Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
I wonder that myself sometimes.
What would have happened if we had just kept on going, we had it in the bag, Baghdad was ours, and yet, because of political expediency, we didn't do it.
What would have happened if we had taken out Saddam in the first Gulf war?
I'm afraid not. The intent of the founders is contained in the documents they prepared, signed and became law. What you posted was their personal thoughts, which are not law.
You need to learn and understand that God is not in charge, this is not His kingdom and that men are in charge. You need to know and understand that the only moral way to interact with other men is rationally. All rights and the morals that are intended to protect those rights must have a rational foundation. The foundation is the purpose, because the very invention of rights and morals requires a purpose and that purpose is that all men enjoy their life and the individual sovereignty of will that is the essence of that life. There's no need, or logical reason to refer to God whatsoever.
Notice that God gave no physical clue whatsoever that He exists. That's the underlying contention of this thread. There are those that acknowledge that and others that fail to. Besides those that can't grasp the science, there are those that simply refuse to accept it regardless. They do that, because their claims and false doctrines are illogical and won't stand on their own rationally. They need to "prove" that God exists, by selectively attacking rational thought and science. God Himself gave no such sign other than His temporary presence as another man, His claim and the sign of Jonah. Matthew 12:39, He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Notice the word none there, and the uniquely singular exception. It means, there will be no sign given in nature, and that includes the nonsense of ID.
That man was entirely rational, yet many of those that claim to know Him are still wallowing in the irrational depths that existed before He came to hold class. In Gen 3 He said man was to live by His own hands and in Matt 5:48, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." That means to use the rational faculties that are equal to God's, as per Gen 1, to live as free individuals and protect that gift that was given from the beginning.
You see, God is a rational agent and so too are men. They were created in the image and likeness of God, as per Gen 1 and John 10:33-36, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[Psalm 82:6]? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?.
You can't claim man is incapable of doing this either, because of some fall, or imperfection. The above passages hold and the claims of the Council of Orange regarding the existence of original sin are wrong. Ezekiel 18, the failure of the Jews to ever note such a thing and John 9 prove that. So if God had His reasons for rights, moral codes, whatever, then man can come up with the same without referring to God. Notice, God did it w/o ever referring to another being. If He can do it, so can all y'all. There's no justifiable reason to stagnate in ignorance.
This is my religion, it's non-axiomatic, because it's based on what God Himself said and I believe in science and the results of the scientific method. I expect to be able to freely exercise my religion, I don't want my kids taught another and I want them to learn science. I don't want them taught arbitrary nonscientific rubbish invented, because of someone else's axiomatic religious motivations.
Personally, I don't consider the Persian Gulf War to be a different war than the Iraq war. There was no 'peace' during the Clinton Administration. We were bombing them, they were trying to kill us. It was a low-intensity conflict, but whatever it was it wasn't peace.
Yes, I too wish we had taken care of the problem in 91' instead of waiting. The Govt new they would have to go in there eventually. And, in 91' I could have enlisted for such an undertaking. Now I'm "too old" according to the military. I wish I could do more than just sit here waiting for news from my son, Robert. I know there are small things of support I can do here, but it is not the same. It should be me in harms way, not my child (though I'm proud he made this choice).
God Bless you for your service in 91'. You may not have gotten "boots on the ground" but your willingness to do so says it all. Have a good night. 4:30am comes too early and it's after 11:00pm now.
Interesting post.
You were involved with the prior posts for the reply in #582.
Thanks.
That is an understatement if I ever heard one.
Given this, I expect the Creationists will win hands down. LOL
Science deals with the "how" of evolution.
Religion deals with the "why" of evolution.
End of story.
I believe you should "demonstate" how it could be true.
you: They have the authority, the problem is that they don't have the competence.
IMO, they have the authority to say that science, or physics, chemistry, biology, ... be taught. But to define what is or is not geology is fraudulent: geology is defined by geologists. If I were to buy private education that included English grammar, and I got taught Ebonics instead, I think I'd have grounds to sue. Their degree sure wouldn't help me get into college.
I think the same thing applies here. If you claim to be teaching biology, and the curriculum is not recognized as biology by the university admissions people, I'd think I'd have grounds for a fraud suit. And if the law says science will be taught, the Legislature would be faced with an elected official defying the law that defines his duties, ie the high crime of misfeasance.
I recall reading something like this around 1970 in a magazine call The Plain Truth.
Creation science at its finest. How about it you anti-evolutionists out there? Everybody on board with this? Anybody want to change their bets before we spin the wheel?
Wow so that makes the poll...useless.
The last time there was a poll on the subject, two creationists together voted a couple thousand times. I wonder if FR records the IP addresses of voters to eliminate dupes.
600
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.