Some make more than one donation
Many make none
Posted on 11/26/2012 2:10:21 AM PST by kathsua
Bill Nye, the so-called "science guy," recently said that the teaching of creation to young people is harmful. I beg to differ.
Does anyone remember Columbine? The shooters were not wearing Christian T-shirts. They were wearing evolutionary t-shirts touting "natural selection." These losers apparently believed that if they were only the results of mutation and natural selection over millions of years, with no God or afterlife, then why not vent their anger and go out with a bang?
----------advertisement-----------
It's little wonder that they were fans of Adolf Hitler, another avid disciple of Darwin, and committed their atrocities on his birthday.
Perhaps it's the dogmatic teaching of evolution that is harmful to young people. Bill Nye and the scientific Gestapo refuse to allow even a hearing for "intelligent design" in the pubic schools. What are they afraid of? The subject of origins clearly has religious connotations for both theism and atheism. It's unfair to accept the evidence for one view as science, and reject the evidence for the other as religion.
Some Christians feel compelled (coerced is more like it) to compromise and accept evolution as God's method of creation. I could do that if the evidence was truly convincing, but it's not. Evolution is simply assumed, not proven.
As Dr. Morris points out, it's an exercise in circular reasoning: They begin with the assumption that evolution is true, proceed to interpret all of the evidence to fit that model, and then offer it as "proof" for evolution. The assumption of evolution becomes the proof for evolution. That's not science. Dr. Wiersbe calls it "a failure to distinguish information from imagination."
I don't mean to insult anybody's religion, but evolution has to be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, and it's not always harmless, either, as demonstrated by the Columbine shooters. How much better to teach children that we are here because "In the beginning, God created ...," and because of that, life is full of meaning and purpose, for time and eternity.
Some may laugh at us for believing in Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago, but we laugh at them for believing in molecule to man through mutation and natural selection millions of years ago.
One day we'll see who has the last laugh.
Judge for yourself where it leads.
The evidence for evolution, as revealed by God, is abundant. If you choose not to believe it that is your choice.
But don’t expect people to agree with nor respect that choice.
And just which theory of evolution are we talking about, anyhow? :)
<>
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago. .....
"....once man consciously enters the sensorium of time and space, he is implicitly aware of both Absolute and Infinite, and therefore Love, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Virtue, and Eternity. These are the things that define man, not his genome. ....."
<>
"what you don't know" is "more relevant than what you do know." "....what we know is just a tiny fraction of what there is to know. But more problematically, so much of what we know just isn't so..." HERE
He's a popular figure, but about as credible as a masked wrestler.
He's demonstrably harmful to all advocates of the scientific method.
There is no final conflict between facts, and Christians and "Sciencismists" are united by a belief that truth exists, though both also believe truth, on the level of natural order, can never be known exhaustively.
As a believer in Christ, as one who believes that Jesus Christ is who he was reliably reported to be, I do not pretend to know how much time passed between the first and second verses of Genesis. Bishop Usher's timeline is not sound doctrine, and it never was.
The distinction between those who believe Truth exists and can be discovered and those who think pursuit of final truth is vain is a much eeper chasm than the popular but false dichotomy separating Creationists and Evolutionists.
Both groups believe in a uniformity of natural causes, though their loudest proponents would be at pains to understand how this separates both groups from the majority of people living in darkness.
Christians believe in a uniformity of natural causes, but they do not believe it to be a closed loop.
That is the only, though very important, distinction between these two touchy groups fighting for state sovereignty.
At the heart of popular evolution is the prior assumption of a uniformity of natural causes as a closed system. That assumption is an article of faith.
That makes it a religion.
People who claim there are only two possible explanations for anything are either knaves or fools.
Anyone remember the hundreds of millions murdered by these “smart” atheists in the Soviet Union? How about China, Viet Nam, Cuba...?
“Science gestapo” is a good name for them. Is this guy gay? Behind a lot of this smash mouth anti-Christian rage in the name of science, is a fanny longing for the kid next door.
"...the intrinsic relation between man and mystery is not "prepositional" but essential. This relation is deeper than language, as language too is predicated upon it. If there were no mystery, why then there would be absolutely nothing to talk about and no one to say or hear it. You know the type.
bttt
OB: People who claim there are only two possible explanations for anything are either knaves or fools.
Spirited: And some people-—you for example-—are gullible, shallow thinkers. Read on:
“I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores,” confessed Sir Julian Huxley, former president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin’s colleague Thomas Huxley.
We objected to Biblical morality “because it interfered with our sexual freedom,” said Aldous Huxley in agreement.
“I do not want to believe in God,” confessed Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. “Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution,” said Wald in a Scientific American magazine article.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” Richard Lewontin (b. 1929), PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University)
Paul Davies said elsewhere:
“… Darwin’s celebrated tome On the Origin of Species, which had been published just three years before Pasteur’s experiments, sought to discredit the need for God to create the species by showing how one species can transmute into another. But Darwin’s account left open the problem of how the first living thing came to exist. Unless life had always existed, at least one species — the first — cannot have come to exist by transmutation from another species, only by transmutation from nonliving matter. Darwin himself wrote, some years later: ‘I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favour of so-called Spontaneous Generation.’ Yet, in the absence of a miracle, life could have originated only by some sort of spontaneous generation. Darwin’s theory of evolution and Pasteur’s theory that only life begets life cannot both have been completely right.” (The Fifth Miracle, 1999, p. 83, Paul Davies (b. 1946), Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science)
Davies naturally hoped that spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) might eventually prove true. But after more than one hundred years of combining inert chemicals in the vain hope that life might finally emerge, Davies and many other naturalists have abandoned abiogenesis in favor of panspermia.
Panspermia is the idea that life on earth was accidentally seeded by meteorites containing the essential building blocks of life or perhaps by highly evolved extraterrestrials who for billions of years have been guiding the evolution of man. The extraterrestrial idea was favored by Arthur C. Clarke in his book, “Childhood’s End” and a variation on this theme has recently been advanced by Davies, Francis Crick, and Ralph Pudritz of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. (Fall of mankind, L. Kimball, Renew America, June 20, 2012)
Panspermia does not solve the origin of life problem. It merely moves it out into deep space.
Louis Pasteur definitively disproved spontaneous generation (abiogenesis), the indispensable ground of evolutionary naturalism. So not only is naturalism an empty vain conceit but so too are Darwinism and Teilhardism, which springboards off of Darwinism.
All of this means that the triune Creator exists and further that wittingly or unwittingly, evolutionary naturalists have made a covenant with death.
“I am somewhat amused by people who are dead-set on believing that the story of creation is literal...”
Spirited: The proposition that Genesis is not to be taken as a historic account of creation was first proposed by Christian-era Gnostics and other heretics who in common with pagan sages were averse to matter, i.e., their own bodies, their maleness or femaleness and the finiteness of their minds. In “Adversus nationes” (2.37) the Gnostic sage Arnobius complains,
“If souls were of the Lord’s race...They would never come to these terrestrial places (and) inhabit opaque bodies and (be) mixed with humors and blood, in receptacles of excrement, in vases of urine.” (The Pagan Temptation, Thomas Molnar, p. 27)
So regarding your amusement, there is not one thing new, enlightened, or scientific about it. Either it arises from shallow thinking and ignorance puffed by pride or it is an expression of Gnostic contempt.
“I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores,” confessed Sir Julian Huxley, former president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin’s colleague Thomas Huxley.
You have a source for this?
You have a source for this?
Spirited: Absolutely. But as you are the one in need of “thinking deeper” than a shallow piece of paper it would be good for you to do the work of tracing the quote.
bttt
“Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000.”
I only know of 2 creationist that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old in the first place. So to paint with such a broad brush of all creationists is rather ignorant. I bet you don’t even know where that 6,000 figure came from with having to Google it first.
“In the world of real science, you can’t just make up some assertion, call it a theory, and expect anyone to believe you.”
Sure you can, liberals do it all the time; global warming, ozone hole, DDT, etc.
I'm well aware of the practice of attributing quotes to Huxley, Darwin, Voltaire, JK Rowling, and others. And while it can be amusing to work out how a particular pious lie originated, it helps to have a clew to start with.
If you were really interested in the truth you would go to a search engine, type in the appropriate key words and then discover for yourself the accuracy of the quote in question. By your jeering non-interest you expose both your willful ignorance and hatred of truth.
I had a long "discussion" a while back with one of the more adamant creationists around here about what the "windows of heaven" (aka "floodgates of the heavens") referred to if not actual holes in something solid. She was--she had to be--comfortable with that phrase being a metaphor, offering a half dozen possible interpretations, but insisted that the creation account had to be taken literally. That's when I gave up on expecting any consistency in their arguments.
Really? Do you have any clue how the scientific method works, or how theories are developed and refined over time? Have you ever examined any evolutionary evidence for yourself, and do you have any of the background knowledge needed to understand the evidence? (And by evidence, I mean any evidence, not just the fossil record. Geology, molecular biology, taxonomy, astronomy... any number of science disciplines will do.)
Yeah, I didn't think so. How about you learn the actual basis of the theories regarding the nature of the physical world before you try to make comments about it?
You're not interested in science, that's fine. You have a right to not learn science if you don't want to. What this thread is about is Bill Nye's comment that religion should not be taught in science classes, and that is what I commented on. I completely agree with Bill Nye on this topic.
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.