Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
SURELY you can come up with another adjective more creative (oops - sorry) than LIAR.
It's getting a bit tired in it's usage.
(At least the 'pants on fire' bit is gone.)
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions".
[The last 14 words here are quoted from Paul's First Letter to Timothy, chapter 1, verse 7.]
If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.
Of course it's not true. It's evil and slanderous. And you claim you are a Christian. HA.
You are full of hate.
Because all male humans share the portions of the same DNA.
Read the article.
" Jesus was a general in the army that lost to the Romans in 70AD?
Wow. I didn't know that."
Non-sequitur.
But at least you amused yourself.
Oh, believing the same way you do about the 2nd Coming is a requirement for being a Christian? I didn't know that.
You must not get around much. I suppose you've never heard of preterism.
"Oh, believing the same way you do about the 2nd Coming is a requirement for being a Christian? I didn't know that."
It's not and I never said it was.
Wow! That's got to be the Mother of all Quote-mines! (MQM)
In 1925, Tennessee high school biology teacher John Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution in violation of a state law favoring creationism, in one of the most celebrated trials in U.S. history. Scopes was convicted and fined $100, but the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the verdict on a technicality.-- MSNBC - Politics and religion enter into evolution debate
--- 14 paragraphs elided ---
“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.”
"... Wayne Carley, executive director of the NABT ... [said] the change was made because they wanted "to avoid taking a religious position."
A little context makes it clear the change was made to accomodate the religious believers:
The National Association of Biology Teachers's 1995 statement on teaching evolution used to read: ``The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process.'' Late last year, after lively debate, the statement was revised to delete the words ``unsupervised'' and ``impersonal.''-- Boston Globe - The hand on the controls is survival
According to Wayne Carley, the association's executive director, the change was made ``to avoid taking a religious position'' that might offend believers.
The deletion was appropriate, and may help quiet some of the controversy over the teaching of evolution. Although there is no evidence of ``supervision'' or ``personal intervention'' in the fossil record of life, neither can these things be ruled out empirically.
The NABT decision to change its statement is widely seen as a retreat from the secularist worldview of the "scientific" community. "That perception may cause the Darwinists some worry," ... "because they cannot afford to look as if they are losing confidence."
The NABT decision to change its statement is widely seen as a retreat from the secularist worldview of the "scientific" community. "That perception may cause the Darwinists some worry," Mr. Johnson says, "because they cannot afford to look as if they are losing confidence."-- The Biblical Creation Society -- David J. Tyler
Why did you omit the attribution to Mr. Johnson? Phillip Johnson?
Aren't they all? At least the loudmouthed, proud-of-their-ignorance, screaming Bible-thumpers.
"It's not and I never said it was."
Uhm.. . yes, you did.
Given what I wrote, you replied that, "Me and every Christian, I guess", must be wrong about the prophecies and their relation to events of 70 A.D. That would exclude others who are not wrong.
Once more, the anti-Es are caught in a bald-faced lie. Don't ever expect an apology or a mea culpa from them, however, as not only are they dishonest, they are dishonorable.
dread78645: "Wow! That's got to be the Mother of all Quote-mines! (MQM)"
Exactly. How embarrassing is it for you blind-faith Darwinists to have the executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, no less, admitting that to teach evolution is to teach a religion? Hahahaha
dread78645: "..Why did you omit the attribution to .. Phillip Johnson?"
Why would you deliberately choose to mislead those incapable of critical thought into thinking that I didn't provide you with the source (in #586) for the quote, ace?
Despite your whining about "context" - "the context" at Strange Alliances, only reinforces the points I made, to wit:
"A growing number of commentators have noted that there seems to be a link between creationist apologetics and the various critiques of Darwinism coming from marxist and postmodernist sources. Although these groups appear to have little in common, they advance somewhat similar objections to the technicalities of evolutionary theory.
More interestingly, these groups appear to consider that Darwinism leads to a denial of values (by its emphasis on differential fitness and contingency). Furthermore, all groups have a perception of establishment science as a tool for manipulating people.
Thus, Lewontin, a marxist geneticist, has drawn an analogy in The doctrine of DNA (Penguin Books, 1993) between religion and some of the trends found in contemporary science.
He points out that religion has been used as a tool for social control, where the social institutions and political leaders are perceived to have the approval of God.
"But this description also fits science and has made it possible for science to replace religion as the chief legitimating force in modern society..." (p.8).
Again, these groups collectively advance the objection that "science" has overstepped itself in the way its advocates claim "objectivity" and "value-free" knowledge (at the expense of humility and acknowledgement of fallibility).
Lewontin writes:
"Not only the methods and institutions of science are said to be above ordinary human relations but, of course, the product of science is claimed to be a kind of universal truth. The secrets of nature are unlocked. Once the truth about nature is revealed, one must accept the facts of life. When science speaks, let no dog bark" (p.8).
The response of the establishment generally is to minimise the significance of such dissident voices.
They are treated as eccentricities when the critics concerned are distinguished scientists, and as irritants when they are not.
The response of some scientists with a Christian commitment (particularly Theistic Evolutionists) is to acknowledge the validity of some of these criticisms, and to point to a science that is more "humble". This is a science that does not claim to address questions of meaning and purpose, but only of "facts" and "testable knowledge". Science cannot test whether God controls history - so it properly remains silent (they say).
Similarly, science cannot test whether man is the product of God's creative activity - so it properly remains silent. This is popularly presented by Theistic Evolutionists as: "science tells us how; theology tells us why".
But is this emphasis of "humility in science" satisfactory? In my view, the answer to this question is "no".
One major problem with it is that there is a complete failure to address the issue of presuppositions in science.
We need to ask: "What are the premises of science?" "On what foundation is it built?"
Such questions appear to be rarely asked, but they are of crucial importance in this debate.
If we adopt the maxim "science tells us how" without recognising that some possible explanations are excluded from consideration at the outset, we may find ourselves seriously compromising the truth.
Whereas the scientific revolution took place in a theistic culture (where leading scientists found no difficulty harmonising their science and their Christian beliefs), this is not the case today. Faith has been banished to a "private" corner of people's lives, and even though 40% of scientists are said to believe in God, there is little point of contact between these beliefs and their scientific work.
The problem now is that science is built on a presupposition that natural causes are responsible for every effect, both now and in the past.
Science proceeds by assuming that nature is all there is: this is "naturalism". The thesis that every whole is explained in terms of the sum of its constituent parts is "reductionism".
Naturalism and reductionism are the working presuppositions of contemporary science. Thus, there is no place for an intelligent cause of any effect. As far as origins is concerned, the only acceptable causes for modern scientists are natural ones.
Building on these presuppositions, "science" has moved irresistibly towards the idea of an unplanned, unsupervised cosmos. It has become associated with the idea that life on earth is entirely the product of contingency.
In the United States, the National Association of Biology Teachers has stimulated much debate recently over the extent to which evolution is "unsupervised and impersonal". This is because these key words were incorporated into a position statement proposed by NABT leaders.
The following news report is taken from WORLD Magazine, January 24, 1998:
"The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process." So read the platform of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), the influential professional society of high school and college science instructors.
But in a surprising move that has scandalized evolutionists and secularists in the education establishment, the NABT has excised the key words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from its creed, technically allowing for the possibility that a personal, intelligent creator designed life, albeit through the mechanism of evolution.
But don't expect evolutionist educators to recant their materialist faith anytime soon. As Phillip Johnson, a leading critic of Darwinism, told WORLD: "I don't think the NABT meant to change its substantive position, which is still that evolution is a completely natural and material process in which God played no role.
They merely removed some language that was too explicit in stating their naturalistic philosophy."
Indeed, Wayne Carley, executive director of the NABT acknowledged as much, saying the change was made because they wanted "to avoid taking a religious position."
That is an admission that demonstrates the truth of what Christian critics have been claiming all along: The association's original platform - like Darwinism itself - exceeds purely scientific conclusions, and embraces distinctly religious ideas.
The NABT decision to change its statement is widely seen as a retreat from the secularist worldview of the "scientific" community. "That perception may cause the Darwinists some worry," Mr. Johnson says, "because they cannot afford to look as if they are losing confidence."
The word "unsupervised" implies that there is no divine oversight or control of the evolutionary process - a direct attack on the theistic evolutionary position, as well as all other theistic perspectives.
The word "impersonal" rules out any involvement of a divine person in the evolutionary account of origins.
The fact that these words were promoted by the NABT leadership for some time before the change is indicative of how entrenched naturalistic philosophy ("nature is all there is") has become in the academic community.
Alliances may be planned or accidental. The convergences of thinking mentioned in the opening paragraphs are undoubtedly unplanned. Agreement on particular issues should never be interpreted as a consequence of agreement at a deeper level. Christians, Marxists and Postmodernists have not set out to form an alliance.
The different groups would not agree on the NATB statement: for example, the Marxists are entirely happy with the idea that evolution is unsupervised and impersonal.
However, collectively, these groups are having some effect on establishment science.
Some heated exchanges have taken place in the past few years, particularly between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould (representing establishment science and marxist science respectively).
Phillip Johnson and the "Intelligent Design" movement are making inroads into universities in the United States and have a significant media pressure.
The NATB retreat is essentially an acknowledgement that the naturalistic philosophy underlying their original statement cannot be defended as "science" itself, and that the alliance of voices pointing this out has been, to some effect, effective.
Theistic evolutionists, among others, did object to the wording. However, because Theistic Evolutionists do not, in general, perceive the naturalistic philosophy underlying contemporary science, their protest was lightweight.
Naturalism will not voluntarily limit its interests to "how?" questions: it will make the deduction that the "why?" questions are contentless (as there is no ultimate meaning or purpose in a naturalistic cosmos).
To counter naturalism, it is necessary to develop a holistic Christian view of science, or Marxist view of science, or Postmodernist view of science.
Insofar as there is this common ground, the strange alliance looks set to continue!
David J. Tyler (April 1998)
Please explain the presence of the ellipsis between "evolution is" and "a religous" in this quote. Are you lying again?
Why would you deliberately choose to mislead those incapable of critical thought into thinking that I didn't provide you with the source (in #580) for the quote, ace?
Are you still beating your significant other?
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.