Posted on 10/23/2005 12:06:32 AM PDT by GretchenM
That the survey could go either way + or - 50%:)
Think about that one for a minute...
The “origin of species” is rooted in the idea of a singularity: the mechanics of the DNA molecule. All species of Terran life has it. Like the singularity of the “Big Bang” theory, the two are categorically inseparable as immaculate conceptions. It only takes a mere application of logic.
The perplexing question of human origin from a common ancestor to apes is even more problematic. According to evolutionary theory, humans (homo sapiens) did not descend from apes, but from some “missing link.” Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilus, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers. Logic also suggests in order to “descend,” there has to be something to descend from and something to ascend to.
Evolutionary theory, rooted in the universal human dissatisfaction for mortality is a vain search for human origin(s), an attempt to rationalize a yearning for connection to something eternal.
Now, since nobody really knows the answers, it is only a scientific method that would consider all points of view on the issue in educational settings. To do otherwise would be like students dancing around totems, witch doctors proclaiming intellectual taboos and making sacrifices.
This is far worse than what the ersatz secularists accuse the creationists of doing!
It's a very good thing Science isn't put to a vote. A majority of American Newspapers publish horoscopes too.
Same here. Lots of fun watching people try to reconcile their beliefs with known science. Some, like you and I, agree that God created evolution. Others are so stuck on their beliefs that they can't see past the covers of their Bible. Others, who believe strictly in evolution, can't give God any credit. It's fun to watch.
I would have to agree, but for a slightly different reason.
If you look at the underlying current in each point of view, you will see that the discussion is a thin veil over the real issue: morality.
If the creationists are right, then there is a God who can and does make a moral claim on our lives.
If the evolutionists are right, then NO ONE can make a moral claim on our lives.
When I see these debates, THAT is what I see being discussed.
2 cents.
"Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters, nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be God (as understood in the Christian tradition)."
So, from that point, what exactly would you teach the children? About who the designer may be? How the designer may have had an influence on creation and/or evolution? To do that you would have to use books that explain these different Intelligent Designers. Where do we get these books and ideas of these intelligent designers? Well I can think of many but the Bible comes quickly to mind. So now that we're teaching ID we need to teach about the designer and how he designed it. Right?
Sounds like Sunday School to me and the students can attend those on their own accord, not forced upon them at public school.
Instead of teaching our kids different "beliefs" on who the designer possibly is and what role this designer possibly played, we say Darwin's theory is a scientific theory and some believe there may be an intelligent designer and it's up to you students to decide what you want to believe in so here in school we will teach biology and the theory of evolution and if you want to learn about Intelligent Design then You need to go to church or wherever you decide to find enlightenment on the creator of your choosing.
And, from this your conclusion is . . . ?
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining what is correct for human behavior. Today, “morals” are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins where transfiguration is from pantheons of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Plato’s Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. “Morals” are a deceptive replacement for the “avoidance of sin.”
But since we are all properly obeying * the modern interpretation * of the First Amendment... Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right, wrong, evil, moral: all of these are purely religious. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. * The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. * (The “modern interpretation.”) Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong. Excuse the sarcasm...
Therefore, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. However, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
"Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. However, it also has its costs as well. "
Contraception is a lot cheaper, and no one has to die.
...and you STILL get to sleep late. ;)
No, it is not.
Evolutionist theory rests entirely upon a presupposition that life is an immaculate conception.
Think about that one for a minute...
The “origin of species” is rooted in the idea of a singularity: the mechanics of the DNA molecule. All species of Terran life has it. Like the singularity of the “Big Bang” theory, the two are categorically inseparable as immaculate conceptions. It only takes a mere application of logic.
The perplexing question of human origin from a common ancestor to apes is even more problematic. According to evolutionary theory, humans (homo sapiens) did not descend from apes, but from some “missing link.” Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilis, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers. Logic also suggests in order to “descend,” there has to be something you descend from and something you ascend to.
Evolutionary theory, rooted in the universal human dissatisfaction for mortality is a vain search for human origin(s), an attempt to rationalize a yearning for connection to something eternal.
Now, since nobody really knows the answers, it is only a scientific method to consider all points of view on the issue in educational settings. To do otherwise would be like students dancing around totems, with professors as witch doctors proclaiming intellectual taboos and making sacrifices.
This is far worse than what the ersatz secularists accuse the creationists of doing!
Despite decades of evolutionary indoctrination at all levels of education, it appears the American People are smarter and more resilient than the secularist bandwagon envisioned!
===========================================================
Yeah, they might teach spelling and punctuation, too. That'd be good.
"50% of americans have IQ's below 100 (by definition)."
Clearly the implication here is that the reason people believe in creation is because they are not intelligent enough to *see* that evolution is *true*. It comes across pretty clearly on these threads that IF ONLY people would really learn about the ToE and understand it, they OF COURSE would be compelled to believe it because the evidence is so compelling that any person of any intelligence would have to come to that conclusion. The accusation is always that, "You don't really understand the ToE".
Of all the stuff I learned in college, the thing that inpressed me the most is that the more I learned, the more I realized we don't know. Every thing I learned just raised more questions, most of which don't have a good answer. There is a lot more speculation and conjecture in science than a lot of scientists like to admit. It isn't as hard and fast as it's put forth.
If the evolutionists are right, we die and that's the end of it, there's nothing. If the creationists are right, we die and then somebody's in big trouble.
You are so right. The more you read about science, the more you realize how often the words "possibly" and "maybe" are used.
Sometimes I take an active part. Other times it's funner just to sit back and watch. I actually believe that God inspires certain scientists--no he does not talk to them directly or anything like that, but he probably does provide the inspiration for certain ideas. I certainly give God credit for a lot of things that happen to me or that I accomplish (good that is:).
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.