Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.
But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."
Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.
In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically.
This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.
How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.
To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.
Good points by Krauthammer!
Visible and invisible, God created and sustains it all. Human knowledge will only scratch the surface in understanding it all. Darwinism is shallow. Comparative morphology is hardly a susbstitute for direct observation of history. Evolutionists pretend to have the luxury of explaining world history while being "scientific," but they have only as many schemes as evolutionists; as many theories as imaginations; with only two mantras that fit all: "Something other than God did it" or "God did it, but He had to have the help of evolution."
The biblical texts state clearly that the Creator is intimately involved with all of creation at all times. Quantum physics would support this. The biblical texts also state clearly that the universe as we know it is slowly dying. Entropy supports this. The text of Gensis reports matter of factly that at one time the surface of the earth was covered with water. A world wide distribution of sedimentary rocks and fossils supports this.
I just don't see science as causing those who take the biblical text seriously to "blow a fuse."
Well thanks for your opinion. Have a wonderful, blessed day.
Ok, ok. Another question. Are you working alone, or are you fronting for some kind of larger anti-Christian group?
Dang!!!
More TarBaby questions!
NIV Proverbs 17:10
A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more than a hundred lashes a fool.
NIV Proverbs 28:23
He who rebukes a man will in the end gain more favor than he who has a flattering tongue.
NIV Leviticus 19:16-18
16. "`Do not go about spreading slander among your people. "`Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the LORD.
17. "`Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
18. "`Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
NIV 1 Timothy 5:1-2
1. Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers,
2. older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
NIV 2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
NIV Titus 1:13-16
13. This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith
14. and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.
15. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
16. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
NIV Titus 2:15
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.
| Narby: And you still haven't addressed why you think it's a good idea to create an artificial stumbling block to young people accepting Christ.
You tell them that in order to have faith like you, they must reject virtually all of science.
Elsie: I do??? Methink you exaggerate a bit! Seems to me that the STUMBLING block occurs later in the BOOK.
|
Is this true? You really have such a "holy book?" What is it called? Who wrote it? Where may I obtain a copy?
If this is not true, and you facetiously spun it out of your imagination, then I would count you among the same people who spin tales of world history out of their imaginations and call it "science." But I will not take either you or the texts you spin out of whole cloth seriously, and neither would most reasonable people.
Doubt we can handle...
;^)
I did no such thing. And if you infered that from what I wrote, either your reading skills are broken, or my writing skills.
To: Elsie
There's them PLANS again!!!
I hate to bring it to you Elsie, but DNA is a plan. An evolved plan, just like the Avida program demonstrates at Caltech. |
But then you'd miss the funny stuff!
Behold the all powerful Elsie and his dutiful minions!
They're not even consistent in their definitions, so why should I think they're not misunderstanding the Theory of Evolution?
Uh.
I thought the dark ages were ENDED by the advance of Christianity? (That no doubt believed in CREATION.)
NIV Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. NIV Matthew 18:1-4 1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2. He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. NIV Matthew 19:13-14 13. Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." NIV Matthew 21:15-16 15. But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant. 16. "Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him. "Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, "`From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise' ?" NIV Romans 8:16-17 16. The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. |
The teaching of evolution IS teaching faith as science
You are obviously the one who hasn't been paying attention. Did you notice the psychotic responses I got to my simple observation?
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
And you received just as many (including mine) explaining where you might have erred..
Sorry Narby,
I just HAD to do it!
Not much different than unbelievers ignoring the evidence for God, is it.
There was no error in my observation. I did not claim that 100% of Freepers don't know the difference between fact and theory. But anyone who thinks everyone knows the difference hasn't been paying attention.
(And folks who think Christianity is fargmented into maNY PARTS OUGHT TO CHECK OUT iSLAM SOME TIME!!)
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.