that religion is simply a word. Christianity is a much more all encompassing word.

    I believe that the one and only Jesus Christ (Chas) is the son of the one true God. He came to earth, lived among men and gave his life that I might have eternal life.

    That is the basis of my faith. I recognize that different denominations have different tenets and beliefs but as long as we share that one we are alike. In my life I have been in several different denominations from Southern Baptist to Catholic. We are now members of a non-denominational church.

    Jed I truely enjoy my life. Look down on no one. Wouldn’t change a thing. NOt even a bank account. I read an article recently about the man who won the biggest lottery in history and five years after the fact all he had left was the money - his wife divorced him, his granddaugher committed suicide and he wished he had never won a dime.

    Pmom having explain the facts of life to my kids and some of my grandkids I can tell you that the story of Heather raised questions I thought were not age appropriate. We start sexualizing our kids way to early as it is. MOHO - but it doesn’t need to be taught in our schools.

  116. Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Grm… Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not leading Tom anywhere!!

  117. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Well you and I sure agree on that Chas.

  118. Max
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    We start sexualizing our kids way to early as it is. MOHO - but it doesn’t need to be taught in our schools.

    Posted by: ksgrm | September 17, 2007 at 05:01 PM

    Yes, we must teach sex education to our public grade school children.

    But, don’t dare teach Creation as one of the many theories of The Beginning.

    Teach all the sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll that you want, just don’t mention God.

  119. Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    KsGrm… There are a lot of Heathers that have two mommies, or maybe two daddies… That is because the world isnt the same as it was when you were in school, or when I was in school… Heather has Two Mommies is NOT a sexual book, as far as I can tell… It is just a book for kids from heterosexual homes, who cant understand what is going on elsewhere… Kids are curious critters… They ask questions, and we cant just tell them to go ask grandpa anymore!!

  120. Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Max,

    There’s many, many different faiths out there. Which one should be taught?

    Is it up to you to decide?

  121. Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    I am not going to say anything about non-denominational congregations… but that does explain a lot of things…. There are many understandings of WHO Jesus was/is/shall be…. There are numerous understandings of Atonement, and Redemption… even of Grace, and yes, Faith…

    Different denominations (or congregations) will have different understandings… Calvinists have a different understanding of Atonement than Pentecostals… Pentecostals different from Catholics…

    Is Baptism in the Name of Jesus equal to Salvation??? Or it might not be… in many cases….

    Does a person need sanctification to be TRULY SAVED… and when/how is that gotten??? At Baptism, or some later point in time??

    These are not just differences in denominations…. These are different ways of understanding SALVATION…

    Even the practice of Sacraments (oh, yea, some dont have such things… they have ordinances) …

    How MANY Sacraments??? 2, 2 1/2, 4, 7??? More?? And are the Sacraments the MEANS of GRACE?? Or, are they just obeying some command??? Are they proactive, or interactive???

    These are all issues of the understanding of SALVATION!!! Because they ALL talk of ways that various Christians come to accept Jesus!!!

    Some are baptized as babies, and thus, grow up in the life, and ministry and worship of the Church… Some arent!!

    Not EVERYBODY understands JESUS the same way!!

    Is he born of a Virgin??? And if so, what the heck does that mean??? Or maybe that isnt important??? Is the Crucifixion the completion of His work??? After all, he did say, It Is Finished!!!

    Some dont think He’s finished till the end of all things… Guess he didnt get it right the first time, maybe???

    I do believe that anybody but the extremely narrow viewpoints can understand this vast dilemma… Those with the very narrow viewpoints, Have a Nice Life, and a nice Eternity… The rest of us will struggle along life’s climbing way, with painful steps, and slow… And we will celebrate the “glad and golden” hours, and sing our praises at Christmas, and at Easter!! And the rest of the time, we will struggle living in God’s Grace and Faith, given as Free Gifts!!

    Gotta go for now…

    Peace to all!!

  122. outlander
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Outie, thats why I keep saying that it is counter-productive to have a narrow view of the faith…

    Posted by: Chas. | September 17, 2007 at 04:59 PM

    Chas: With all due respect, what I see you espousing is a lot of “happy Jesus” nonsense in which one religion is as good or as bad as another.

    That, my friend is not scriptural.

  123. Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    I dont believe it has to be scriptural to be TRUE, Outie…

    There are lots of things in this world that arent scriptural, that are TRUE… No Christian has the right to hold their faith up to the rest of the world, and proclaim that THEY are right, and the rest of the world is WRONG!!

    Dont you get it??? That’s exactly what is going on with the Middle East… THEY are telling that to the world, and WE say that they cant do that… While many of OUR folks turn right around and DO IT!!!

    Just look at the content of this Blog when we get into a religious subject!!!

    How DARE we go into Moslem nations, and tell them that they cant do with THEIR religion what many Christians do… Make the attempt to spread it world wide…

  124. outlander
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Well as a bonus Chas, that belief contradicts the words of Jesus. I know I don’t have to point you to where.

    It is a secularist’s position Chas.

  125. Posted September 17, 2007 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    It does seem odd outlander that Chas would deny scripture on spreading the word. :)

    I see the First Church of Democratic Hate Values are out in force tonight.

  126. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Chas you just muddle along in your ignorance of the scripture your profess to preach and share.

    Just don’t equate my faith with the radical muslims. I don’t bomb buildings. I don’t send my children into a mosque with a bomb attached to them, I don’t call others infidels and call for their death, I don’t espouse erasing an entire country. So get off that kick. You just make yourself look less than intelligent. I really don’t care what you believe but don’t pretend to be something you aren’t and not expect to be called on it.

    Live and let live. I believe that. By the same token I have the right to my beliefs as long as I don’t make you adopt them.

    Chas I do stand on something. Try it sometime.

  127. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Chas is spot on, and you can’t stand that he’s right. You KSgrm, was all against morning after pills for people even though you didn’t know how they really worked. You did that based on ignorance and faith. You don’t believe in live and let live or you wouldn’t be pushing your religious beliefs onto other people.

  128. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    It raised questions that you thought were not age appropriate? Well if they were asking, I guess they knew more than you think they did anyway.

    So what do you tell them? You simplify it. Some families have one mommy. Some families have one daddy. Some families have a mom and a dad, and some kids have two mommies.

    It’s not that hard.

  129. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Honestly, if you look at the entire universe, I think you’d have to be insane to think of how insignificant we are in the big scheme of things…and that there isn’t any other life out there other than us.

    We are but a speck of sand in all the sand in the world.

  130. Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    ‘You are here: Earth as seen from Mars’http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/?IDNumber=PIA05547

    Our only home…’Our Pale Blue Dot’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

    HT to http://desmogblog.com/

  131. Nathan
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Chas,

    Do you ever stop and wonder WHY the very people who routinely BASH Christians and Christianity: Tom, Jed, Political Mom, are the very ones praising you?

    Do you ever wonder why the Christians who will actually admit that Jesus is their Lord and Savior: Outlander, ksgrm, Kansas, and myself don’t agree with you?

    Coincidence? I think not.

    So tell us Chas, why are you a Christian? Is Jesus the key to salvation?

    If I believe that God is a golden calf, am I correct, because as you say: “God is whatever you conceive of him to be”

    The point is that many Christians do have a different UNDERSTANDING of Jesus, but they all still worship and follow Jesus.

    A different understanding of the things Jesus said doesn’t = believing in a different Jesus.

    All those churches I listed, I have been a member of.

    I am friends with people from all sorts of denominations. We have our differences on certain doctrines, but we still love and worship Christ and accept him as the one TRUE savior.

    Why don’t you?

  132. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Pmom you are one of the most intolerant people I have ever came across. You pretend to be so mainstream middle of the road as long as no one challenges you.

    I am not now nor have I ever pushed my religion on you. Why do you keep saying that? When we are on a blog and I give an opinion how is that any different than you giving an opinion. If I think 5 is to young for sex ed why is that any concern of yours unless you have something to do with setting ciriculum.

    Chas just compared the religion that is at the basis of his livliehood to radical islam and he wondered why no one respects him. How DARE he compare me to a muslim who murders on a daily basis!!

    Oh I slipped into Chas’s character there for a minute. Sorry.

  133. Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    As usuakl, KsGrm, you still havent learned to READ!!! IF you read what I said, you would readily admit that YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!! GO READ IT AGAIN, YOU NARROW MINDED RELIGIOUS BIGOT!~!

  134. Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    kSgRM, DOES CHRISTIANITY ATTEMPT TO SPREAD ITS FAITH WORLD WIDE, OR NOT???

    DOES ISLAM ATTEMPT TO SPREAD ITS FAITH WORLD WIDE, OR NOT???

    THAT IS THE COMPARISON…. SO GET IT RIGHT, FOR A CHANGE, AND MAYBE I WONT CALL YOU A RELIGIIOUS BIGOT!!

  135. Posted September 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    NATHAN — Do you believe in Jesus??? Of course you do…

    So, do you believe in baptizing Babies in the Name of Jesus??

    Do you believe in celebrating the Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, broken and shed for YOU???

    Do you believe in calling people forward to share in the Broken Body and Shed Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist???

    See, I believe those things…

    DO YOU????

  136. Elizabeth K
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    including discussions about cells and molecular biology that were over the heads of most viewers************************And therein lies the problem. Our kids have been dumbed down for several generations, and then we wonder why science is attacked. People fear things that they don’t understand. This only supports the need for “good” science in schools.

  137. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Nathan,Pardon me, but I don’t seem to recollect praising Chas. He does have one major advantage over you in that he actually thinks, is well-read, can carry on an interesting conversation and isn’t boring as sin! I probably disagree with him more often than I disagree with you simply because I talk to him more. I know a lost cause when I see one, and you’re more lost than most! Still, some viewpoints are hazardous to the world and must be opposed, so I occasionally respond to your posts. It’s also sometimes amusing to tease you into tying yourself in knots. You do it so well!

  138. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    “Dont you get it??? That’s exactly what is going on with the Middle East… THEY are telling that to the world, and WE say that they cant do that… While many of OUR folks turn right around and DO IT!!!”

    Excuse me Chas you are just plain wrong. “Most of our folks” are not doing what they are doing? We have missionaries in many countries. I assume your church does this also. Maybe not.

    Save those titles for yourself. You deserve them. Your quote. Deny it if you must. But don’t tell me that ‘most Christian’ are doing what the radical muslims are doing. Just doesn’t wash. Maybe your reading comprehension is messed up.

  139. Ed Friedemann
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Jed

    You said: “Of course we aren’t the “end product” of evolution. There is no “end product” of evolution. Evolution is a short-term solution to the demands of a dynamic habitat, not a long term goal, as much as you might like it to be.”

    You failed to understand what I said.

    Evolution is not just the physical adaption to the environment, but the evolution of the capacity to understand. IE: Increased numbers of senses and the world expands etc.

    We are only in the primal stages of intelligence and comprehension, therfore unable to perceive an end product of evolution or what that might consist of from a different and much more enlightened perspective.

    Am I too far over your head?

  140. ksgrm
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Ed just a personal observation but I think you are to far over YOUR head.

  141. Ed Friedemann
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    From your perspective, right?

  142. Jed
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    Granny,”Pmom having explain the facts of life to my kids and some of my grandkids I can tell you that the story of Heather raised questions I thought were not age appropriate.”

    I guess I find your attitude more than a bit strange; I’m in my 60’s, and had a number of gay and lesbian friends literally from birth.
    They were wonderful people who I would like to think had some influence on the way I turned out. They were friends of my parents whom we visited as much as money and distance would allow, and I have many wonderful memories associated with them. Unfortunately I’ve lost all of them over the last 10 years or so, but I’m infinitely better for having known them.I find the prevailing christian attitudes toward gay people at best ignorant beyond belief, and at worst sickeningly hateful. It doesn’t jibe at all with my experience.One of the first things you have to get over is the idea that gay is all about sex. Actually it’s all about people, same as heterosexuals. You don’t need to explain gay relationships to your 5yr-old anymore than you need to explain straight ones. It’s when you treat it as something weird or shameful that you find yourself in the position of explaining it to your grandkids.I’ve seen way too much hatred and violence over the years directed at friends who wanted nothing more than to live their lives, and it comes from such attitudes. Please stop indoctrinating children in such hatred! Everybody will be so much better off if it dies with the last generation!

  143. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Look Grm, it is the same. You both believe that your brand of religion should rule. You support the war and don’t even tell me you don’t parade the whole God issue around with the war because I’ve seen you do it.

    Nathan, I praise Chas only because he doesn’t insist on his religion ruling you or anyone else. It’s his personal faith, and he preaches to people who believe the same as he does. If someone comes to him looking for the way, he will tell them what he believes. What he won’t do is tell someone they’re not really Christians if they don’t choose his brand.

    I know that it is impossible for you to understand how a non christian can respect a christian…chas is how that happens. Then there are the Christians like you and Fred Phelps that I can’t respect.

    And don’t say you’re nothing like Phelps….you are..you’re just not as in your face in person as he is. So when you look at Phelps and wonder why the man is so intolerant and hateful…remember, that’s the SAME WAY I look at you.

  144. Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    KS Grm… WHERE did I say even ONE WORD about Radical Moslems??? THIS is why you are a Bigot… You think you can just twist around something somebody says, and make it into what YOU want it to say…. Well, lady, YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN!!!

    MY Point is very simple…. Christians, as you say, have missionaries spreading the message around the world….

    MOSLEMS have missionaries spreading their message around the world… It is a DIFFERENT message than Christianity… and Christians dont LIKE IT!!

    But, if the rest of the world told US what WE tell Islam, about spreading their “gospel” we would get MAD…..

    Now, try to REFUTE THAT!!!

    THIS TIME, READ IT RIGHT!!! AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY DAMN KEYBOARD…. I AM GETTING VERY FED UP WITH YOUR TYPE!!!

  145. Catherine
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    What people miss from the Biblical Languages

    The Biblical Hebrew word for day is “Yom,” which is translated 53 different ways into English. Often the Semitic peoples could use “Yom” to describe one day within a complete time period, such as the reign of a king. So which meaning is the correct one to use in translating Genesis chapters 1 and 2? Remember that the solar sun and moon are not created until the fourth day, so how can there be evening and morning without the solar sun?

  146. political_mom
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    I still want to know how Grm thinks talking about how someone has a mommy is the same as referring to sex.

  147. Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Me too PMom

  148. Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    I’ve wondered that myself, Catherine… But you better ask one of these self proclaimed Bible Experts, that believes in the RIGHT JESUS if you want an answer… I would only be called “leading you the wrong direction”

  149. Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    And while we are at it, where did the light and dark come from that are called night and day??? BEFORE sun and moon are created on Day 4… ???

  150. Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    Some of us believe in the “Power of Myth” as Joseph Campbell calls it… Others dont!!

  151. Tara
    Posted September 17, 2007 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Ahahahaha…

    I think biblical creationism should be taught as one of the many theories of the earth’s origins. I sincerely do, its a damn cool story.

    I think it should be taught along with all the other major creation stories of other religions.I think that this should be taught in a comparative religions