Some of us believe in God and evolution.
nmh's standard reply:
Posted on 03/10/2006 8:09:38 AM PST by LouAvul
South Carolina (AP) -- The state Board of Education on Wednesday rejected a state panel's proposal to change high school standards on evolution by calling on students to "critically analyze" the theory.
Science teachers had complained that although critical analysis is part of all science, the wording was really a backdoor attempt to force educators to teach religious-based alternatives. In a 10-6 vote, board members agreed.
The Education Oversight Committee, a school reform panel made up of lawmakers, teachers, parents and other community members, recommended the change last month. Panel member Senator Mike Fair, R-Greenville, has said it was intended to introduce students to challenges to evolutionary theory.
Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, a Democrat, has called the effort "a ploy to confuse the issue of evolution so that ultimately evolution won't be taught."
Officials disagreed over the effect of the vote.
Education department officials say the vote leaves previous science standards adopted in 2002 in place. But Representative Bob Walker, R-Landrum, said both the Education Oversight Committee and the Board of Education must agree on new standards.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
You don't have to believe the Bible is accurate to believe in God.
You think the Bible is God. I don't worship a book.
Thanks, but no. I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote. The idea was that if God is able to control creation, in whatever manner it is accomplished, God is certainly capable of bringining about the revelation of scripture such that it says what He intended. There is substantial evidence to support that position, from the agreement of concepts throughout scripture to the unusual structure of the original hebrew text of the pentatuch (hope I got the spelling close). If you would rather propose a god that is different than revealed in scripture, that is fine, but then the disconnect is between your concept of god and scripture, or perhaps your interpretation of scripture and mine, and that's a good discussion too.
You think Genesis 1 and 2 is "detailed". LOL.
How many atoms did it describe? How many planets and solar systems? How many nuclear forces and processes in stars and the sun did it describe? How about photosynthesis? Infrared radiation. The molecular workings of DNA?
When I said Genesis left out trillions of details, I meant exactly that. Trillions of details. If you can't imagine that something relatively trivial like evolution and the evaporation and condensation that make thunderstorms work were not covered in a few pages of the Bible, then you really missed my point.
Also, can you describe what the rationale is for the Catholic position, or was your contention simply based on hear-say?
I don't have time to look up links right now. But Pope John Paul II wrote on the subject a couple of times and indicated no conflicts between the Bible and science, including evolution. Recently the Vatican astronomer wrote some articles that specifically said the same thing under the auspices of the new Pope.
The Catholic church was burned badly by the Galileo fiasco, and they're determined that whatever science finds, it will not be interpreted as conflicting the Bible. Modern Fundamentalist denominations which don't have the long history of the Catholic church have unwisely placed themselves at odds with science regarding evolution.
Science has always won in arguments vs. faith. Always. If you can give me an example otherwise, I'd appreciate it.
At the Dover trial, it was demonstrated that the "Pandas" ID book originally used terms like "creationism", but was cut-and-paste edited to the term "ID".
ID is creationism in sheep's clothing in a vain attempt to sneak creationism into public schools by relabeling it.
Nobody's buying it.
Some of us believe in God and evolution.
Doesn't mean he did.
There is substantial evidence to support that position,from the agreement of concepts throughout scripture to the unusual structure of the original hebrew text of the pentatuch (hope I got the spelling close).
That is not proof the Bible is %100 the inspired word of God. There is no proof of that. You accept that on faith.
That "animal" has at least two different meanings is one of the first things I learned in school. I remember that day in Kindergarden like it was yesterday.
During class, I cusually referred to people as a kind of animal. Some other kid said, "No people aren't animals!" The teacher then stepped in and said, "You're both right! Can anyone tell me why?" I think that was perhaps the first paradox I ever had to resolve.
Faith can never conflict with reason. The Pope's statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts. An excerpt:
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis. Referred to in the 1996 statement. Excerpt:Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [see link & excerpt below], fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
... the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
He's living in a dream world.
He's stating plain facts. If you deny them, *he's* not the one living in a dream world, *you* are.
The TWO are LINKED!
...in your confused, ill-informed mind.
yes, he is right that the Catholic church and the Anglican church is on board with him. Being "religious" by NO MEANS makes one a Christian.
So Catholics aren't Christians? ROFL!. Are you really this ignorantly arrogant, or just really this confused?
I point to the Catholic church and Anglicans which also ENDORSE evolution.
Yes. Exactly. So clearly something is wrong with your original claim. Is the little light coming on over your head yet? Or is reality just bouncing off your forehead with a sharp "ping"?
Evolution and genuine Christianity have NOTHING IN COMMON.
Ah, yes, the only "true" Christian is one who sees things exactly as you see them. Got it. There's a word for that kind of attitude. I'll bet you hear it a lot.
I know ... common sense is in short supply ...
You've got that right!
when one starts believing in evolution they automatically start disbelieving God
Complete horse manure, son. Are you *really* this clueless? The *majority* of American evolutionists believe in God. Are you ever going to try to work that inconvenient fact into your bizarre beliefs, or are you just going to sit there and keep clinging to your beliefs no matter how badly they clash with reality?
Oh, right, you're an anti-evolutionist -- you have no problem believing things that clash with reality...
since He states something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what godless evolutionists state as their "theory".
Nope. You're reading the Bible wrong.
Evolution totally contradicts what God has stated.
No, it doesn't.
This is logic 101 properly applied.
From my past experiences with you, I really don't think you're the best person to be holding himself up as the epitome of "logic 101" -- or even of being able to accept basic facts...
Stated differently, two OPPOSING theories cannot be true at the SAME time.
Right, but evolution and a belief in God are not "OPPOSING theories". Over a hundred million people have no problem reconciling them, even if you're unable to grasp that.
Either God has it right, or godless evolutionists have it right.
False dichtomy. You really love those logical fallacies, don't you? I'm sorry, what's that you were saying about "logic 101" -- go actually learn some before you try again.
Your "choices" are grossly distorted from the actual point under discussion. It's not whether "God has it right", it's whether YOUR BELIEF ABOUT God "has it right", and it's not about "godless evolutionists", because that's what you're trying to *establish* (that evolution is necessarily "godless") -- you are engaging in the additional fallacy of "assuming the conclusion". You wouldn't recognize "logic 101" if you tripped over it.
It's a choice on who you believe.
No, it's a choice on what makes sense and matches reality when compared against it -- something you've not learned how to do, and actively resist doing.
The evidence supports God; not evolution.
ROFL!!! Look, just stamping your feet and holding your breath while you declare that over and over again didn't make it any more true, nor is that even an either/or choice -- again, VAST numbers of people accept the validity of *both*. Hey, remember this post, where you made a bunch of ridiculously over-the-top claims about evolutionary biology like "There is NO, absolutely NO evidence to support it - ZILCHO!", and I challenged you to support your claim -- and you ran away?
Again, you can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to. Nor are the huge numbers of people who consider both God and evolution to be compatible and true. If you can't wrap your head around that, that's *your* problem, not ours.
Those that claim belief are only fooling themselves if they also claim to believe in the religion of evolution.
The fact that you think evolutionary biology is a "religion" only reveals just how divorced from reality, how in your own "dream world" you are.
Either you believe what God states or you believe what the godless state.
Again, you really enjoy false dichotomies, don't you? And don't mistake *your* fallible beliefs about what God might have said with "what God states". Your beliefs are *not* automatically equal to God's Truth. Just how arrogant *are* you? Pride is one of the deadly sins. And again, evolution is *not* synonymous with "the godless state" -- you keep presuming your conclusion, which is a blatant fallacy and a complete violation of "logic 101". Learn to think rationally for once.
I don't suppose I will get through to you.
No, your arrogant fallacies won't get through to me, because I can see right through them. I'm not in the habit of adopting flawed idiocies.
Being spiritually discerned is a burden ... that is taken on by choice.
Thanks for the non sequitur.
You have utterly failed to support your claim, and utterly failed to deal with the inconvenient fact that acceptance of evolution *is* compatible with belief in God. Deal with it. Or at the very least, stop wasting everyone's time with your rambling flawed arguments which do nothing to support your claim, and everything to demonstrate that you're unable/unwilling to rationally examine your falsehoods on this subject. You also have a problem with mistaking *your* personal beliefs with "what God says". You are not the voice of God, I regret to inform you. If you want to try to argue whether *your* intepretation is correct, feel free, but you would be well advised not to again make the mistake of thinking that it's automatically equal to God's version, and that if anyone disagrees with you, they're disagreeing with God. You are not God. But your arguments are formulated as if you think you are.
Some of us believe in God and evolution.
nmh's standard reply:
That wasn't hard to do. All they had to do was throw out the parts that didn't quite agree when they assembled the Bible from various religious texts a few hundred years ago.
LOL. Thank you PH.
Actually, there are no sides at all - the universe is a Klein bottle.
Because his existence as a person and what he is literally described as having done are essential to the message of the text. The details about the exact length of time of creation, and the order are unimportant.
Also, can you describe what the rationale is for the Catholic position, or was your contention simply based on hear-say?
The rationale for the Catholic position is that faith and reason cannot conflict. If there appears to be a conflict, then something is wrong. Either your reasoning is faulty, or your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. The reasoning behind evolution is sound, as anyone who isn't willfully blind can see. Therefore, the ultra-literalist interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
In addition, the rejection the strict, literalist interpretation of Genesis also has deep roots in Sacred Tradition, another authoritative source of docrtine for Catholics. Most Church Fathers recognized that the ancient Hebrews weren't concerned with all the scientific details of creation, so the details in Genesis weren't meant to be taken as literal fact.
What's important, and accepted as true, is the big picture: God created the universe and man, who is made in God's image. Precisely how that happened, whether it was 6 days or 6 billion years, is unimportant. Ancient peoples, like the Hebrews, commonly told stories with allegorical details to get accross truths like this.
Exactly what I was taught in an Orthodox Jewish elemenatry school.
Let's see if your logic holds up:
"You see, as long as we brainwash white southern kids into thinking they came from slaveholders, then they will act like slaveholders."
"You see, as long as we brainwash black kids into thinking they came from slaves, then they will act like slaves."
LouAvul, vpintheak, Dr. Spots, could any of you please tell me whether or not there's any evidence that those last 2 statements have held true in our history?
Do you see why that argument is so breathtakingly inane?
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.