Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer
This is true.
My mother went to Catholic schools from 1917 to 1931....
My father was orphaned at 3 years old and raised by Aunt's on his Catholic mothers side. When he left Indiana at 14 in the 1930's he also left religion. OTOH, he was the most moral man I ever knew. He died when I was 17. My mother, a Scottish Presbyterian was more sceptic than saint. I attended a Lutheran Church with my parents friends on occasion. I did and do, however, play the bagpipe and have been in many houses of worship and have heard many a sermon. I have played "Amazing Grace" more times than I have witnessed such behavior by believers. Grace and humility may be Christian ideals, but they are not Christian habits.
Atheists and believers are natural antagonists, as are evolution proponents and Biblical literalist.
I don't think that there are "atheists". Everyone believes in something that cannot be proven. The "Godless" communists believed in a religion that masqueraded as reasoned economics. It was nothing of the sort.. It was paganism with the state as its god.
However, it is not the case (as you seem to think) that all believers are natural antagonists of evolution proponents.
I agree. I know believers that consider evolution to be the present state of human biological knowledge and nothing more. I include myself in this group.
I do have a problem with teaching young people that the fossil record demonstrates that there is no God.
So do I. The existence of God, pro or con, is not the perview of an evolutionary biology class. The mention of "God", in the affirmative or negative, would be in the wrong venue. Any science teacher who would say; "This proves there is no God", to a class, has an agenda.
Since the odds of atheists refraining from communicating that to their students are, for all practical purposes, zero,..
Likewise for the Fundamentalists.
The only reason I can see for insisting on a hermetic seal on the classroom to prevent that from happening is that atheists want the opposition silenced.
No. You are more than free to teach Creationism/ID in your house of worship but not in the public school house. The latter is mandatory and there must be standards, the former is voluntary and free to teach that the Earth is flat.
You make my point for me. Why don't you have your statement read in English class? Or Social Studies? Hey, you can have it read in Gym class.
"You make my point for me. Why don't you have your statement read in English class? Or Social Studies? Hey, you can have it read in Gym class."
Both must be taught side by side, to allow the students to judge for themselves. Academic freedom.
What are the pro-evos afraid of?? They don't even want a 4 paragraph statement to be read once a year in Dover. The pro-evos are running scared. They are afraid students will use their own logic.
So I'm guessing we can now lay to rest any notion that ID has nothing to do with religion?
In the long run, the end of civilization. The planet can only sustain about 10,000,000 people without technology. Science is the basis for that technology.
In the short term, the survival of the US. Nearly 40% of our scientists and engineers are foreign born as it is. How high does this number have to go before we lose our military and technology advantage?
If this were an academic freedom issue, then you would also be proposing that students be made aware of the flaws in ID, and the devious and greedy nature of it's adherents. This could be followed by a discussion of the gaps and contradictions in the Bible including a discussion of why Jesus couldn't read Hebrew.
But this isn't really about academic freedom is it?
Hitting my head against the wall, because time is being wasted in schools teaching a theory, and pro-evos actually think that's OK. For the 100th time, I am NOT confused between a theory and a fact; I just think that IF one THEORY is taught, a competing theory should be taught.
theory = guesses
scientific theory = scientific guesses
If they must teach the evo THEORY, then they should also teach ID, so students can decide and think for themselves. But hey (I just had a brainstorm), maybe they don't WANT students to think for themselves.
DEVASTATING MATH PROBABILITIES
The possibilities of it occurring by chance are devastating.
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
--snip--
"There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store in the Encyclopedia Britannicas."—*R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 115-116.
--snip--
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna04.htm
You said: "Evolution does not care where the first living cell originated."
Yeah, tell me about it. They don't care about any of it. They just want to "prove" a THEORY/guesses, any way, any how.
Show the "flaws" (both sides) for both; I don't care.
But let students THINK for themselves.
Academic freedom NOW!
Many parents (and students) do not want evolution taught.
Don't they count?
So you want to give students academic freedom by cutting out science class. I think the British have actually done that. I believe it's the birth of the Morlocks.
If someone is forced to send their kids to public school, science should be done in science class and religion in religion class. Trying to fuse these things with a bunch of ignorant teenagers isn't gong to educate anyone.
My preference is to homeschool. Then you can do whatever you want.
Abiogenesis is probably the only reason Darwin's theory became accepted in the first place. The notion was then built upon with a great deal of other "evidence." You know, like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, the "Hopeful Monster" theory, recapitulationism, the delibrately doctored Lucy pelvis, the "Killer Ape" hypothesis of Prof. Dart., etc.
You are twisting my words. It that intentional??
I don't want to eliminate science; I want to eliminate junk science - or at least let students decide for themselves.
ID does explain much. It explains that spiders were designed to help control the insect population.
ID explains that the actions and interactions between species of life were all designed to keep a balance.
Does evolution address this question?
Don't tell me that all this balance was CHANCE!!
Fine! I really have no problem with that. If the parents sign a "No Evolution" document to the school district and the kids receive only plant and animal biology instruction, sans evolution, it's OK by me. As long as the parents and children understand that the school district cannot be held liable if these kids don't pass many of college entrance exams. The other students in the school would be taught current biology, including evolution, in other classrooms.
scientific theory = scientific guesses
If they must teach the evo THEORY, then they should also teach ID
Sigh. More definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
You want to let kids who don't know anything, much less basic biology, decide what they should be taught about biology.
I thought I understood you perfectly.
I apologize if my comments offended you or anyone following this thread.
"In Aramaic. And Jesus probably spoke Greek and some Latin.
I apologize if my comments offended you or anyone following this thread."
---
None taken.
I believe that Hebrew was spoken at temple and Aramaic was the common street language. Like a Catholic priest saying mass in Latin.
"That's why the apocrypha were included in the Old Latin Bible even though the Jews had removed them from their Bible."
---
What language was the apocrypha originally written in?
I honestly don't know.
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.