Posted on 12/01/2008 2:33:55 PM PST by Fichori
First published:
Creation 19(4):22–23
September 1997
by Carl Wieland
The chilling revelations of a recent television documentary1 expose the disturbing consequences of evolutionary ways of thinking. Beginning in the 1920s, many thousands of people in the United States were sterilised against their will and without their consent, to prevent ‘undesirable breeding’. Over 8,000 of these procedures took place at a major centre to which such ‘undesirables’ were sent, in Lynchburg, Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
HIRE AN ATTORNEY!
SUE UNTIL SILENCED!
REPEAT UNTIL EVERY THREAT ERADICATED AND POPULATION SUBDUED AND SOCIALIZED PER NEA DICTATE!
>>I.D. IS creationism<<
No it isn’t.
The Discovery Insitute may be made up of Creationists, but ID as taught to Catholic students is not creationism.
We, of course state that the Bible is the word of Our Lord, but also teach that other theories may explain things as well. Above all things, Our Lord started everything.
That is the part of the puzzle that evolution people seem not to like.
I.D. is a specific political movement with a specific scientific and philosophical claim.
Catholic school kids are taught evolution. They are also taught that God is in charge of the universe and created the universe. These are not contradictory stances.
Catholic school kids are NOT taught that natural selection is a weak mechanism for changing biological systems and that the direct intervention of a “designer” is needed to get the needed results. That is I.D. and it is NOT taught in Catholic schools.
In fact Pope Benedict XVI recently held a council on evolution and nobody from the I.D. movement was invited.
So it begs the question, did the creationists become prominent in the ID definition because God was taken out of science?
Did they come to the forefront of ID because those like me were totally disregarded anyway?
If you look at the recent history of creationism, creation "science" was created in the 1960s in reaction to a Supreme Court decision. It didn't fool people for long; in 1988, creation "science" was also found to be religion by the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard). That decision in turn led to the creation of intelligent design (ID) in an effort to circumvent this court ruling. The evidence is quite clear on this.
>>By the way, there is no credible evidence for “’beings’ from another planet ‘seeding’ the Earth.”<<
It’s from the mouth of Dawkins.
Dawkins noted that he was pressed by the interviewer to come up with increasingly unlikely scenarios, and finally ended up with aliens, the least likely of all. In a typically dishonest edit, that is the one the editors of Expelled chose to use.
That's not journalism; that's dishonest propaganda.
[[>>I.D. IS creationism<<
No it isn’t.
The Discovery Insitute may be made up of Creationists, but ID as taught to Catholic students is not creationism.]]
Allmen knows ID isn’t creationism- but he doesn’t care- He doesn’t care about hte FACTS, all he’s interested in is being petty while ignoring hte facts- that’s how soem folks operate- the truth is too much to counter- so their only recourse is to make false accusations time and time again, hoping that iof they repeat it enough times that it will somehow make hte truth go away- Their position isn’t strong enough to stand on it’s own
No, that is how YOU are defining it. How do you think Pope Benedict defines it?
Our curriculums use the theory of intelligent design. Some (with Mother of Divine Grace, I'm almost positive) even use the words. When you define ID as something that one organization says it is, in actuality, you are disregarding those of us who believe that Our Lord started everything.
And B16 didn't have to “invite” and ID people to the council. The Vatican is full of them.
Instead of refining what one organization says ID is, why not refute what Expelled says. Show where a University allowed what ID really is. Then you have no argument.
No sense in having a conveersion with an obtuse mentality.
[[The problem is that ID has not been made a separate field,]]
Yes it has Coyoteman- and you know it- You just refuse to admit it Infact many creationists have seperated themselves from ID because ID refuses to state who or what the designer might be, and instead concentrates wholly on empiracle evidence and follow the clues to find enough evidence to present a case that nature could NOT possibly have formed the complex designs witnessed in science bioligy. I’m not sure how many times this needs to be stated to you- but apparently, it’s quite a few times as you STILL seem content raising the false claim that because SOME people have OPINIONS BEYOND the ACTUAL SCIENCE of ID, then the whole system is nullified by association to the OPINIONS of SOME- As you FULL WELL KNOW Coyote- many ID proponents do NOT even beleive in God but non-the-less see the facts of bioligy for the serious problems it presents for Maceroevolution and who beleive that naturalism can NOT possibly have worked and that another explanation is NEEDED= that is ALL they beleive and make NO claims beyond hte science- Sceintsists from all walks of life and beliefs and non beliefs have foudn serious problems with naturalism, and see it for what it is- an unworkable hypothesis, and have sought a much more viable explanation.
Trying to malign the whole organization because a few people have OPINIONS abotu ID OUTSIDE of hte ACTUAL SCIENCE is a silly petty little argument tactic that SHOULD BE beneath a scientist liek yourself- but apparently blind congregationaliusts liek yourself just can’t practice objective science or mature arguments
The Discover institute coined the phrase “Intelligent Design”, popularized it, and gave it a specific claim; namely that the “designer”, as a necessity, must intervene directly to overcome the limitations of the system ‘designed’ to change living systems which was somehow not very well designed in the first place, needing constant tinkering and such.
I am not disregarding those of us who believe that Our Lord started everything. I AM one of those who believes the same. This is not in any way “I.D.”, I would call it “U.D.” or ‘ultimate design’.
>>If you look at the recent history of creationism, creation “science” was created in the 1960s in reaction to a Supreme Court decision. It didn’t fool people for long; in 1988, creation “science” was also found to be religion by the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard). That decision in turn led to the creation of intelligent design (ID) in an effort to circumvent this court ruling. The evidence is quite clear on this.<<
Really, the only thing clear to me is that from the Scopes trial on, religion has been slashed from education. And the education establishment has done swimmingly putting out a product compared to religious schools /s/
If you can prove that Expelled is wrong, and the idea of a “Creator” is allowed in university, I would like to see it.
>>Dawkins noted that he was pressed by the interviewer to come up with increasingly unlikely scenarios, and finally ended up with aliens, the least likely of all. In a typically dishonest edit, that is the one the editors of Expelled chose to use.<<
Unless Dawkins sues for the rights to the rough cut of that film and exposes it, I can’t believe him. I don’t find the man credible at all.
And like Barack stating “his Muslim religion” is a slip that I would have never made, I also would have never come up with aliens, even when pressed.
Don’t forget global genocide and thermonuclear holocaust.
That's great to hear. Seriously.
But Catholics do say ID is what we believe in. Then we are looked down upon and this theory is thrown out of the schools.
I mean really, I'm homeschooling. I give my kids all sides. But if I want them to succeed as scientists one day (one wants to teach etymology, the other a zoologist AND Deal or No Deal Models LOL!) then they should not be shunned or censored because of what they believe. That's not America.
I.D. is not a scientific theory as stated by the Discovery institute.
The notion that everything was created by God is also not a scientific theory. It is a truth that is held in the heart, and not subject to experimental confirmation or falsification.
Science can neither include or discount the possibility of God and still be scientific.
No good can come out of this thread.
Depends on whether or not your an evolutionist I guess.
Haven’t you heard the saying, those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it?
The eugenics movement is something that we would be wise to learn from and not repeat.
>>Can I get a source for a prominent Catholic saying they believe in I.D. (with the caps)?
I.D. is not a scientific theory as stated by the Discovery institute.<<
I’ll have to talk to someone at my parish teaching with MoDG and ask for the name of the science book she is using. Our book, “Exploring Creation” does not use the words that I can find.
Until I can get the name of their book, please see that B16 does believe in Intelligent Design...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401950/Pope-sacks-astronomer-evolution-debate.html
Here is Pope Benedict XVI on the subject of creationism and evolution.
“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
>>“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.<<
Exactly, so where is the proof that the “God” theory is allowed in the University?
That is really what Expelled was about.
(and btw, if you believe the “Vatican” stating that the reassignment was all “preplanned”, you don’t really know how the Vatican works.)
There is no “God theory”. God is not a scientific theory as the actions of God are not measurable, predictable, and replicable.
God has no place in science class, either for or against. God and HIS actions and HIS plan are not subject to scientific analysis.
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.