Posted on 01/25/2005 6:15:41 PM PST by gobucks
I remember that Sean Hannity brought it up on his radio show. But he quickly found out that it was a can of worms and dropped it.
Of course. I have never seen anyone committed to "random-chance-natural-selection-based" evolutionary theory on these threads. The only ones that are repeating that evolution is "random-chance" is the creationists.
IF SH thought it was a can of worms, it is time to jump ship!
Not at all. I quite readily admit that, over time, new evidence can change or override old understandings in science.
It is interesting that you imply that the Word of God is fallible and is therefore in error.
Show me proof that we know what the word of god is, then maybe we can talk.
For a Christian, you sure have a knack for bearing false witness on others. He didn't say that. Now if you want to talk about how men have made errors in spreading the "word of god" we can continue.
What will probably happen is that high schools will avoid the problem and just won't teach ID, or Evolution, or much of biology, at all. They're already looking for excuses for dumbing down the curriculum so their union employees don't have to study their subjects.
The Creation Institute clowns probably will not like this result. They depend on controversy for a living. If ID was accepted completely, then they would have to find other controversies, like the civil rights organizations did.
The universities don't care what anyone says. They'll do what they like. They'll have enough judges as alumni that they will not be forced into anything.
But if the fight really hit the full mainstream, and scientists got off their duff and onto the boob tube and explained their case. A few dozen programs on the Discovery Channel, for example. Then the polls where people seem to favor literal creationism I think would fade fast.
There are lots of people that just studied the subject for a few days in school, and really don't know much about it. Educating them completely would change their minds.
Also, the generation that witnessed the scopes monkey trial is just about gone. That was a huge embarrassment for creationism literalists, and they are just now raising their head up into the mainstream again. They'll get their hand slapped again and they'll disappear again like last time. Their literal interpretation of Genesis has'nt changed, but the understanding of Evolution via DNA etc. has been increased drastically.
They'll lose a genuine public argument. Again.
Either your interpretation of a few hundred words in the Bible are in error. Or science is in error in interpreting the fossil and DNA record.
Since there is a much larger amount of information contained in Gods Creation than in His Word, I trust His Creation to tell me about His Creation.
I trust His Word to tell me about other things.
I wasn't speaking about posters here (and I haven't read thousands of posts on this myself). I simply meant to point out that evolution says nothing about Creation, but I'm sure in the wide-wide world, there are those who cite evolution to deny Creation. My point is that it can not be used that way.
There seems to be long range artillery barrages going on between Biblical literalists and secular atheists and too often shells are falling short on those of us in the middle who find no logical, theological or scientific problem in accepting both Creation and Evolution.
And scientists do not use it that way. There are some that use the Bible to enslave and torture.
Almost. The missiles launched by the Biblical literalists are intended to destroy evolution and are intentionally falling on all those that believe in science and believe that religion should not be in the science class.
You have no trouble with those that accuse scientists as being responsible for sexual promiscuity, homesexuality, naziism, communism, halitosis and wearing stripes with plaid though. Your silence must mean endorsement.
Is his Christian belief any the less because he belonged to the Church of England?
What ARe you talking about ?
As a professed Agnostic, I believe in God through faith alone..
You are an agnostic? You sound more like a DEIST.
Okay... I've got a confession, too. I made up the part about trying for a foot-tall fruit fly... I doubt there are any studies that specifically show sterility among fruit flies selectively bred for a large size... especially studies with the goal of producing a race of 12-inch-high monster-flies. :) It just seemed funny to visualize :)
But selective breeding for any number of traits tends to produce sterility.
"Studies" abound. Ask a dog breeder, a horticulturist... or google for "selective breeding" and "sterility".
Cheers.
Santorum's column will get things going. I expect to see even more scientists leave the GOP. Many I know just won't support those that act anti-science anymore than they will support the postmoderndeconstructionists, new-agers, scientologists, or raeleans (spelling?)
You are correct. The post I was responding to claimed that evolutionary theory was the basis of racism. Reading Darwin or Huxley or any of the early writers would show that they very anti-racist, at least for their time. Huxley was against slavery.
Very sweeping generalizations of both parties, I would say.
Science is very familiar with samples that fall well outside the statistical norm, and religious people are quite familiar with those who abuse faith for secular gain. The problem is that while both can make significant noise they are poor samples to use to make generalizations.
If it's impending doom from "Global Warming" or impending doom from "Fire & Brimstone", both sets of hucksters are outside the range of standard deviation and are using their credentials to advance their own self interest.
BigLusr: I'm not so sure
I totally agree with Narby in concept, but same sex unions aren't the albatross that they were made out to be. In the 2004 presidential election, 47% of Bush voters are in favor of either same sex marriage or civil unions - this number swells to 60% when its applied to all voters. In reality, the moderates which are the difference makers in elections didn't really care that much.
Narby is totally correct that we have to be careful where we spend our political capital. To that point, we as a party have to decide if abortion is the ONLY issue that we care about because it will take ALL of our political capital for possibly a generation if try to pack the court with justices adversarial to Roe V Wade.
In the 2004 presidential election, 55% of the voters believe abortion should be legal or mostly legal and 42% believe it should be illegal or mostly illegal. 37% of Bush voters fall into the legal or mostly legal group.
The 55% in favor of legalized abortion will swell if Roe V Wade is ever perceived to be under any real threat. If a SCOTUS vacancy comes up before 2006 and conservatives publicly make abortion policy the number one qualification, then the senate will be probably be lost in the 2006 mid-term elections as many pro-abortion republicans will be forced to change parties for their political survival.
I'm just saying that we as conservatives have to look at the big picture when it comes to the image we portray and the manner in which we spend political capital. There are lots of issues that are important to the very survival to this country (immigration, national defense, national sovereignty, tax reform, tort reform, property rights, etc) that we do have the political capital to address if we have the will and proper foresight.
With all of these other critical issues, is it really wise to spend all of our political capital on stickers for texbooks? Most kids sleep through science class anyway and don't remember anything from it.
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.