Don't try this at home, kids!
Posted on 03/21/2006 8:10:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The spiritual leader of the world‘s Anglicans does not believe that creationism -- the Bible-based account of the world‘s origins -- should be taught in schools.
"I don‘t think it should, actually. No, No," said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, reflecting on the bitter education debate over religion and science that has so divided the United States in particular.
Williams, head of a church which has no problem with the Darwinian theory of evolution, told the Guardian newspaper: "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory, like other theories."
Asked if he was comfortable with the teaching of creationism in schools, the mild-mannered and usually cautious theologian said: "Not very. Not very."
In the battle to bring God into the classroom, Christian conservative supporters of creationism and intelligent design seek to deny or downgrade the importance of evolution.
Intelligent design proponents say that nature is so complex that it must have been the work of a creator rather than the result of random natural selection as outlined in Charles Darwin‘s theory of evolution.
Williams‘ stance echoes the position of the Roman Catholic Church, the world‘s largest single Christian denomination, which has weighed into the debate by praising a U.S. court decision that rejected the intelligent design theory as non-scientific.
Catholicism, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed.
British businessman Peter Vardy has funded schools in northern England that came under attack for teaching creationism in biology classes.
But the creationist movement has certainly not taken hold as strongly in Britain as it has in the United States.
"Religion has become politicized in America. That is not the case here. This is not a major issue," religious commentator and broadcaster Clifford Longley told Reuters.
"There is no intellectual credibility given to creationism in this country. There is no parallel between English evangelicals and American evangelicals.
"When I wrote an article saying there were no creationists in Britain, they both wrote to me."
You'd think that things like this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600606/posts
would convince the Creos that the Jews might not be so bad and just might have a place in the great Deli in the Sky - but there's no telling about the true believers.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Well, I laughed and then I cried and then I sniffled, but only a Balrog could find something like this.
Sheesh, we really need a new thread.
That's nothing! You should see what happens when you take three of four rabbits and bind Colt Python .357 magnums to them with bailing wire. Can you say "hare trigger"?
Add a fire extinguisher to that list.
"What we will see in heaven is God throwing out the ones who refused to believe in Him because they felt that science had proven Christianity was a myth."
So why would you advocate putting the teaching of Christianity in the hands of science by forcing science teachers to discuss it in a science classroom?
You're creating an atmosphere conducive to lowering Creation to a myth to be discussed alongside other myths in a science classroom, and in teaching ID (the idea that there was some unknown intelligent designer behind Creation) you cast a doubt on who the Creator is!
I don't get it.
Deuteronomy 14:2: "You are a holy people unto the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth."
Variation in divorce rates by religion:
Religion % have been divorced Jews 30% Born-again Christians 27% Other Christians 24% Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Dumplings or biscuits?
Ouch...
Naples, Athens, & Mexico City aren't too slick either ...
The current record for the minimum number of posts it took to compare Christians to Islamic killers is 16. Looks like the record stands.
Neat duck of the point I actually made by pretending that I said something that I didn't. Nice. For the record:
Ah, the "no excuse" argument. Evidently false, since the overwhelming majority of those who have ever lived don't find the evidence for Christianity overwhelms their cultural predispositions. Therefore it isn't obvious to everyone that Christianity is true, therefore it is wrong to say their is no excuse for not accepting it. Every religion can make the same claim; all with equal invalidity.
As for the rules, keep in mind that I wasn't the one that made them. If you don't like them, you'd better talk to Him. Fortunately, He's listening and you'll find that He is quite willing to talk back. You might even learn something.
Save some time. You tell me the answer that you got from Him on this subject. "I wasn't the one who made the rules" is the standard whining response when the manifest unfairness (to the point of extreme evil if the purported punishments and rewards are true) of the "Rules" are pointed out.
How do you know he didn't read it, or didn't already know the content of Romans I. I read it, and the applicability to the question being asked was marginal, at best.
The Joycean stream of consciousness of the writing didn't help either. Hard to make out what it was about, with it flitting from subject to subject like a butterfly, using words like "they" without specifying clearly who "they" are, etc.
their => there. Ouch. I hate that one when others do it.
Scots church leader joins row over teaching of creationism in schools. Excerpt:
Last night, Mr Cameron, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, said: "The Book of Genesis is primarily about the Who and Why of creation, not simply the How. Regarding whether creationism should be taught in schools, I share the Archbishop of Canterbury's sentiments. It is important to debate the different views, but not polarise the modern theory of evolution with the Creation story." [Addition by PH: Primus? I wasn't aware of that title. But I like it.]Gotta appreciate the Scots' legendary forthrightness.The position was supported by both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland. A spokesman for the Church of Scotland said: "The situation in England with creationism being taught in schools has not arisen in Scotland. Creationism would be a minority position in the Church of Scotland."
Meanwhile, Father Michael McMahon, a scholar with the Catholic Church in Scotland, said: "The Hebrews, the people who composed the Book of Genesis, didn't believe it was first-hand reportage, that there was someone peering behind the trees writing it all down. The book is a literary thesis about the creativeness of the world, not a description of the scientific process by which the world was created.
"You don't read Genesis as you do a science book. To do that is to reduce what it is trying to do, which is explain the relationship between human beings, one to another and those to God."
There are substantial regional variations in the amount of understatement which is considered good form, of course. :-)
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.