Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I just meant that they seem against any other point of view.
I suppose it is easier to organize people if there is a "bad guy", a demon somewhere to oppose. It elevates emotions, and opens wallets.
Although I support Christianity, I suppose there is no way to prevent some denominations from attempting to replace science with theology except by making it painful for them to do so. And at the same time they need reasurance that Evolution is not anti-Christian. Opposing ID needs to be a carrot and stick strategy.
The stick is forcing Christians to actually read and defend the Bible. Pointing out the two separate and different creation stories in Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4 forces them to acknowledge that the Bible cannot be taken word-for-word litterally. There must be some interpretation, so they might as well interpret it to allow for Evolution.
The carrot is pointing out how grand a design Evolution actually is. And that God is so great that He designed a truly wonderful system. A system that has operated itself for 2-3 billion years. An adaptive, and immortal system, that man could only dream of designing.
You post an article that basically calls doubters of evolution "Ayatolla's" and you want us to be nice? What's the matter, you couldn't find an article that calls us "terrorists" or charge us with killing innocent women and children?
Thanks for the ping!
He's a troll, who just happens to have been on Free Republic for a while.
No. You said they were against advising them that it was just a theory.
I guess you would also like them to teach that aliens brought life to the earth?
The only "Ayatollahs" I see represented in this article are "activist judges" imposing their dogmas on the citizens of Georgia.
There is a different mindset in highly religious people. It's more emotion than logic. They have their belief, and they're sticking with it.
One thing that I have not seen much attention in science is the study of how people are lead. How are political movements (which are almost entirely emotional) generated. This is a very tough thing to study. But political movements are the most powerful thing in human civilization. They need to be studied, and that research distributed as wide as possible. This will take the edge off of these movements, and dampen their ability to do damage.
The ID movement has become very sophisticated, and has broken the boundary of what we would call religion, and is now into politics. Similar to activities of the Sierra Club and PETA on the left. Like those entities, the ID movement is self sustaining by seeking donations and selling media to those it convinces. Like the Greens, who have a demon to oppose in "big business", ID organizations have an evil in "Evolution" to oppose. It is a highly seductive method of gathering and keeping a political following.
In the end, it could be very dangerous. Where the Greens took basically non-religious people and formed a "Gaia" following that they don't claim to be a religion. The ID people at the Discovery Institute are attempting to hijack a genuine established religion and get it to do it's bidding. I don't think they have any evil designs. But they are after power. And power does corrupt. What the ID movement may spawn in 50 years we will probably not like.
"young earth creationist"
In my reference to burn/size/gravitational pull I cited a physics argument against an old earth. Do you have a rebuttal or just a rebuff based in your own theories and memes?
I am looking for scientific rationale, as an empiricist with faith in God. Please show me you are an empiricist as well--with faith in not only your belief, but an astrophysics-appropriate validation or argument. Thanks.
You "cite" but you give no basis for your citation.
I now cite "If God were a good god, he would allow innocent babies to suffer, therefore he is an evil god."
Why would you think I would want students taught that aliens brought life to earth?
I'm relatively new but posted on another related thread a thought about Creationists-by-Faith versus Creationists-by-Argument.
I have utmost respect for Creationists-by-Faith.
Creationists-by-Argument seem to me to be dishonest at some level and don't believe their own rhetoric. It may be that they are dishonest with themselves and fear that to accept evolution is to somehow lose their faith. I wonder if meeting deeply religious people who accept the theory of evolution as a wonderful evidence of the glory and magnificence of Creation would relax that group. One might hope.
What "fact"! Oh, it was stated on some creationist's web-site therefore it is FACT.
I thought you were in favor of teaching the students that other alternative to evolution existed.
Same here. Creationists-by-Argument seem to me to be dishonest at some level and don't believe their own rhetoric. It may be that they are dishonest with themselves and fear that to accept evolution is to somehow lose their faith. I wonder if meeting deeply religious people who accept the theory of evolution as a wonderful evidence of the glory and magnificence of Creation would relax that group. One might hope.
Ditto! Excellent!
Did God tell you that? Nothing in his post infers that.
"...One thing that I have not seen much attention in science is the study of how people are lead. How are political movements (which are almost entirely emotional) generated...."
Study advertising and sales. They've got it.
Also some studies like the one popularized by the book "Obedience to Authority" by Milgrim.
Why do yo distort. No one here has ever said that. In fact, many have supported the teaching of religions in a RELIGION class. But not in a science class.
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.