There is absolutely no way to recocile Genesis- and by extension the Christian God- with the patently ridiculous theory of evolution, no matter anyone's wishful thinking.
Faith and Science Ping.
You may find this interesting.
“We can deal with contradictions,” Evans says. “We can go to church and then go to science class.”
Interesting article. But I don't think believing in God and studying science are contradictory from one another.
Let's see - John Brown started the civil war in Eastern Kansas and exported it to Harpers Ferry, Brown VS the Board of Education was started by a KC.KC attorney whose housekeeper's family was in Topeka public schools, and now we have academicians vs the public right to religion. Looks like Kansas is as big as you think (their crummy motto)
Build on the resentment that libertarians (cultural liberals) feel when they realize they have to share a table with unfamiliars like conservative Christians--throw around the "theocrat" libel and "know nothing" ( appeal to intellectual snobbery/vanity). There's nothing that scares an "educated" libertarian more than being thought stupid or unsophisticated.
Try to make Republican pols disavow, shun or otherwise betray religious conservatives (make Santorum a target?) so that a few religious conservatives stay home instead of vote.
All it takes is a few, after all.
There you go--Democratic majority in the Senate. And all they had to do was call a few Christians a few bad names.
I'd be willing to bet that George Soros might even front a little money for such a project.
YEC INTREP - They still don't understand
“Turns out, Paul Mirecki might be a prophet.”
Glad to see there’s no agenda here.
“But when we asked for his take on the modern-day tension between science and religion, he attributed it not to genuine human soul-searching but to “a political movement to change society.”
Yeah, a political movement to stop your political movement, and, one hopes, to reverse the damage your ilk has done.
“State Sen. Kay O’Connor said he “has hate in his heart.”
Sky is blue, ocean is wet . . . you ain’t gotta be Fellini to figure that one out.
“Other state legislators questioned KU’s integrity and the professor’s competence.”
And in other news, sources claimed that Jeffrey Dahmer may not have been a very nice fellow.
“Mirecki’s boss, Chancellor Robert Hemenway, called the e-mails “repugnant and vile.”
I only hope he meant it, and was not just posturing for the media. But did he really not know what kind of vipers he was harboring?
“It would seem there’s an impassable rift between the God-fearing and the God-doubting.”
One would more accurately term them the God-loving and the God-hating.
“Between the far right and the far left.”
That would be, “Between the far left and the rest of humanity.”
“Between two caricatures: the religious crusader and the atheistic intellectual.”
That would be, “Between a caricature, the ‘religious crusader,’ and the ubiquitous atheist pseudo-intellectual.”
“Yet two-thirds of respondents to a recent Lawrence Journal-World poll reported believing in evolution theory and God.”
You astound me, Holmes.
“Could it be, then, that Mirecki was right? That an issue seemingly close to the human heart has been hijacked and exploited in the public sphere?”
No. It is rather that the scurrilous conduct of Mirecki and his ilk has been dragged out into the light of day.
“We set out to find what’s really going on”
No, you set out to slam Christians.
“to our knowledge, the current political debate involves no evolution-wary Wiccans, nor fundamentalist Buddhists, Jews or Spaghetti Monsterists.”
Oh, yes, Wicca and Spaghetti Monsterism are on the same moral plane as Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity. In a pig’s eye.
“They should not be mixed. Religion should not practice science, and science should not practice religion.”
However, both are practiced by human beings, and it is folly to ignore the implications of the one for the other.
“humans have been constructing meaning and mythology since the time of cavemen. So says religious studies scholar Karen Armstrong”
No bias there, eh? Looks like the “religious studies” field may be as heavily infiltrated as the other departments.
“Mirecki says. “I don’t *believe* in evolution. I accept the findings of scientists.”
And in the same way a lot of people do not *believe* in God, but accept the evidence of their senses.”
“I think the great fallacy of fundamentalists is that they want to put religious truth and scientific truth on the same plane and say they’re the same kind of truth”
And here we see the big lie at the core of the opposition to any mention of intelligent design.
The initial problem was atheists saying that scientific truth can prove things about religious truth, and that what it proved was that there was no God. Everything that has ensued is a *reaction* by people of faith to that abuse.
Religion was *already* being taught in science classrooms, and what was being taught was atheism. People of faith, seeing this, started saying that the science classroom should not be the exclusive purview of atheists to teach atheism, and, since atheists are unable not to teach atheism, they wanted a bit of time for the other view.
“The God I was taught about as a fundamentalist Christian is not compatible with what I learned in the world,” Humburg says.”
Which is immaterial to any discussion of intelligent design, since intelligent design does not include 7-day, young-earth creationism.
“No matter what science says, God could still be behind it all. Behind everything,”
Which is ID in a nutshell.
“Evans . . . estimates that 10 percent of Americans are evolutionists, 10 percent are creationists, and 80 percent are some combination of the two.”
All she can see is creationists, evolutionists, and hybrids? I wonder if she’s deliberately misusing the word “creationist” to further her agenda, or if in her view everyone who believes in God should be lumped together.
“Burt Humburg, KU Medical School graduate, Christian, and evolution advocate . . . “We imbue the world with meaning — that everything has a purpose,” Evans says. “That’s why people have a profound feeling of discomfort when confronted with evolution.”
I wonder how hard they had to look to find this theological idiot. If you accept that the fossil record reflects some sort of process, and you accept that God created everything, then clearly evolution has a purpose.
“Religion and evolution are perfectly compatible, with a few exceptions.” One of those exceptions is Biblical literalism.”
Well, after all that talk about “creationists” we finally get to this?
“The church refused to accept his theory that the Earth was round and not the center of the universe.”
Another distortion that won’t die.
“famed blogger Josh Rosenau (says) “ . . . you can’t base religion on empirical evidence.”
You can if you have the evidence.
“Krishtalka says that by attempting to place science and religion on the same plane — public school classrooms — Intelligent Design proponents have created unnecessary conflict.”
Another repetition of the central big lie. Atheists have created unnecessary conflict by using the science classroom to proselytize their religion.
“Rosenau says the debate too often is categorized as “atheists vs. Bible-beating hicks.”
He must read FR.
“He (God) doesn’t expect us to check our brains at the door to church.”
Quite true, but try telling that to a fundamentalist atheist.
“One such mission occurred in September at an anti-evolution meeting in Dover, Penn. The meeting convened amid a federal trial between Dover residents and the local school board, which voted to include Intelligent Design in a revised curriculum.”
Note the association of “anti-evolution” and intelligent design. ID is not anti-evolution.
This is a three-cornered fight, with the atheists muddying the waters by conflating the other two points of view.
“Here I am as an M.D.,” Humburg says. “Anything that undermines science is a threat to me. Be it politics, religion, Intelligent Design. As a scientist, I should have something to say about that.”
And once again the association of ID with "anti-evolution."
“As it turns out, Miller sums up our unscientific findings in a note at the bottom of his personal university Web page: . . . Christian theologians and scientists, including evangelicals, since the time of Darwin have seen no necessary conflict between orthodox theology and an evolutionary understanding of the history of life.”
IOW, ID.
The author admits that the notion of a severe separation of science from religion is a new one. This even newer insistence on a hermetic seal on the science classroom, to prevent any acknowledgement of the existence of religious belief, can have only one motivation: to ensure that the teaching of religion in science classes remains the exclusive prerogative of the atheist.
"A perceived conflict between science and religion has been constructed, through media and public forums, by people with political aims."
This is really all one really needs to know. The controversy is mostly construed. It makes good media and that sells papers and gets ratiings.
Have you ever seen a media report on a consensus? Agreements are boring, conflict is exciting.
The fact that 99% of scientists agree that humans contribute to climate change is much less a story than the 1% that disagree.
Of course if 99% of people beleived the world was flat and only 1% thought it was round, the 1% would be right. That is why science is not a democratic process.
Yet another demonstration of the mis-use of the word "theory". The proper word here, I believe, should be "hypothesis". A "theory" is an entirely different thing, describing how something operates, like "gravity theory", "music theory", and "semiconductor theory". It is NOT a guess.
Wow. He's honest.
As I have stated, most support for "evolution" has nothing to do with biology or evolution but is used as a means to change socierty.
It is socio-political. The Miricki hoaxer KU dude is a perfect example -- he's a professor of religion -- what does he have to do with evolution or biology?
Nothing -- he's a rabid leftist liberal who simply wants to change society which meand excising anything traditionally conservative.
I give Mireski props for being honest and straightforward about it.
I wish the evolutionite cultists here were as intellectually honest.
IOW, science must be atheistic or it ain't science.