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 ...
If you want to sink even lower, check out the end of this thread.
Yup! And he/her is going to "thump" you with it by citing a passage from the Good Book the first chance he/her gets. It's the Christian version of ef yoo.
no, no, no, my step father always told me it started with a little black dog in Africa...(sarcasm) of course) He likes that statement, and I find it humorous too.
Water does not significantly absorb most UV. Moreover, if UV were responsible for a shorter human lifespan, people who spend most of their time indoors would tend to live much longer, wouldn't they?
Some other common whack-a-moles:
- Evolution is the foundation of Atheism/Communism/Naziism/Homosexuality
- Evolution doesn't prove abiogenesis
- Evolution can't increase genetic complexity/information
- Evolution is fraudulent due to Piltdown Man/Nebraska Man/Orca Man etc.
- Evolution can't happen because "kinds" can't change into other "kinds"
- Evolution can't happen because eyes/wings/flagella/blot clotting/knee joints etc. are too complex to have evolved
- Evolution is wrong because radiometric dating doesn't work
- Evolution is wrong because the Big Bang says we came from nothing
- Evolution is wrong because dinosaur and human footprints are found together
A lot of moles to whack indeed...
See them all: Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
Some folks do, actually. There was a link to their web site on one of the other crevo threads. I didn't bookmark it, sadly.
This would be represented by a mole with "WHAT BANGED?" written across its forehead. *whack*
This could be turned into a carnival game at Hovind's theme park.
What a ridiculous thing to say to a very reasonable response. You are just perpetuating the stereotype that fundamentalists are anti-intellectual, willfully ignorant, and impossible to reason with. This is only partially true (I've encountered fundamentalists on both sides of this description), but you are only harming your case.
That, or you are actually an atheist trying to discredit Christianity by giving it a bad image.
You forgot, "Evolution can't happen because there are no transitional fossils."
A few questionable, potential transitional fossils are not proof of the theory. If evolution were true, there should be an overwhelming number of transitional fossils.
It's pretty interesting to consider how and what could have increased the life span of Man. It could just boil down that God willed it.
But honestly, we're warned to stay out of the sun now and wear UV protection.
"This is the stupidest statement I've seen on FR this month, and that's saying something."
It is, isn't it! I couldn't believe that someone could think that way and type at the same time. I hope (and pray) we don't loose the conservative movement to these morons.
An oldie but a goodie.
In the fourth definition: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, Evolution certainly qualifies.
Statements which say 'the fossil record shows the evolution of forms' are disingenous at best. They show an apparent succession of forms, with the assumption that those forms are derrivative of earlier forms, and that later forms are somehow more advanced.
The connection between different species is inferred by morphological similarities, and the stratigraphic and geospatial relationships, but by no means is evolution shown by the fossils, instead, it is a conclusion drawn from the fossil assemblages, and defended with religious fervor by its adamant proponents.
For those who hold this belief dear, the denigration of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other belief structure is done with the fervor of zealots who are decrying the beliefs of a competing belief structure.
So, frankly, when evolutionists decry Christianity, for instance, especially when they assume the absence of a God, they are merely expressing different religious beliefs, no matter how "reasoned" these beliefs claim to be.
Source: Merriam-Webster online Dictionary Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - re·li·gion·less adjective
So your idea of the conservative movement rises and sets on the theory of evolution? Read the polls then. It's doomed already. Anyway count me out. I serve God first. The conservative movement comes way down the list.
This is why I seldom engage in this meaningless banter anymore. People talk past one another. The real debate is about macro evolution not micro evolution. No one is arguing about birds' beaks changing size and color.
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.