The Dirty Little Secret Is Out: Religious Faith and Evolution Are Incompatible

ICR ^ | March 20, 2009 | Frank Sherwin, M.A.

[GodGunsGuts]

In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith...

[Kansas58]

And the Catholic Church was the instrument of Christ, to preserve His Church,

Just as the Jewish Chosen People had been an instrument of God the Father.

[Kansas58]

tpanther

I know very clearly that most Christians do NOT worship the Bible.
However, some DO, and that worship borders on Idolatry.

The Bible is a work of MAN,

Inspired by God, yes -—

But the Bible is the work of MAN!

[Gordon Greene]

“No fair you have real bullets.”

Was I too harsh, you think?

[tpanther]

Please show me the scientific study about prayer.

---

Actually...”Studies”.

I was sitting in the doctor’s office several years ago, and read a long article about the benefits of prayer, I think it was in Reader’s Digest.

It went on about medical doctors acknowledging the effects of prayer on overall health, and the article also mentioned scientific studies (plural: more than one scientific study) and scientists (plural) “have concluded”...etc. etc. etc.

Why? Do you doubt there have been scientific studies on prayer?

So, anyway, from what I can tell, there’s more than one.

Which comes right back to my point...I wonder who is funding these scientific studies of prayer?

[tpanther]

Perhaps a service has been rendered, time saved.

[Badger1]

To be a conservative, as the term is understood in the United States, it’s nearly impossible to be so while also being hostile to those who believe in God. “Real” Republicans support the party “planks” that are socially conservative. They’re there for a reason, because a large number demand it.

If you spend as much time and exertion on demanding fiscal conservatism as we spend on demanding social conservatism, we’d be getting somewhere. Everyone has priorities.

I am not hostile to those who believe in God, I just don't think that rational arguments can be conducted on religious grounds. Arguing on religious grounds is an emotional argument, not a rational one.

And here is my problem with your statement that "“Real” Republicans support the party “planks” that are socially conservative. They’re there for a reason, because a large number demand it.' I support the "socially conservative" parts of the Republican platform, as I stated before, as long as the "social conservatives" do not try and use the power of government to force those beliefs on other people.

As I said before: If you want to teach your kids creationism, fine by me. Get vouchers passed so you can send your kids to schools that teach creationism. I will help you in that effort, as I want to send my kids to a school that actually teaches kids about economics, although I will reject any school that teaches creationism. What I will not help you with is getting creationism taught in public schools, where every child will be subjected to the obviously religious viewpoint of creationism.

My beef with "social conservatives" is not with what they want, but with how they want to go about implementing it. Again as I said before, if you want abortion outlawed then get it overturned on Constitutional grounds by advocating for originalist judges. Advocating for a federal law to outlaw abortion nationwide is just not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Again, I will back you up 100% on that issue if you would just focus on something that can be accomplished instead of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Bottom line is that as long as "social conservatives" keep trying to inject their religious beliefs into government, they will turn away many more people from the Republican Party than you bring in, no matter how "large" the "number" of people who "demand it."

There is a reason the founding fathers did not want a state religion. They wanted government itself to be secular, even as they thought the people in government would be religious and even as they based the secular laws on religious precepts. So take a cue from the founding fathers and find secular, not religious arguments to get the "social conservative" agenda passed. Do that and your odds of actually accomplishing something will increase dramatically.

[tacticalogic]

Maybe. But that’s not your call to make.

[Kansas58]

WVK
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make, since this particular post of yours contradicts nothing that I have said.

Let me speak more directly, The BIBLE that is currently recognized as the King James version, would not be possible without the Catholic Church, which preserved ALL of the original Hebrew and Greek and Latin Manuscripts on which the King James, and the earlier English Bibles, were based.

Yes, it is true, that King James had ordered that no direct Latin to English translations were permitted, however, the translations used in the King James were compared to the Catholic Latin to English translations, prior to publication.

Also, the previous English version Bibles, prior to the King James, were, pretty much, direct translations from the Catholic Latin Bible. Those other English/Protestant Bibles, derived directly from the Latin, were also compared to the King James translation, prior to publication.

More to the point, the Books of the Bible, what Books were to be included, was decided by Catholic Councils.

The verses in each Bible, Catholic and Protestant, were organized as to Chapter and Verse, by the Catholic Church.

Without the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible.

All that non-Catholic Christians did was MODIFY what was already given to them, passed down to them by Catholics.

Again, I fully admit that every faith has made mistakes, including the Catholic Church.

But, you should get past your silly notion that the Christian faith could have survived for 2000 years, when, for 1500 years, the Catholics were the ONLY Christians that existed. (Well, also the Orthodox and Eastern Right, but there is little difference there.) And, for most of Church history, most of Christian history, most Christians could not read, and few Christians came in contact with an actual Bible, since they were far, far too rare and expensive until the time of the printing press.

[LomanBill]

>>inflation, dark matter, and dark energy to make them work

The explanation that space is not uniformly dense is simpler. i.e. It’s lumpy or crystaline in structure.

[tpanther]

All day long I’m certain I’m free to point it out.

[Kansas58]

WVK

And the Scripture that you keep quoting was preserved for you, and for all Christians, by the Catholic Church.

[Gordon Greene]

“Then maybe you’re the moron?

Cracks me up when people say evolution theory and Christianity can’t exist.”

Hey... Sorry I didn’t get back to this earlier.

That’s a great argument. It ranks right up there with all the other great arguments Evos have. Keep ‘em comin’!

[Fichori]

“If I spammed FR's news forum every day with at least two editorial screeds from my own religious viewpoint websites, that is the best I could expect to be treated.” [excerpt]

Hmm, perhaps you missed this.

In light of that, calling GGG's threads ‘spam’ is nothing more than a personal insult.

“In truth, I would expect to be booted for abusing FR...” [excerpt]

When the mods or JR decide someone is spamming, they call them on it.

To my knowledge, that has never happened with GGG's threads.

Until that does happen, you're just engaging in ad hominem.


Remember, (a) if a thread gets posted on a forum that either JR or the mods don't want it posted on, they just move it and warn the poster, and (b), JR and his mods decide what is and isn't spam, and last but not least, (c) if you have a valid point, insults and snide comments are unnecessary.

[tacticalogic]

Are you sure about that? I suspect sitting down and doing it “all day long” might have some unintended consequences.

[Kansas58]

Go back and look at the passages from Paul.

Do you think that Paul wrote all of the verse numbers in between the sentences, in his original text?

Why do the Catholic and the Protestant Bibles all refer back to the same verses?

Which Bible was first?

Who, then, must have decided how to organize the entire Bible, in the FIRST place?

The Catholic Church, of course!

[metmom]

Science invites skepticism.

Hardly. Just be skeptical of the ToE or the HIV/AIDS connection and see where it gets you.

[Gordon Greene]

“If I spammed FR’s news forum every day with at least two editorial screeds from my own religious viewpoint websites, that is the best I could expect to be treated.

In truth, I would expect to be booted for abusing FR...”

When are you guys going to figure out this site is slanted toward religion as well as Politics... in particular the conservative Christian view. I may be wrong but I don’t think the mods are going to boot anyone for introducing Christian viewpoints to the site.

The country was founded on such, you see. The country is failing because of a lack of conservative Christian values.

[LomanBill]

>>This is a remarkable viewpoint.

And one refuted via simple observation of the very technology we’re using to communicate - which makes extensive application of Quantum theory.

[tpanther]

Certain. Santa shows up on Christmas morning but He knows what you’ve been saying, all year round! :0

[metmom]

Relax some.

The designation of Day was just to demonstrate that they were separate creation events. God created fish and birds at a different time than mammals and man using similar materials (earth) but not from each other.