Posted on 11/28/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The fuel driving this science education debate is easy to understand. Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.
They recognize that science must be free, not subject to religious veto. On the other hand, many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether, beginning in the science classroom--a direction unacceptable to them.
They recognize that when scientists make definitive pronouncements regarding ultimate causes, the legitimate boundaries of science have been exceeded. For these Christians, intelligent design seems to provide protection against a perceived assault from science.
But does it really lend protection? Or does it supply yet another reason to question Christian credibility?
The science education debate need not be so contentious. If the intelligent design movement was truly about keeping the legitimate plausibility of a creator in the scientific picture, the case would seem quite strong.
Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, the Dover version of intelligent design has a different objective: opposition to evolution. And that opposition is becoming an increasing liability for Christians.
The reason for this liability is simple: While a growing array of fossils shows evolution occurring over several billion years, information arising from a variety of other scientific fields is confirming and extending the evolutionary record in thoroughly compelling ways.
The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality.
In spite of this information, many Christians remain skeptical, seemingly mired in a naive religious bog that sees evolution as merely a personal opinion, massive scientific ruse or atheistic philosophy.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Richard Colling, the author of the article, is an evangelical with a Ph.D in microbiology. He chairs the biology department at Olivet Nazarene University We had a big thread on him a year ago:
|
As for me, I'll go with God. But, that's just me.
I'm with you. I'll stick with Genesis. I believe God created humans in their present form and that we did not turn from ape-like creature to human.
Faith and Science Ping.
I'll stick to believing in God and take my chances.
Or you can click my screen name.
I always considered him more of a "den."
You seem to be confusing a book that claims to be the Word of God (with no independent evidence) with God.
Why would God be concerned about giving the precise scientific details of how he created the world to a bunch of primitive people who knew nothing about science?
Or, usally means that you have a third optin, so what am I looking for on your homepage?
Cool, now if you are Born Again, guess we'll have a long, long, long time together.
You stated it better than mine in post 11.
Or, you could just study up on the concepts of allegory and metaphor.
What proof is there that evolution is not a RELIGION itself?
Thank you.
Yep!
Or Alternative C, which is: God is a poet and speaks indirectly in Scripture, othewise we'd be burning witches in the public square.
Which is the Truth-with-a-Capital-T, and one of a zillion reasons Catholicism beats fundamentalism with an ugly stick.
Not helpful.
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.