Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
In his op-ed "Evolution's bottom line," published in The New York Times (May 12, 2006), Holden Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples.
In places where evolution education is undermined, he argues, it isn't only students who will be the poorer for it: "Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?" He concludes, "Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school."
Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.
Psalms 2:12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Please try to restrain your applause. :-)
Cheers!
Cheers!
I wonder if I said something agnostic/atheist sounding? I'm a Christian-- I was quoting David Horowitz just because I think his point about conservatism not only applies to conservatism but encompasses much of the negative aspect of religion--- that is, that we must not put ourselves God's pedestal.
I'll check out those books-- I've enjoyed reading students of Schaffer like Nancy Pearcy and found Belloc on Islam very bracing and, sadly for us, prescient.
RAmen brother!
Dread78645, I somehow that post, of Almagests #529...thanks for commenting on it, so that I could go back and see what he said...
Almagest...I would be curious to see your Calvinist twist, that you mentioned...I for one would like to see it...
Martin Defines cultism in his own terms. If you read the opening chapter of Kingdom of the Cults, you'll find his approach to dealing with the subject. The one failing of his definition is stark in that it fails to include a definition that addresses the Apostacy of Revelation. It fails to address a cult that looks, smells, sounds and breathes so much like Christianity as to be nearly indistinguishable in it's appearance from Christianity and yet follows 'anti-christos' anti meaning In the place of Christ, another Christ, etc. So if the terms all look the same and the names all look the same while having an appearance of "classic theology" as he puts it, they would get a pass on appearance. Catholicism fits this framing.
Catholcism says it believes in Christ; but, it doesn't believe in the Christ of Hebrews that sacrificed once for all time and sat down. Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]." ..having obtained for us That is past tense ownership. There is nothing more to obtain. There is nothing more to offer the Father in heaven in purchase of anything - Hebrews says he already owns it. Catholicism doesn't believe or teach that. Hebrews is full of these things that together show us that while having the same terminology, the definitions for the terms differ and the doctrines built around them are opposites. Catholicism believes in a system of grace built upon works. Hebrews rejects this flatly. But rejecting Hebrews, compounds the errors of Catholic understanding of salvation. Catholicism has all the appearances; but, it is quite a different religion apart from Christianity. It is a cult. And I properly label it so because the bottom line for a cult is having an appearance of Christianity while denying Christianity in large part by virtue of irreconcileables.. be it doctrine, terms, pagan practices, etc. Catholicism rejects Biblical salvation and crafts it's own form, following another Christ and another path to heaven that it has defined for itself. That is no small rejection.
You would know.
rofl
I read your last post with interest...so far on FR, in the few months that I have actually read some of the religious threads, and the crevo threads, I have heard several different religions, which make the claim that they are Christian, called either 'cults', or 'Non-Christian' by other people...these would be Catholicism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists....I am quite sure, that somewhere along the line, other religions have been put into this class as well..
Now I am not a member of any of these religions, so what anyone else says about them does not affect me personally...I guess what I am wondering, is why people have to use the 'cult' term, or 'Non-Christian' term...I guess I would prefer to see others say, well ok, they claim to be a Christian religion, but I have issues with parts of their doctrine, so I will just say, that I dont agree with much of what they preach... I guess, I personally take them at their word, that if they claim to believe that their salvation is through Jesus Christ, they are indeed Christian...
I guess my viewpoint, is just different from yours...anyway, your post was interesting...
"I guess my viewpoint, is just different from yours...anyway, your post was interesting..."
Not as interesting as his other, earlier post:
"The thing that penetrates the fog to my way of thinking is the fact that Hitler was Roman Catholic and Rome embraces Darwinism. Darwinism is, bottom line, racist as Darwin's original title for 'origin of the species' shows. Rome and Hitler both supported Darwin. Rome and Hitler both supported replacement theology. And Hitler was a dyed in the wool racist just as Darwin *appears* to have been. Rome had already much earlier in History been a plague to the Jews. Darwin just Gave Hitler another excuse. Go figure."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1631243/posts?page=433#433
Well, you wouldn't let a guy knocking on your door into your house on the word through the door that he's a cop and has a warrant.. not unless you're an idiot anyway and I don't believe that you are. Instead, you'd do what we all do, ask for ID, a badge, demand to see the warrant and call an attorney before the presumed officer is allowed to step one foot inside to do anything. And that is dealing with your physical self and possession. Yet, you rationalize that when it comes to something far more important, your soul, you should just take their word for it to be nice..
I'll let that sink in.
We differentiate between what is X and what is not X because the only way we know we're not being defrauded is in being sure that X really is X when claiming to be X. Thus, we do not feel it expedient to merely believe that someone or some group is Christian merely because they claim to be and their 'self-esteem' might be damaged by hearing that they are not.
Their self-esteem doesn't trump my right or anyone elses right not to be defrauded.
Look at Revelation wherein followers of the Beast think they are following Christ, yet, by taking the mark of the Beast, they are damned. It rather underscores the need for being sure of what you are following and accepting as true. You can truth someone into heaven and self-esteem them straight to hell.
While I didn't state Roman Catholicism to be racist, another here offered that it is historically a factual label to place.
Apparently your self-esteem is injured more by the accusation rather than the fact that would prove it. I offered neither, yet you don't seem to have a problem with the one who did. IE, it isn't about the charge, it's about trying to make hay and hang it on me. Go figure.
Indeed not, mustn't get the churches' hands dirty--just pass them on the secular authorities who will be happy to complete the job, in return for, say, a free pass into heaven...as they did at the beginning of the 1st crusade against the infidels--any old infidels seemed to do.
St. Matthew is no more responsible for Hitler twisting his Gospel than is Darwin responsible for Hitler twisting his theory.
I believe I disagree, Mathhew and John had a distinct agenda that colored their choice of rhetoric, because one of the functions of the bible was to undercut the Orthodox hebrew religion, the chief source of converts to christianity. Thereby initiating the practice of using biblical passages to condemn jews--as happened again and again on easter sunday, when the story of the passion of christ repeatedly sparked pograms throughout the Middle Ages. Unless, of course, said jew was sephardic, and trying to pass as christian, than the Society of Jesus was allowed to murder them directly, after a prescribed amount of Holy torture.
Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way;
Yet simple nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topt hill, an humbler Heav'n,
Some safer world in depth of woods embraced,
Some happier island in the wat'ry waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold.
To be, contents his natural desire;
He asks no Angel's wing, no Seraph's fire;
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, 1733-1734
However, there is a great difference between making a judgement about whether of not someone is a cop and has a warrant, and whether or not someone is actually a Christian...the steps one would take to verify that the cop is actually doing his required duty, according to the law, and my getting my attorney to my house, are all pretty straightforward things...not really subject to interpretation...
However, when trying to determine if one is a Christian, much of that comes down to ones own personal interpretation of the Bible...and there is the problem...no one on this earth, not one single person, not me, not you, has the market on what the truth of every single passage in the Bible means, or on what every single word means...so much of it comes down to personal interpretation....its not as straightforward as your propose it is...
"While I didn't state Roman Catholicism to be racist, another here offered that it is historically a factual label to place. "
You did too say it was racist. And those other people are talking about the past of the Church, well before Hitler. You made it obvious that you think Hitler was just following the long established teachings and practices of the Church, which you erroneously claim is not Christian but a cult. You are an anti-Catholic bigot, as your posting history testifies to.
" Apparently your self-esteem is injured more by the accusation rather than the fact that would prove it."
Why would an attack on Catholicism affect my self-asteem?
BTW, Darwin never wrote a book with the words *The Origin of the Species* in the title. And the *races* in that title was not human races.
Went back through my posts and don't see *troll* anywhere in it. Can you cite that?
800
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.