Posted on 08/11/2006 11:54:04 AM PDT by presidio9
US leads the world in skepticism of authority.
The problem is that we have been cautioned to not mess with the Tree of Life. So long as we stick to classification there would be no problem, but genetic engineering of ourselves, which where all this appears to be headed, could be Big Trouble. Genetic engineering of plants and animals could also be dangerous but isn't quite the Big Trouble.
It could very well also be the result of a poll: "Public acceptance of same sex marriage" "Public acceptance to abortion on demand" "Public acceptance to gun control" "Public acceptance to social welfare programs"
Personally, I believe in Darwin which is not to say the "Godless" evolution being pushed as dogma today. Darwin himself was a Christian and believed in God. I believe that God could have chosen evolution as the manner to enact His creation if he so wished. What is interesting to this list is that it corresponds to the political correctness of this issue. The article seems to make it a point that somehow this issue has transcended science to realm of religion and politics because of conservatives when in fact it seems more of an issue with the left.
More importantly, one can believe every word of mainstream evolution theory, and still realize that it offers no explanation whatsoever for how all the raw materials and energy needed for evolution arose in the first place -- which frankly is MUCH more difficult to explain. I recently read a summary of new research by top-notch physicists, who have concluded that all the matter and energy in the universe we know arose in one trillion trillionth of a second when some object the size of a marble underwent a huge explosion. Nice work, but where did that nifty marble come from?
>>What is at issue is not biological kinship but the uniqueness of the human being, with his relationship with God.
Studies of animals increasingly are showing that many behaviors and abilities previously thought uniquely human are not. It doesn't bother me being on the far end of a not-unique continuum, but some people must have their mythology.
their not called by the scientific community they're called for by the liberals and their state established religion which hinges on evolution.
I have two problems with Evolution, and I am a Biology major in college, first is what you just mentioned, how it all began, secondly is the mathematics behind what is needed to go from a simple single cell prokaryote with only a few genes to todays multicellular eukaryotes with trillions of cells with each having millions of lines of code, there has to be numerous times through out history where there were massive jumps in evolution for it to happen. Where is the evidence for it? Micro-evolution however is very easy to prove and I have absolutely no problem with it, its really what is driving modern bio-science anyways.
You underestimate yourself. As a former math and physics teacher with 40 years in education however, I found most of your colleagues would not have been able to refute
Coulter's 'canards." Much of what she has to say,really, is really against the uncritical acceptance of not Darwin's biology but his anthropology, his theory of man.
Failing to genetically engineer ourselves is even more likely to yield Big Trouble. For one thing, our environment isn't going to stay the same forever, and may change very quickly at some point. If we don't to go the way of the dinosaurs, we'll need to be proactive about it. And our ability to populate other planets could well depend on genetically engineering ourselves. None of this bothers me, since I don't perceive God as an entity that doesn't want its creations to grow up and outdo their Creator. It's odd how Judaism and Christianity think of God as the "Father" of humans, but also as the sort of parent who desperately wants his offspring to remain perpetual toddlers.
Dissent in general is frowned on in the scientific community and its idiotic. It's intellectual communism.
Atkins is a perfect example. The establishment called it junk for decades, even when Atkins had studyings proving it, and only decades latter are other outlets studying it and discovering that much of what atkins put forth is in fact correct.
I wonder if the surveys are really finding huge percentages of Americans who are annoyed with surveys and are willing to give bad answers just to mess them up.
The notion of natural selection being at work is the perfect justification for a massive communist regime keeping it in check, and making things fair for everyone. This is why at their heart every liberal beleives deeply in evolution.
Ann is not a scientist, is she? If not, why would I read anything she had to say about evolution. As it happens, I did read "Godless." She does nothing but repeat the same non-scientific stuff we read here every time the subject comes up.
I have not got around to reading Ann's book and likely won't. I', not interested.
But I did get around to reading your position on Atheism.
Atheism is not a religion. It does not involve belief in any particular ideas or concepts. It is merely a disbelief in any sort of deity or other supernatural entities. For the atheist, such things simply are not believable. Atheism, in itself, is nothing more than that. There are no churches of atheism. There is no central doctrine of atheism. There are no principles of atheism. It is, simply, a disbelief in deities and other supernatural entities.
I have to disagree your your definition. Atheism is a belief system. It takes an absolute position on religion. It holds as a fundamental truth that God or Deities do not exist. Yet, it is given preference in the American judicial system on matters of religion. Your notion that your disbelief in God (a belief in no God) is different than one who believes in God makes you different is pompous. Both views hold a fundamental truth that cannot be proven by sensible experience. Both must adopt some unprovable a priori to duduce their respective view. The difference between an atheist and a religionist is the difference between a Jew or a Christian and that of a Muslim. The first two have subordinate rights to the latter. The Muslim claims his Allah is the True God. Even though Christians and Jews worship God, it must not be Allah as the Muslim keeps twisting his view to believe so. In the same way Atheists are twisting the law in America. The ACLU atheists are running with Muslims in their efforts to harass Christians in the court rooms.
Outdoing the Creator is the ambition that got Satan in trouble. Going out and populating the planets of all the stars in the universe wouldn't be a problem, but outdoing the Creator is not in the cards. However, the hubris that would accompany eating the fruit of that Tree would very likely lead some to think it possible and that could lead to yet another angelic lecture.
"A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower."
I guess we are better off than I thought we were.
No thank you. I don't need to be taught religion and/or biology by a lawyer that has a command of neither.
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.