Posted on 12/09/2005 3:55:11 AM PST by mlc9852
Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.
Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
placemarker
Well said!
Exactly - natural processes directed by God. Do you think nature created itself out of nothing?
Well, the Bible describes God creating man and woman. Either it's true as written or the Bible is just another worthless book. But is can't be both.
Gigantic false dichotomy.
Science proceeds by trying to falsify hypotheses. If we consider the possibility that a supernatural being can influence the outcome of a test, the test has to be rejected because the level of certainty would become useless. Whether or not a supernatural influence is really active in the test is irrelevant, the possibility itself will reduce the level of certainty. The point is, how do we know the supernatural is being constrained? Trust in consistency is necessary.
Science works with what it has, and if at some point a "supernatural" occurence introduces a phenomenon that heretofore has never been observed, then science is perfectly capable of coming up with a "natural" explanation for that, too.
It is not the occurrence of a single anomaly that is the problem, but the inconsistency possible in each and every test run. If at the end of each test run you have to ask: "was that result truly representative or did God make it that way?" how do we convince ourselves it was honest run? If we trust the consistency despite the possibility, why bring the supernatural into it at all?
"I would also ask again how it is that science, in generating terms to explain the known universe, has somehow eliminated or changed what in fact may be altogether supernatural in the first place. How do you know science is not simply in the business of ascribing "natural" terms to what is purely the activity of angels.
We don't. By eliminating the question of the supernatural, trust in the outcomes of tests at least enables us to continue.
Challenge
I would like to see a proposal from creationists for a methodology that would enable us to include the supernatural in science. Within that proposal I would like to see a dry run experiment where the steps in the methodology are applied to some imaginary scientific investigation.
Are any of you creationists up to the challenge?
Fair enough. In that case, and to answer mlc9852's original question; some of the Bible is not 'True'.
In your opinion...millions and millions of people are well able to find the Bible true, and also believe in evolution...you find those two things incompatible, but you cannot speak for others...
And if one believed in the Bible 'true as written', please do explain why there are so many different Christian religions which explain different Biblical passages in different ways...many Christian religions have widely disagreeing beliefs concerning what the Bible says, quibbles about even the meanings of simple ordinary words...why should this issue of evolution be any different?
You have an interpretation that leads you to one belief...and many others have different interpretations that lead them to other beliefs, completely differing from what you believe...you cannot prove you are right, you cannot prove the others wrong...on the other hand, the others cannot prove themselves right, nor prove you wrong..goodness, just look at all the religious threads on FR alone...and that is just a tiny segment of the population...
So you cannot speak to as to whether or not for sure, that the way you interpret the Bible is the only true way...you can speak only for yourself...as I cannot speak for others, just can only speak for myself...
Neither you, nor I, have a monopoly on what the truth of a particular Biblical scripture states...we each have our own opinion, which differs from the others opinion...so be it...
But you cannot speak for the bulk of Christianity on this matter, any more than I can...you have your opinion of what the Bible states, many others will chose to disagree with your opinion...if we all agreed, there would be only one Christian religion, and as we all know, the various brands and flavors of Christianity are many...
You also stated in some earlier post, that science should investigate whether God does exist or not...I cannot find that post right now, just remembering it, so sorry if I am remembering it wrong...but if I am remembering it correctly, I wonder why you think that science should invesigate into the existence of God...I have always believed that the matter of the existence of God was a matter of pure faith, taken without proof...
How so?
That's strange - most of the evo posters sound pretty upset to me.
That's what's known as "projection."
I believe the Bible as it is written. If I didn't, how could I call myself a Christian?
If God exists, why would it not be possible for science to discover evidence that God does indeed exist? We've explored the universe but you're saying science can't seek to discover if God exists? If something exists, why can't it be discovered?
Oh, a psychiatrist AND a scientist! I'm impressed!
Well, the Bible describes God creating man and woman. Either it's true as written or the Bible is just another worthless book. But is can't be both.
If I rejected everything in every book I read based on whether or not one particular something in it was literally true or not, I'd never believe anything in any book I read. Why do you take this position?
Judges
6:36 And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said,6:37 Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.
6:38 And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.
6:39 And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.
6:40 And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.
Because I take the Bible literally as I have no reason not to. If we descended from ape-like creatures and life began without any Creator, then there is no Creator and no God. Do you think "nature" created itself out of nothing?
But the Bible as written, no matter how you try to phrase it, is always 'interpreted'...I have seen discussions on FR, on religious threads where the meaning of the word 'all', 'rock', 'brother', 'sister', 'whosoever', and on and on is always in dispute as to the intended meaning...its always, always being 'interpreted'...
So in this context, you saying that you believe in the Bible as written, is really meaningless...
Because I take the Bible literally as I have no reason not to.
Why do you take the Bible literally?
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.