Welcome to FR.
The real issues are turf, egos, status, money, academic tenure and franchise--
The real issue is a way for the left to "pretend" a great alarm at the attack on the Temple of Science to try to make the GOP alienate a formidable constituency--the religious right. The Democrats would just love to chip off enough votes to turn the majority to the left.
It is important to pay attn to a character named Soros--who finances a lot of leftist filmmaking. The guy who made SuperSize Me is in process of making "The Republican War on Science".
There are those here on FR trying to help Soros in his endeavor. Many pretend to be conservatives.
"...I do not understand why such an enlightened nation is embroiled in a senseless science vs. religion turmoil..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why you are there baffled and bamboozled and we are here.
Get over it. Darwin sucks. He had bad teeth too. Evolution is nothing more than delusion and illusion...a social science theory nothing more.
That says it all.
People have found that they can sometimes control the minds of others by using an issue such as this.That's all this really is. And, it is only a problem here in the USA.
Thanks for a great post. It's nice to see some mental hygiene at this web site for a change.
From the article:
But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design will deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.
"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
Can someone please tell me what actual technology will suffer regardless of the outcome of this debate? Examples please, with how either ID or evolution is needed to develop the technology.
Intelligent Design is not an "assault on science." It asserts that science was created by intelligence, and we have been discovering that intelligence for centuries.
Ultimately, one will believe the view that fits with his lifestyle and desires - for God, or for life without morals or consequences.
Tory...your article surely has generated a lot of thought, a lot of emotional outbursts, and a lot discussion...
What I wonder about is this...if one wishes to have something taught, which questions evolution as it is now taught, just what do they want taught..I mean, there is strict creationism, which as I understand it, asserts that all living things were created by God, in an instant, in the form we see today...and created in just six days...and that the earth is around 6 thousand years old...and then there is intelligent design, which is very different in that it seems to grant that some 'supernatural being'(ID, to my knowledge, never really asserts this being as God),was the initial creator of some life form, which then went on to evolve...and ID also seems to grant that the earth is millions, or billions of years old...
I guess, what confuses me, is that creationism/Intelligent Design seem to have very little in common with each other, except that they both grant the initial creation to be done by a 'being'...creationism grants the creation to God, whereas ID grants the creation to any 'powerful being', whether God, or some other being, or I suppose even aliens from outer space...so I see very little in common between Creationism and Intelligent Design...
So, if opponents to Evolution want alternatives taught, just what alternative do they want taught?...ID? Creationism?...I mean, one must admit that there is great difference between these two...they disagree on many points, and thus we see that even the opponents to evolution cannot agree on alternate competing ideas...and then, there are widely varying and differing ideas about which 'religion', supports which alternate ideas, and would adopting that religions ideas about this, then lead to trying to slip the teaching of a specific religion into public school?...
There are those that would try to claim that this would never happen...I call that, burying ones head in the sand...if one wants to present an alternate idea to evolution, based on ones own particular religions stand on this issue, then naturally, we come to teaching the religious views associated with that religion, and thus are teaching a particular religion...
There are many religions that I would never want taught to my children, and I believe that many also feel that same way...by adopting one religions views on evolution, and how they feel their views challenge evolution, it would seem to me, to necesarily be teaching a specific religion in public school...is that really what some here are advocating?
I really would appreciate the thoughts of others on this...
Since I came to this thread rather late, I have posted late, and now must leave the thread...but I am hopeful, that tomorrow, someone can answer some of my questions...
Welcome Tory, Glad you are posting now.
Science and religion are not in conflict.
Intelligent Design or as Grandma called it "Divine Design"
was never meant to be taught as science, but as theology.
We all knew what she meant and believed it and knew it to be true.
Denying the theory of evolution doesn't make it any less true, just as denying God's divine plan doesn't make it any less true.
And, as Grandma always said "God can do evolution,He can do anything"
Pure desperation.
Tory - There are a number of things underlying the controversy with the main issue being the absolute refusal to allow anyone to question the "theory" of evolution in a science classroom without being subject to the type of name calling and ridicule that are so prevalent from the evo's on this website. Plus, these are the civilized evo's - most of the evo's are rabid liberals and supporters of the leftist establishment on most issues. Those people are even more vitriolic in the hatred of any mention of a Creator. Then comes an even bigger rub - the monopolistic, government controlled educational system which is one of the major wings of the leftist propaganda machine on almost every issue imaginable. Conservative Christians are not only asked to fund this machine that opposes what we believe and then imposes this opposition on our children and others, we are told to shut up and quit being "irrational." This is true of not just biology class but the other disciplines as well. Many of us argue that the last 5,000 years of human history - which is really the period for which we have any type of accurate account - does much more to support the Bible's version of the origin and nature of man than the evolutionist's version. Post Christian Europe is a great example of where all of western civilization is headed. The rejection of the God of the Bible as Creator has many more consequences than what is or is not said in a high school biology class.
By the way, most Biblical Christians are not afraid to defend their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. If evolution is just a slam dunk, let both sides present their evidence and then laugh the Christians out of the class room. The problem with the evo's is that they only want one side presented and then they want to laugh the unbeleivers out of the classroom. And if you don't like it, they'll take you to court - like the leftists do on every other issue that they can't win on when ideas are freely exchanged. I hope this sheds some light. This doesn't cover everything but I hope it gives you some insight.
I will match my education, rationality and, more importantly, the "fruit" of 53 years of living with just about anyone on this sight and I find the whole idea of man coming into existence through chance over how ever many years the evo's deem to be required at any given point in their argument to be absolutely preposterous. And there are millions like me. And no, I can't list their names. You'll see in a few minutes that this qualifies me as a liar.
I think the real issue has its roots in the fact that a great deal of the American religious landscape is dominated by various species of "sola scriptura" protestantism most of which arose not in the Western reformation, but in various post-'Englightenment' religious revivals. Even some American Christians whose own tradition (Latin or Orthodox) has a regard for Holy Tradition (or in the Anglican case, the disected version 'Scripture, Tradition and Reason'), have their approach to Scripture colored by the general milieu.
I would summarize that milieu as a mind-set which accepts the rationalistic conception of truth promulgated by the 'Enlightenment', while at the same time holding to the truth of the Christian Scriptures.
The conflict stems from this attitude. On the one side folks argue a reductio ad absurdum of all varieties of Darwinism because they are all are contrary to Scripture read as if it were written by and for post-'Enlightenment' rationalists. On the other, folks argue a reductio ad absurdum of Christianity on the basis of the manifest truth of evolution (and the purported sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian synthesis as an explanatory theory), because these are contrary to the same sort of reading of Scripture.
The whole thing is a row within post-'Enlightenment' rationalism between the rationalists who still believe in Divine revelation and those who don't.
(The scornful quotes around 'Enlightenment' are really necessary when an Orthodox Christian writes--Enlightenment or Illumination properly refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Chrismation, which gift most of the 'Enlightenment' seems intent on fighting.)
Does God belittle himself? Job 38
4 “ Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10 When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11 When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’
12 “Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?
14 It takes on form like clay under a seal,
And stands out like a garment.
15 From the wicked their light is withheld,
And the upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.
19 “ Where is the way to the dwelling of light?
And darkness, where is its place,
20 That you may take it to its territory,
That you may know the paths to its home?
21 Do you know it, because you were born then,
Or because the number of your days is great?
22 “Have you entered the treasury of snow,
Or have you seen the treasury of hail,
23 Which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
For the day of battle and war?
24 By what way is light diffused,
Or the east wind scattered over the earth?
25 “Who has divided a channel for the overflowing water,
Or a path for the thunderbolt,
26 To cause it to rain on a land where there is no one,
A wilderness in which there is no man;
27 To satisfy the desolate waste,
And cause to spring forth the growth of tender grass?
28 Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth?
30 The waters harden like stone,
And the surface of the deep is frozen.
31 “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades,
Or loose the belt of Orion?
32 Can you bring out Mazzaroth[a] in its season?
Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs?
33 Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you set their dominion over the earth?
34 “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
That an abundance of water may cover you?
35 Can you send out lightnings, that they may go,
And say to you, ‘Here we are!’?
36 Who has put wisdom in the mind?[b]
Or who has given understanding to the heart?
37 Who can number the clouds by wisdom?
Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven,
38 When the dust hardens in clumps,
And the clods cling together?
39 “Can you hunt the prey for the lion,
Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40 When they crouch in their dens,
Or lurk in their lairs to lie in wait?
41 Who provides food for the raven,
When its young ones cry to God,
And wander about for lack of food?
I posed your question to a participant on another forum, and he suggested that you may be interested in an essay he had written.
He wrote: "I have addressed *some* of the real issues behind this in the following essay: click HERE See esp the paragraph on Provine/Dawkins and the final two paragraphs, but most of the essay is a propos." ~ Ted
Jesus, "If you are not with me, you are against me." That's good enough for me. I once talked with a Catholic Priest who did not believe in the resurection and was amazed that I do. That amazed me!
I wonder if that knucklehead Rick Warren will buy into this like he bought into the global warming scam.
I would say the whole debate boils down to this one piece of honesty. It's a political debate about social morality disguised as a debate over science.