Posted on 01/09/2006 8:26:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Ignoring the clear language and intent of the drafters of the constitution, including the First Amendment is not 'pure conservatism'.
And humans are still apes.
I forgo many such opportunities.
"The entire exercise has been about teaching religion in science class, no one has complained about teaching Christianity in comparative religion classes."
"History is a major component of virtually every biology coursebook I have ever examined. How one teaches 'intelligent design' as anything other than 'this is another explanation' I don't understand. It has a place in at least the historical context and should have equal footing with the descriptions of medieval beliefs that snails turned into swans or whatever it was (been a few years since I took biology.)
I agree, however that is not how it was being presented. It was being presented as an alternative science to evolution with the hidden intent of supplanting evolution. It is not a science yet, and I doubt it will every become a science in the biological context, so has no place being taught as science. Taught as you suggested? Sure.
"In the context of the Dover trial - the school board operated like morons. In the context of the history of biology, creationism has a place. Do I think it should go so far as to say that every mutation has the hand of God? No, I don't. Can it go so far as to say that some believe that the diversity of the biosphere leads some to see the hand of God? Absolutely.
It appears I have misunderstood your original post; my apologies.
Get back to me when one of those lizards gives birth to a polar bear.
</creationism mode>
Look in the mirror. Do you see a human or an ape?
If that is the case, let's see an experiment cross breeding an ape with a human.
Both. I also see a mammal, a primate, a eutherian, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, and eukaryote.
When you look at a tiger, do you see a tiger or a cat?
It's not either/or. You're talking about two different levels of classification.
Readers should also note that those Christians that were also scientists carefully kept their religion out of their science, at least regarding those discoveries.
The problem is not the religious beliefs of the scientist but the inclusion of religion in scientific conclusions.
"The OT deals with the laws but you probably already know that. Skip to the NT for grace."
That's very good advice. But the OT is a part of the Bible. How do you reconcile the fact that, out of all the world religions, only Islam comes close to enforcing such archaic laws as "Kill your disobedient teenage son"... or that women should be "unclean for 7 days" after giving birth to a son...and unclean for 14 days for giving birth to a daughter (Leviticus 12:1-5)? Why doesn't Christianity and Judaism still take these 'laws' literally? If they aren't to be taken literally, why should Creation?
Seriously, since no Christians or Jews (outside of a few whack jobs) take these laws seriously, how can a person take the rest of it seriously? You can't say "Well, Creation story is 100% true...but ignore those pesky, weird laws about death to non-Sabbath observers."
Keeping religion out of public schools IS the "clear language and intent of teh drafters of the Constitution".
They're not taught those things in the science class and they're not taught those things are true. If they are mentioned, they are mentioned as a matter of cultural ed.
Sorry, but it is not the prerogative of any judge to aid in the establishment of atheistic principles. Weaselly disclaimers notwithstanding, those who do so should be considered "activist" judges, because the people of the United States have not given government the authority to establish and maintain only atheistic principles. By law judges are obligated to protect the free exercise of religion in public and in private. Science is not entitled to have its biases protected by law. If it wants wholly atheistic science to be taught, then it is free to establish its own private school system where atheistic principles are established and maintained.
You go first.
Evolution occurs. It can be considered a fact, variation and natural selection is observed. The Theory of Evolution is a theory explaining the observations. It, as its name suggests, is a theory.
"The first cell came from simple chemicals, combining in random reactions.
The first cell did not come from random chemical reactions. The first pre-life, or proto-life was not a cell. Chemical reactions are not random but follow observed physical rules. Apply energy and they (atoms/molecules) will combine.
"But why can't anyone duplicate these chemical reactions in a lab?
Because we do not know which chemicals, of what quantities, in what sequence, in which environment, the first pre-life developed. It took the environment a minimum of 500 million years to accomplish what you feel we should accomplish in 50 years.
"Silence. Evolution is a fact. Not a theory.
Evolution is a fact and the ToE is a theory.
Aaaaannnnnd what were you hoping to see?
I don't take OT laws seriously any more but I'm sure I would have if I would have lived in those times. I also don't take prohibition laws seriously but I would have in the 20s.
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.