Posted on 08/02/2005 4:16:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Google "Paul Titus Slavery" ... I'm surprised that you are unaware of this. Paul said that slaves should not rebel against their masters and that was seen in the bible belt as Paul's endorsement of slavery. Of course now, Christians claim that it was a ludicrous way of looking at it.
The point is that the bible is not as straightforward at it seems. What may seem very straightforward during on era can be seen as a very silly interpretation in a later era.
"I don't believe it...Bush can't be that stupid, can he?"
Yes.
You know, it's just common netiquette to ping someone to a post where he is mentioned, even in passing.
Actually, in all likelihood if the evolution vs. ID issue becomes prominent in the next presidential election, the GOP candidate will endorse allowing ID to be taught in science classes and 'Rat candidate Hillary Clinton will do so as well. Certainly Hillary is a devout evolutionist but as part of her effort to win red state voters she'll pretend to tolerate the opposing view.
exodus 2-11, 21 22
As it has been discussed for days, some of the scientists state that they have no problem with evolution.
They signed something that something along the lines of "The Theory of Evolution does not completely explain biological life". I'd sign that too, as of course the Theory is not complete - no theory ever is.
Creationsists are using world play to dishonestly represent a position.
"And, before you get into a high dudgeon about this lack of acceptance at face value of what claims to be the Word of God (a circular argument if I ever heard one), please note my comments that any interpretation of Scripture I accept must conform to reality."
It's interesting to me to consider what our reaction today would be if an old man walked down from a mountain holding tablets and proclaiming to have talked to God via a burning bush. Would he be revered as a modern-day Moses or committed to a mental hospital?
Would anyone believe someone proclaiming to be the Son of God...or think that person was insane?
I'm not sure what I'd think...but I'm pretty sure what 'society' would think.
You and me both. However, you know how the MSM will spin this.
And what is driving it is cold, naked FEAR.
Here is a good place to start. :-)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
I am well aware of what Paul said and I also don't think he was endorsing slavery. You are saying that people's interpretation changes. The facts of the Bible haven't changed. Each is free to interpret as they wish. However, that doesn't change what God said or meant.
No. Anyone may comment on the state of education. However, people who work in the sciences and in the educational industry should be considered more authoritative that some random person.
Furthermore, your post betrays prejudice against the the educational and scientific professions. All teachers are not necessarily Democrats, neither are all scientists all atheists. Many people on these thread have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that there is conservative and/or Republican support and agreement with mainstream evolutionary theory. There are many people working in the sciences today who have faith and at the same time understand what evolutionary theory means and support it, as well. Many people who work in the sciences would be Republicans except for the public perception (mistaken, I believe) that conservatism is hostile to science. Unfortunately, the president has given ammunition to those people who want to protray conservatives and or Republicans as hostile and ignorant of science.
The operative word being MOST. So the debate is not legitimate to you because there aren't enough scientists on the other side? Interesting POV on a conservative forum.........that the minority is necessarily wrong and should be silenced....
I believe that 'most' is too weak a qualifier. I believe it is more correct to say that the vast majority of scientists disagree without. Science has room for disagreement, your petty carping that the 'minority should be silenced' not withstanding.
However, basic science class is not the place to have this debate. Basic science classes should teach the predominant theory. I say this for two reasons.
First, there is simply not enough time in the school year devoted to science education to cover every possible minority scientific theory that exists the life and earth sciences. While there are controversies within evolutionary theory, the modern synthesis theory (comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and subsequent theories of molecular biology that have arisen since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, Franklin, and others) the modern synthesis theory itself is not especially controversial. Evolutionary theory should not be singled out for special treatment. If basic science education must 'teach the controversy' regarding evolution this opens a can of worms for all science education to be diluted by digressions from all over the map. Children already spend far too little time in science class. There are limited resources and teaching every controversial subject would leave no time for teaching the basics. Though one would not get the impression from reading these threads, evolutionary theory is basic science. If there is a place for a debate on the merits of evolutioniary theory versus creationism, it belongs in philosophy class, not science class. Science curriculum should be geared towards the dominant paradigm.
Second, the public school system is largely geared towards college prep. If the purpose if to prepare children for university, then science education must teach those concepts to which students will be exposed when they go on to higher education. Students going into the sciences, especially the life sciences, are going to need a good foundation in evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory is foundational to our understanding of biology. As I said above, evolutionary theory is not especially controversial in the sciences. To the contrary, evolutionary theory is one of the most well-supported theories by virtue of the amount of physical evidence as well as experimental support. Evolutionary theory is what students are going to be taught when they get to university, therefore it stands to reasons that college prepartory schools should direct their curriculum accordingly.
I believe in actually educating youth, and you mock it.
This is bunk. These threads suck. Posts like yours is one of the reasons they suck.
Yup academia is a hot bed of "low tax, pro second-amendment, small government types" in one of the parallel universes. Which one are you in?
Yeah, all creationists are dishonest.
"I interpret the Bible by what it says. Most of it is pretty straightforward."
This is the essence of Biblical faith. You are dead right. This is what the Reformers were after at the end of the day.
Believing the Bible is not necessary for salvation, according to the Bible itself ("believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, and rose again, and you will be saved"). But if you desire to grow and to have intellectual and spiritual integrity, this is the starting point and the end point. And somewhere along the way, you have to say, "to hell with evolution" and everything else that is contradicted by Scripture. Not everyone can handle that.
Absolutely! This is no different than the struggle over heliocentrism a few centuries back.
No, most are sincerely, but wilfully, ignorant.
I'm glad to see you admit that you think President Bush was "promoting creationism"
I don't think he was. I think he had poor science advice as to whether creation or "ID" contains material appropriate for a -science- class.
But the subject was whether you respond to my posts.
I didn't say that in my post. I said that the Creationist pushing that list as a mainstream revolution against the Theory of Evolution is dishonest and most are intelligent enough to realize what they are doing is wrong. Somehow lying for God is ok.
LOL...Yeah, and don't forget the "impending Ice Age" that we were warned about as children in the 1970s! Yes, the Enviro-authoritarians were "scientifically proving" that this was a certainty, so they preached the same type of godless doom, gloom, and alarmist tomfoolery back then, as well. It was the "same," only "different"! LOL...
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.