Posted on 12/15/2005 9:12:43 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
Agreed. Goessling's position is contradictory, and also completely disingenuous. To state that she's in favor of the stickers because of "attacks on Christian expression" is ridiculous, considering the stickers were the idea of creationists/IDers to begin with. Seems as though it was "Christian expression" that threw the first punch.
"It appears that, on a daily basis, we're bombarded with attacks on Christian expression," she said.
But... but... but... I thought that the stickers weren't about "Christian expression" at all! At least that is what the ID people keep saying. Could it be that they are not being honest about their intentions?
Are you honestly trying to suggest that an antievolutionist might actually lie?
Not lie, of course not. The just tend to be pathological misspeakers (for God).
Waddaya mean it's "not exactly" about scientific theories when she says "competing theories"? These stickers are going on SCIENCE textbooks, not math or home economics texts!
Bottom line, first she says it's about religion, then she says it has nothing to do with religion.
/major league sarcasm
This is what I find so outrageous about those who want ID taught as science...they 'claim', this is not about pushing Christianity in the classroom....and now, just who do they think they are kidding?...I know that there are some ID supporters who just want a generic type of designer brought into the discussion, but by and large, most of those that I have seen who want ID taught really want the Christian God designated as the designer...I guess they figure if they can get a 'generic designer' slid into the discussion, in time, they can change that to be the 'Christian Designer'...
If it should happen that the designer was going to be designated as an Alien from some as yet unknown galaxy, or designated as one of the numerous gods from Native American myths, then the ID people would be hollering about that...
No, as far as I can tell, ID is nothing but an attempt to insert the Christian God into a science class...and when IDers deny this, I am not kind enough to merely think of this as 'misspeaking'...this is lying...
This guy isn't me, but he could be.
"Janet, it's evolution or Jesus, what is your choice?"
Nobody writes dialogue like Jack Chick. Which is a good thing, really.
Without so much as a justifiable falsification criteria, then neither ID nor Creationism are actually "theories".
******************
Am I correct in assuming that you believe in God and evolution? We seem on these threads to be a diverse group with regard to our beliefs. Those who believe in ID only, those who believe in Creationism, those who believe in God and evolution, and those who do not believe in God, but in evolution.
I'm not completely sure in which camp I am. I find these threads interesting and was drawn to them by a poster who spoke of God in a way that was inspiring to me. As may be quite clear to you, I am no scientist.
Back to your statement disputing ID or Creationism as "theories". While I see your point that they may not yet meet the scientific standard for theories, I do question the absence of curiousity and what seems to me to be antagonism on the part of the scientific community.
*************
I see. I apologize for my assumption.
I have no alternative scientific theory, but I do have belief. I am here because of that belief, and to learn from both sides.
Well, that was the first time I have really looked at any of Jack Chicks 'funnies'....I notice on the Noahs Flood comic strip, he has the young land dinosaurs entering the ark...first time I ever heard of dinosaurs entering the ark...I have heard some folks, 'acquaintances' of mine, tell me that dinosaurs never did exist in the first place...that all the dinosaur bones that are found, were really planted by the devil, to deceive man...(of course, I imagine not many people put forth this particular idea, but still, its one I have heard)....
But dinosaurs, living side by side with Noah, and then entering the ark to be saved from the flood, is a new one on me...
I don't know that I've heard that one, either.
I've heard "The dinosaurs were killed by the flood when Noah didn't take them on the ark." More commonly, I've heard that dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden (and were all vegetarians!) until the Fall, when Eve's sin cast them out into the world of death and they started eating each other. But still, that would probably put them extinct before the Flood.
I've also heard "The Devil put those bones there to trick us." But I don't take that one very seriously - how can you possibly debate with someone who has such an interesting perspective on reality?
You wrote: "I have no alternative scientific theory, but I do have belief. I am here because of that belief, and to learn from both sides."
Reply:
Is there an "American Judeo-Christian" verity about these questions? Not at all. Muslims devoted to the Qu'ran equally reject evolution. The preference for faith-based government, and missionarism for one particular view, crosses all boundaries. In all times, priests/pastors/mullahs/monks have tried to capture the power of government to promote their own agendas.
But the issue about 'intelligent design' is not just a matter of personal belief. It is a question of public policy. Is 'intelligent design' a good idea to promote? Or does it repress scientific, human inquiry? I recently tutored a student in chemistry, and there are complex ideas about molecular orbitals, but I think the important point is that there are complex ideas, and we can't ignore them by saying "God did it."
Personal belief in astrology is neither a good basis for international relations nor for family finances. Public displays of religiosity/piety are about power, not about spiritualness or social responsibility.
Personal beliefs and good public policy are not the same.
*************
I don't believe (that pesky word again) that ID or Creationism must or should repress scientific inquiry. It appears that this is a concern of the scientific community, which seems based at least in part on historical events.
"God did it". Yes, God did. That doesn't mean that we should be intellectually lazy or dishonest, imho. God also gave us brains, which means to me that He intends us to use them.
Repression is not my goal,of either the scientific or religious communities.
'Twas the night the Enlightenment came to Georgia.
The problem is that the "two sides" of this issue aren't whether one accepts evolution or theistic creationism, but whether one views the world through logic and evidence or through feelings and hope.
It is possible to join these two "sides", as the Catholic church has done, and declare basically that God created the science, and by definition science and God cannot contradict one another. This means they have to interpret Genesis rather loosely, which is a problem for many modern fundamentalists who have been taught that the Bible is literally true. But the advantage is that they only have to bend their reading of the Bible, vs. Biblical literalists which have to bend any rational view of reality itself.
Newspeak redefinition placemarker
Actually, this entire thread may be an exercise in futility, as the Clintonoid judge who ordered the stickers removed may be about to be slapped down:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541171/posts
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.