Posted on 02/10/2005 6:39:50 PM PST by gobucks
PHILADELPHIA - Evangelical Christians, buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, are turning American schools into a battleground over whether evolution explains the origins of life or whether nature was designed by an all-powerful force.
In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach “intelligent design” — a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design — alongside Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“It’s pretty clear that there is a religious movement behind intelligent design,” said Steve Case, chairman of the Science Standards Committee, a group of educators that advises the Kansas Board of Education. The board will decide later this year whether to include intelligent design in biology classes.
Some scientists who espouse the theory say intelligent design does not question that evolution occurred, but how it occurred: They believe more was at play than random mutation and natural selection. The theory, they insist, does not support the religious concept of a creator.
Those who advocate giving it equal treatment in schools have a different interpretation.
*snip*
The poll found greater support for teaching creationism among Republican voters — 71 percent of Bush voters favored teaching creationism alongside evolution.
*snip*
John West, (located) at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which pioneered intelligent design research, said the theory was too complex to teach at high schools and was better-suited to a college setting.
“There is a concern that intelligent design has been hijacked by people who don’t really know what it says,” he said. “We don’t think it should be a political football.”
*snip*
“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
THis makes no sense. If they'd lived, they'd have been sinners like everyone else. Why the preferential treatment?
You use the word "accountable". Why should we be held accountable for a failure that is unavoidable by nature... (design? ;) ) God might as well hold us accountable for breathing. You still haven't answered that basic question. You just replied with an exposition of Christian doctrine. Not the logical or moral basis for it.
Your experiment induced supernatural factors to derive a result; therefore the results are meaningful only in a supernatural context.
Your inane anecdotal objections, and sophmoric logic are becoming tiresome. You may want to watch MHalblaub. I think he is preparing a reasoned statistical objection.
I think you should buy yourself a dictionary and look up "supernatural" - it does not mean, as you apparently think it should, "any factor which appears to animoveritas to provide a lifeline to ridiculous arguments."
You may want to watch MHalblaub. I think he is preparing a reasoned statistical objection.
Yippee for him. Could be that he's new enough to still have some patience for your particular variety of unintelligibility - I, on the other hand, have definitely been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt. I don't really care whether I persuade you that your arguments are worthless - rescuing you from a pit you dug for yourself is frankly not worth the time and effort it appears it would require - but I think the record is fairly clear to everyone else that your arguments are worthless. If someone feels compelled to hold your hand and walk you through it step-by-step, more power to him - I'd personally suggest he not bother, because I'll lay down money that you'll exit this thread having not learned a blessed thing.
CYA.
David's son, who was a result of David and Bathsheba's adultery, died as an infant and David acknowledged that he wouldn't see his son again until heaven. In other words God did not hold his son accountable for his sin nature, when he had not yet had a chance to reject God.
Our eternal destiny is the most important decision of our lives. The Scriptures present us with a perfectly just and fair God. Having a sin nature gives us a propensity to sin. The only sin that can condemn us is the rejection of God's pardon for our sin.
According to the Bible, God gives each of us enough information about Him, that we can make our own decision to follow or reject Him. We are all on death row awaiting death. God has offered us all a pardon for our sins, and removal from death row. All we must do in order to receive the pardon is acknowledge we are on death row and in need of a pardon, then accept the pardon that God has provided. Looking to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. When we do this, we are immediately released from the prison of our sin, which had condemned us.
Noah and his family were the only people on the planet who did not reject God. The rest of civilization experienced simultanious ushering to the final judgement of God for rejecting Him (there may have been children who went straight to heaven, their temporal lives having been cut short by the curse of sin -- as was David's son and the people in the Tsunami -- which brought on the flood). Physical death marks the end of our opportunity to make a choice. Choosing to accept the pardon naturally changes one's perspective on physical death.
Not sure where you are going with the mol question, nor its relevance. Here's a corollary that might speed the process:
Given about 1078atoms in the universe, a generous estimate of 1055 atoms composing earth, and focusing on fluid dynamics of the boundary layer of lithosphere - atmosphere, what are the numbers for the critical organic builders C and H?
We are talking on the order of about 1045 hydrogen atoms and 1044 carbon atoms. Both estimates >> Avogadro’s constant.
Recall that we are working with a large sphere, and very small things. When you consider it all, turns out that the average density is 10-3 Angstrom-3 for H and 10-4 Angstrom-3 for C. This means an average separation of about 3000 angstroms (quite a chasm) between the critical organic atoms C and H. Since most primordial investigators propose the stable molecules H2O, H2, CH4, and CO2 as the most common sources of H and C, thus the distances are probably even larger by maybe an order of magnitude or two.
Why is rejection of God's pardon of our sin a sin? What is sinful about that?
Why do we need pardon for behavior which is an unavoidable part of our nature?
Stop in again if you stumble across something worth discussing.
Adam was our forefather who had dominion over the entire earth. He forfeited that dominion and brought on the curse when he chose to disobey the Creator's direct commandment. Basically God said this is all yours, no sweat, if you do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After the fall life became the grind that we recognize as the rat-race we live with today. Continually having to overcome the natural way things become disorganized.
God created mankind to rule the earth for Him. In our fallen state we relinquished the potential He had designed into us. By rejecting the pardon, we can no longer have fellowship with God because evil is not in God's character.
Being a loving Creator He has provided a remedy that costs nothing for us. With physical death we are either ushered into His loving presence to recapture our original inheritance, or we are placed in a place where none of His goodness will reach. No more breezes to cool us down. No more sunsets to inspire the feelings of personal value for life. No more love and camaraderie. All of these things are outcomes of His love for us, and the reason we have no excuse for rejecting Him.
Before Adam ate of the tree he had no knowledge of good and evil. How then could it be evil of him to eat the tree?
By rejecting the pardon, we can no longer have fellowship with God because evil is not in God's character.
Why do we require a pardon for behavior we cannot avoid? You dance around this question and never answer it. I am beginning to suspect that you don't have an answer.
Being a loving Creator He has provided a remedy that costs nothing for us.
It is simply not true to aver that Christianity is a cost-free option. In any case, the cost is not really relevant unless you are proposing Pascal's Wager, which fails on a number of logical counts as far as I am concerned.
...or we are placed in a place where none of His goodness will reach. No more breezes to cool us down. No more sunsets to inspire the feelings of personal value for life. No more love and camaraderie. All of these things are outcomes of His love for us...
How is denial of these things an outcome of His love for us?
and the reason we have no excuse for rejecting Him.
Why do we need an excuse for rejecting Him? The use of the word "excuse" implies that to reject God is evil, but you have not yet established that fact.
That was unfair of me because I can see that you are trying. I am sure that you feel that you have an answer, but for whatever reason you are failing to communicate that answer to me.
If a probability >> 10-100 000 isn't zero, may I suggest a few math and science textbooks? What's the probability of drawing a specific card at random from a standard deck of 52 cards? If I say 0.019, do I need to show my work?
I understood Free Republic to be a forum of news, critical thinking, and good natured humor. I thought the ignorant and emotional interchange of those who demand to be spoon feed, was for other blogs. Critical thinking is our advantage as conservatives over the emotion and ignorance of the left.
A Northern-Line train leaves Waterloo Station headed North. At the River Thames the train reaches a constant velocity of 51’s-1. A man on the train is walking North at 4’s-1. He is eating an 8” chutney-prawn sandwich oriented N-S at a rate of 0.25”s-1. There is an ant on the sandwich moving away from the man’s mouth at 0.3”s-1. What is the 2D velocity vector of the ant relative to Nelson's Column?
A critical thinker doesn’t need the answer, he can figure it out for himself. If his solution disagrees with the one proposed, he then confronts the proposer with a reasoned argument. An emotional person is blinded by ideology; he nitpicks, "what kind of bread," "how much of it is already eaten," "is there grafitti on the train," "what kind of nasty British NIH denture work does he have," "prove your calculation," "what if he's walking backwards," "this isn't a physics problem, physics is the study of energy," "how 2+2 can possibly = 4," etc...
The exercise discussed is a derivative of the classic problem of Huxley's monkeys. Some statistical mechanics books use this as a basic lesson in large numbers and timescales. Huxley seemed reasonable at first glance, but nay. I didn’t believe it until I did the work for myself. Based the perceived emotion of your response, I don't think you will either.
Cheers!
You got 15 billiard balls numbered 1 to 15 in a bag. What is the probability to hit '3','10' and '15'?
Cheers!
Adam disobeyed a direct commandment of his Creator. Also there are three things relevant to this:
1. Satan deceived Eve into believing it was OK to eat the fruit.
2. Adam was not deceived by Satan -- by implication he was not present -- and therefore Adam was the one credited with having disobeyed (it may be that Adam joined in eating the fruit out of love for Eve, knowing her fate).
3. Satan knew that a forfeiture of the rulership of earth by Adam would result in Satan gaining dominion (and Satan has ruled the world system ever since resulting in the evil that is so evident in our history).
Why do we require a pardon for behavior we cannot avoid?
There are many ways to tackle this question. The simplest answer probably has the most truth to it. When Adam ate the fruit he became aware of evil. This knowledge opened him up to the temptations to do evil, the pinnacle being pride. This knowledge has been passed down to all of his descendent's. Adam and Eve's newfound pride immediately manifested itself in shame. Cain's pride caused him to murder his brother.
So, Adam's disobedience in eating the fruit led to our sin nature. Much like we all receive genetic characteristics from our parents, we are descendent's of Adam which passed on a sin nature (Jesus being the only exception not having the seed of man, being the seed of woman).
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
How is denial of these things an outcome of His love for us?
Considering the cold deadly universe we live in, recognizing how God sustains our world is wisdom.
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Before Adam ate of the tree he had no knowledge of good and evil. How then could it be evil of him to eat the tree?
Adam disobeyed a direct commandment of his Creator.
So what? At the point when he disobeyed that commandment he was an innocent, and therefore incapable of sin. By definition he could not understand that to obey God is good and that to disobey God is evil because he had no knowledge of these concepts. I don't feel any closer to understanding the answer to this quandary than when we began.
Why do we require a pardon for behavior we cannot avoid?
[Snip exposition of Christian doctrine that explains why we sin].
Your answer that I have snipped is the answer to a different question. You have answered the question, "why is it inescapably in our nature to sin?", which is in itself an interesting question but not the one I asked.
I will ask the question again, at slightly more length, to make my quandary clearer:
We can no more avoid sin than we can avoid breathing or gravity. Christianity is quite clear that sin is an unavoidable part of the post-Adam human condition. Why then do we require a pardon for sin, when to sin is unavoidably in our nature? We are as we are and we can be no other, however hard we try. To make us beg pardon for behaving according to our nature is immoral. We might as well be made to beg pardon for being subject to gravity.
How is denial of these things an outcome of His love for us?
Considering the cold deadly universe we live in, recognizing how God sustains our world is wisdom.
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
I don't understand how denial of paradise (and of course many Christians enthusiastically believe something much darker happens to non-believers) to a section of humanity (the overwhelming majority 95%+ of those who have ever lived, if I understand your doctrine correctly) is an outcome of His love for us. To you your answers may address this question, but to me they come across as non sequiturs.
I can only say that Adam was clear about who His Creator was, because God created one of each kind of animal before Adam, for him to name. Adam was aware that he didn't possess the same Creative power, so he was well aware of the authority with which God spoke regarding the tree.
By commanding him not to eat the fruit of that one tree in the entire garden, God had set only one limit on Adam's freedom. Satan capitalized on this. Remember, Adam was not deceived, he willfully disobeyed his Creator.
Why do we require a pardon for behavior we cannot avoid?
We are guilty by association. It was not the original design for Adam to have passed on sin to all his forebears. He was corrupted, or tainted by his sin. This corruption is part of our makeup now. Not by God's desire, but by the result of having disobeyed God.
Human beings are very proud, and do not want to relinquish an once of their personal power. However, after accepting Christ as savior, we are made aware of our corrupt nature mostly through the revelation of our overwhelming pride (God's been hammering on mine for 15 years). Submitting to the will of God becomes a personal commitment that reaps blessings in character development that the world cannot offer. Maybe more importantly, there is a sense that you are humbly aligned with the purposes of the Creator of the universe in a completely personal way (as opposed to a cultic group way).
If you meet a person that is committed to following Christ -- there are many who say they are but one look will tell you different -- you will know a person who has a peace about them that is unnatural. The world system of achievement does not have the draw that it has on other non-followers. You will see a sincere concern for the wellbeing of other people that supersedes their own wellbeing. The captured female missionaries in Afghanistan so impressed their Taliban captors, that they withheld their treacheries on them. These woman exhibited a true love for the Afghani people, separate from political manipulations, that it protected them from harm.
How is denial of these things an outcome of His love for us?
I would try to clarify my meaning here. The Bible presents the idea that all men can intelligently see enough of the world and universe around them, that there is no denying it was Created, based on the personal attempts of their own to create and sustain something. A house, a bridge, a car, a field... The Bible teaches that God sustains our universe with His power, of which we have ample evidence.
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.