Posted on 01/25/2005 6:15:41 PM PST by gobucks
Because bioenginnering is the essence of ID.
No it's not. The essence of ID is that an 'Intelligent Designer' (=God) best explains the diversity of life, not evolution. ID opposes the evolution.
Is genetically modified wheat a subject for science class or philosophy class?
Because when you single something out like that, it undermines its legitimacy in people's minds, and that's the ONLY goal, here. If the government mandated that bananas be labelled with radiation symbols, what do you think would be the effect on sales, and how would the purveyors of bananas react? And yet, the labels would be accurate: bananas are radioactive, and measurably so.
They would seem to be in harmony with your hierarchy.
They would, if the schools did an adequate job of teaching what a theory is.
The schools probably also don't teach that most people don't get as much radiation as would be optimal for health. People should react to radiation symbols on bananas by saying, "oh, radioactive potassium-40, yum!", but do you think they would?
Of course, you can say that their understanding of theory and fact does not accord with yours but that is like moving the goalposts when Philly nears the end-zone.
These books are for children, not professional scientists. It isn't the same playing field.
Perhaps if the stickers said, "Evolution is a scientific theory; alternatives to evolution fall short of being theories, and therefore lack legitimacy," people would react differently.
It is typical of the left to use aberrations of Christianity that do not reflect God's will, or Christ-like behavior as representative of what Christianity is, but it is absolutely specious to do so.
Try again. (and leave out the Crusades).
I stand corrected.
The science of it is appropriate for science class, but the ethical issues of bioengeneering are appropriate for a philosophy class.
Sorry, you are simply wrong. ID does not exclude evolution and ID does not require God unless you think Monsanto is God.
In response to post 100
Choose your own words,
Did I ever say that Agnostic meant atheist?
Man did not create evolution and all the evidence of it. God did. By rejecting evolution, you reject God. You will have to explain your blasphemy when you die.
Evolution is not compatible with the Bible, so I stand behind the Bible.
The majority of the world's Christian denominations disagree with your incorrect interpretation of the Bible.
Call me naive.
Okay.
Call me what you will, but those "centuries old" text that you deride are Truth and Life.
You mean the Koran?
Your reply was not unexpected.
Failure to Deliberate.
Why do you ever bother to discuss anything, with anyone? What can you gain? You already have the Word.
(If I wanted to be combative, I would say "Okay, prove that the expression 'They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden' is not a poetic expression or literary device meaning, 'They sensed God's presence.'")
All that passage shows is that, according to the Bible, God can appear in human form or take human shape. That doesn't mean his true form is that of a human, anymore than Moses seeing a burning bush that is not consumed means that an angel's true form is that of a shrub en fuego.
(This could lead to some theological musings of mine with regard to whether any particular form of matter is or could be more or less pleasing to God, or whether all matter is the equally pleasing. I could imagine, to him, having created it all, he would not particularly favor one form of matter over another. This could lead to some interesting speculation regarding the Eucharist, the incarnation of Jesus and evolution.)
To use the error of a Sunday School teacher to say that Genesis isn't true is a false argument. (I had a teacher once say that blacks were meant to be slaves of whites according to the Bible).
The whole problem here is THEISTIC EVOLUTION. There is no inconsistency in an atheist who is using science to explain how things have happened without a God. (It is a great leap of faith to do so, however).
But to be a theistic evolutionist, one must delete parts of Scripture to make it line up with evolution, and it requires quite a bit of contortion to make it work.
Bioengineering wheat is Intelligent Design. No way around it. Technology is moving past Darwinism and only the "Luddites":-} will continue to demand the blasphemous words ID be kept in the basement.
I already have. I said that it is my understanding of God that he gave Adam a soul and immortality and free will. This was only done AFTER humans reached a certain level of development such that they had the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.
That's what I was asking you.
Don't answer a question with a question..
You have a poor understanding of God if you think rejecting evolution is blasphemous. God is about souls, not strata.
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.