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 ...
There is no reason to think that ERVs were not just infections by the same retrovirus. Previously it was thought that ERVs were not site-specific, but further evidence has disproved this.
Cite?
If there is no allegory or metaphor in the Bible than does G-d literally make you lie down in green pastures?
So, in other words, you agree with the creationists Marvin Lubenow, Paul Taylor, Mark Van Bebber, Sylvia Baker, Malcolm Bowden, David Menton, Duane Gish, & Bill Mehlert. And you disagree with the creationists Sylvia Baker, Paul Taylor, Mark Van Bebber, Malcolm Bowden, David Menton, Duane Gish, and Bill Mehlert.
Gotcha. :-D
True, I do not take everything in the Bible literally. No one that I know does. But I do believe that the history in the part is accurate. Just as I believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. The key is realizing which parts are metaphor and which are actual accounts. The bottom line is does one believe as Jesus said that God's Word is truth. Revelation is an example where allegorical and literal are mixed together which makes it a hard read.
Is there going to be literal destruction? I believe so. The woman and the beast are descriptions though.
The problem with evolution is that the focal point is so finite. It leaves out the transcendent and infinite. It focuses on quantity over quality.
Another question. Why does our world use the 7-day week?
I would think with evolution we would use something other than is found in Genesis?
Also, evolution without God does not take into account the laws of nature. To say that the laws of lift and gravity did not have a Designer are as bad as saying a Dell computer put itself together without humans. Impossible!
So the argument goes forces designed man but man can design technological wonders like airplanes and computers.
I hate to break to the people that think man is the greatest is like the people found out we revolve around the sun instead of vice-versa just as someday everyone whether they like or not will bow down before the Son (King of kings and Lord of lords) Phil. 2:9-11 and that isn't fiction!
Previously it was thought that ERVs were not site-specific, but further evidence has disproved this.What evidence?
How about there just isn't enough H and O anywhere to add 5 miles of water to sea level.
If there is no allegory or metaphor in the Bible than does G-d literally make you lie down in green pastures?
Yes, and someplace -- hopefully -- where there are rigid leash laws.
Interesting post to reread later (with my Bible!).
I heard a good joke the other day. The scientist says to God - "We are as powerful as you - we can create life from dirt." He reaches down to grab a handful and God says "Hey, get your own dirt!"
Let's also agree that your faith goes in sermons where it belongs and science goes in science classes where IT belongs.
Your link leads to this:
The Flores Skeleton and Human BaraminologySorry, you started to lose me on the post-Babel and by the time I got through high post-Flood intrabaraminic diversification rate I was laughing so hard I had to stop.KURT P. WISE
ABSTRACT
The morphology, age, and stratrigraphic relations of the recently described Homo floresiensis skeleton suggests it might represent a distinct post-Babel human population with an extreme morphology. Combined with the morphologies and relative ages of other post-Babel humans (e.g. H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis), H. floresiensis suggests a high post-Flood intrabaraminic diversification rate decreasing to the present. This coincides in time with a similar pattern in non-humans, suggesting the mechanism of intrabaraminic diversification operated across all living organisms. The fact that many of the differences in fossil human morphologies can be achieved by differential development and the changes seem to be isochronous with the Biblically-evidenced decrease in human longevity suggests that human diversification may have been due to changes in development. These changes in humans probably followed pre-programmed trajectories through biological character space, the specific course of which may have been largely effected by founder effect and genetic drift in small populations following Babel.
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/006.html
You don't really believe any of this, do you?
Gee, we've never heard that one before! ;-)
Convoluted by whose standard...yours?
Can science produce a moral standard or a virtue...can science prove a bank robber to be a loathsome menace to society or can it just measure the robber's neural activity by means of a PET scan?
The question is important, more than you know, for science can't measure a moral standard or a produce a Constitution and a Bill of Rights!
What? You honestly believe this stuff??
Grossly misstating the ID position is vital to defeating it, because the neodarwinists cannot defeat ID on physical, mathematical, and statistical grounds. Dishonest and desperate neodarwinists have fashioned a strawman, sold it to the public as the genuine article, and bashed it to smithereens.
Meanwhile ID itself stands serene and untouched.
In the fourth definition: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, Evolution certainly qualifies.
Evolution is not adhered to with faith. Its accepted by virtually all scientists because it fits the data.
Ergo, it's not religion.
BTW, the fossil record is just one small part of the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting evolution.
" Creationist lie #324: all who accept evolution are atheists."
Even more petinent is that all knowledge of the physical world is A Posteriori not A Priori. - Kant
LOL, good pseudoscientific claims are always serene & untouched. How could they fail to be? They're unfalsifiable!
300
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.