Posted on 07/30/2008 7:56:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
==Why are we so arrogant to assume that we know how long one of God’s days might be?
Are you equally aghast at Christopher Hitchens’ claim that God is not great? Or Dawkins’ claim that belief in God is a delusion?
Fascinating indeed! It appears to be a variant of directed evolution, where the Creator directs how evolution happens through speciation, adaptation, mutations, and natural selection.
Basically, the theory of evolution with God shepherding the process along...
Not even close.
Absolutely NOT! Are you just making this up as you go?"
Why were Giordano Bruno and Galileo in trouble? And why has the Church offered apologies?
Which all means that we have no idea how long Creation actually took OR how God actually did it. The idea of evolution doesn’t bother me, as a Christian, because I believe that God is the Author of all life, and it really doesn’t matter to me exactly how He did it, in 6 days, or over several hundred million years.
I believe in the theory of evolution. And I think it should be taught in schools. Does that make me a fanatic?
Of course, I look at the evidence that exists and see how it does fit with the theory, and where it falls short, and believe - along with most biologists and professors I’ve had - that in general there is a lot more support of the theory than not.
Given that, it would be a sound scientific theory to teach until something more solid or proven comes about.
Is that the fanaticism you are condemning?
Actually, the ‘Dark Ages’ weren’t all that Dark, since it was religious people who were protecting and holding the knowledge that had been gained up to that point, for a time when there would be enough people and resources to continue the work.
‘Cause that was a hoot. Evolutionists are still giggling over that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo
Did you READ what I said? Did any of it SOUND like I’m an atheist?
Your citation was “Principia, Book III; cited in; Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings”
Th work is the collected writings of Newton in which he MUSES about creation. He is in no way shape or form proposing a SCIENTIFIC theory, an experiment to prove it or is submitting it for rigorous scientific study by his peers. Let me give you an example of what a scientific citation from Newton is:
“A new theory about light and colors”, Isaac Newton, February 19, 1672 in Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, No. 80, 3075-3087.
If your institution has an APS membership you can access the full text at
He PROPOSES a specific theory about the light propagation, SUPPORTS it with the best scientific evidence & was ACCEPTED by his peers (hence the publication) as a scholarly work on SCIENCE, not a random philosophical musing of an individual.
Show me a paper where he proposes that the universe was created by god, follows it up with experimental evidence and published the results in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Well, some of the folks MOST objecting to Galileo were not priests or even the Pope, it was his fellow scientists, because he was going against what was, at the time, accepted science.
==Did you READ what I said? Did any of it SOUND like I’m an atheist?
If you are not an atheist, then what are you?
That’s exactly my take, too... My faith is not so thin as to be shaken by not knowing every little detail.
My faith is based on the concept that everything exists because of God, and He made everything how he chose.
And that the Bible is not a science textbook but a relational manual dictating how we are to relate to God and fellow man, not how to determine how the gene sequences work, or what the firing order of my 1963 Merc Comet Custom is!
You are entitled to your beliefs, are IDers, and Creationists.
==And I think it should be taught in schools. Does that make me a fanatic?
Only if you insist that your beliefs be taught to the exclusion of all other beliefs.
==Of course, I look at the evidence that exists and see how it does fit with the theory, and where it falls short, and believe - along with most biologists and professors I’ve had - that in general there is a lot more support of the theory than not.
Change creation for evolution, and your statement exactly matches where I'm coming from.
==Given that, it would be a sound scientific theory to teach until something more solid or proven comes about.
I believe students should be taught evolution, ID and special creation, and let the students decide for themselves...there really are no other viable options.
So we teach them ID without reference to the Bible or Christianity? You OK with that?
Yes, I am.
Go clean your glasses, comb your hair, lift up your chin and look elsewhere because you won't find it here.
But don’t forget, I think they should be exposed to evolution and special creation too.
So, teaching evolution is OK. And saying that something may have created everything is OK, too. Right?
Then we can present the cases for the evolution, and we can point to ring species, and the evolutionary record of the horse, and so on.
And for the creationism, we can say something somewhere at sometime made everything you see as-is.
And leave it at that?
In fact, I think they should devote an entire course to all three of them.
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.