Posted on 11/25/2009 7:56:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
HUNTSVILLE, AL, Nov. 25 Christian Newswire -- Two creation films called "inappropriate" were denied the opportunity to be shown in government facilities this week--which marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". While the intelligent design film "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record" has not been granted permission for a showing in California, "The Mysterious Islands", a new 90-minute Vision Forum film that challenges Darwin's evolution by taking audiences back to engage the enchanted Galapagos Islands, has enjoyed a victory and will premiere as previously scheduled tonight, Nov. 25, at 6:30 PM, at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL.
"We want to commend the U.S. Space and Rocket Center ("USSRC") for allowing equal access to its facilities for a private screening of 'The Mysterious Islands' this week," said a jubilant Doug Phillips, executive producer of "The Mysterious Islands". Phillips and his crew--his son Joshua Phillips, Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research and Jon and Andy Erwin, the award-winning production duo who shot and produced the documentary--have been traveling the country screening the film since its release on Nov. 12, with key members making the trip on the "Galapagos Ark" Tour Bus.
"Knowing that the USSRC was a government facility, we contacted attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) for assistance," Phillips continued about legal action that led to the victory. In a letter dated Nov. 23, 2009, Daniel Blomberg, ADF litigation counsel, informed the USSRC executives that their "refusal is in direct violation of Vision Forum's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights," and he highlighted the fact that the USSRC had shown two pro-evolutionary films, "The Magic of Flight" and "Blue Planet", at their facility. The USSRC responded to ADF's letter within hours of receiving it and is now cordially allowing access for a screening of "The Mysterious Islands". Though the film is premiering with short notice in Huntsville, hundreds have already registered to attend at: http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e2mzzpjzfd3e5dcc
"The Mysterious Islands" documents Phillips as he leads a team of Christian scientists and investigators to the Galapagos Islands to engage with the amazing creatures Darwin chronicled during his storied trip to this island chain aboard the HMS Beagle in 1835. Seen through the eyes of 16-year-old Joshua Phillips, who joins his father and noted researchers like Dr. John Morris, "The Mysterious Islands" is the story of one boy's search for answers to a great controversy of the modern world. The fast-paced adventure combines cinematically breathtaking footage with high adventure in its quest is to determine whether the Galapagos Islands are a laboratory for evolution, as Darwinists claim, or a showcase for the biblical account of creation.
Along the way, "The Mysterious Islands" examines intriguing questions that Darwin failed to answer, or that he just got wrong: Why do the animals on these islands appear to have little fear of man? Why have some of the creatures of the Galapagos developed such unusual characteristics--are these phenomena evidences of evolution or something else? Does natural selection produce new kinds of animals, or just variations within the same kinds?
Meanwhile, the fate of the other film "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record" hangs in the balance. The California Science Center (CSC) has not yet reversed its decision to allow a showing at the museum's IMAX Theater.
But you don't know that God did it that way because no one was there to see it AND, He didn't say that He did it that way in Genesis. To claim that God used evolution in the process of introducing life into the universe, you have to ignore or explain away the verses in Genesis where it specifically says that God used the *dust of the earth* to create animals and man. When He created Eve and used a different process, (the rib of Adam) He specifically said so. He obviously took care to let us know what He did.
6) I educated my children in parochial schools because I do not agree with the curriculum of the public schools. I am not content to simply bitch about what was being taught to my children. If you have a problem with what is being taught keep your kids out and take it up with your dumbass neighbors who continue to elect the liberal school board, local, state, and federal officials.
When the majority of the parents want creation and ID taught along with evolution in the public schools, explain to me why the minority of evolution only should have their way and the majority who are litigated into silence have to go to the trouble of providing for their own child's education at their own additional expense, all the while paying for the minorities, who forced what they want on everyone else?
Why doesn't the minority who doesn't want creation and ID to be taught be the ones to bear the expense of educating their own children the way they want?
Why do you approve of the use of litigation to force one view and one only on the unwilling majority and make them be the ones to pay twice for their child's education?
What's wrong with the idea that the people who don't want their kids to hear about creation and ID, opt out instead? Why don't they go that route? Why sue to force competing ideas out?
7) If you believe it is OK to teach Christian creation in schools if a majority of the people in a district happen to be Christian then you shouldn't be surprised when something else is taught when a majority believe differently (such as secularism, Hinduism, Islam, atheism, etc.)
No, I wouldn't be surprised, but control of the local schools belongs in the hands of the local parents. Such is the hazard of living in a country which has a Constitution which guarantees the free exercise of religion.
I have no use for islam and don't wish to see it present at all in this country. However, if you can justify restricting it, you can justify restricting Christianity, or Catholicism, or any other religion that Congress is prohibited from making a law preventing the free exercise of.
8) It is just plain stupid or ignorant to categorically refer to a group called "evo's" as some sort of homogeneous conspiracy.
Likewise, it is just plain stupid or ignorant to categorically refer to a group called "evo's" YECers, or cretards, or IDiots, etc as some sort of homogeneous conspiracy.
It works both ways.
So, what would you have someone call someone else who believes in evoltion? Do you have some other moniker which would be acceptable?
I know the Theory of Evolution predates the discovery of that particular artifact, so the theory itself is not going to fall on the exclusion that evidence. Beyond that, I don't see the significance of Lucy walking upright or not as being a boolean indicator of evolution in general.
I will accept the teachings of the Catholic Church and my own intellect and interpretation of Scripture before I accept the dictates of the Rev. Billy-Bob Rolex's Reformed Church of Whatever.
"When the majority of the parents want creation and ID taught along with evolution in the public schools..."
Your understanding of constitutional law is as poor as your understanding of science and Scripture. The majority cannot dictate because we are NOT a democracy, we are a constitution republic in which the rights of the smallest minority, the individual, trump the will of the majority.
So, what would you have someone call someone else who believes in evoltion?"
I can only speak for myself, but an educated, practicing Roman Catholic will suffice.
I will reiterate and try to use simpler language;
- I support the teaching of evolution as a theory.
- I support teaching that an absolute proof is not yet available, but that a preponderance of the data supports the hypothesis.
- I support teaching that theories evolve (pardon the pun) as new information becomes available and that the theory of evolution.
- I support that the theory of evolution does NOT address creation.
- I support that those things only explainable by Scripture or faith have no place in a publicly funded science class.
- If the will of the majority is to have their version of creation and the ascent of man taught in publicly funded schools the version of the majority religion in the US, Theistic Evolution as taught by the Roman Catholic Church, should be taught. This includes the compatibility of science and Scripture, that the Bible was not intended to explain HOW God created Man, just THAT He created man.
I will reiterate and try to use simpler language;
- I support the teaching of evolution as a theory.
- I support teaching that an absolute proof is not yet available, but that a preponderance of the data supports the hypothesis.
- I support teaching that theories evolve (pardon the pun) as new information becomes available and that the theory of evolution.
- I support that the theory of evolution does NOT address creation.
- I support that those things only explainable by Scripture or faith have no place in a publicly funded science class.
- If the will of the majority is to have their version of creation and the ascent of man taught in publicly funded schools the version of the majority religion in the US, Theistic Evolution as taught by the Roman Catholic Church, should be taught. This includes the compatibility of science and Scripture, that the Bible was not intended to explain HOW God created Man, just THAT He created man.
I will reiterate and try to use simpler language;
- I support the teaching of evolution as a theory.
- I support teaching that an absolute proof is not yet available, but that a preponderance of the data supports the hypothesis.
- I support teaching that theories evolve (pardon the pun) as new information becomes available and that the theory of evolution.
- I support that the theory of evolution does NOT address creation.
- I support that those things only explainable by Scripture or faith have no place in a publicly funded science class.
- If the will of the majority is to have their version of creation and the ascent of man taught in publicly funded schools the version of the majority religion in the US, Theistic Evolution as taught by the Roman Catholic Church, should be taught. This includes the compatibility of science and Scripture, that the Bible was not intended to explain HOW God created Man, just THAT He created man.
I did not say that creation/i.d. should not be taught in school. I stated the fact that creation/i.d. is not science, and therefore should not be taught in a science class.
It would harm the science education in the same way that including Astrology in the science curriculum, it would take away valuable class time to needed to teach real science to teach religion which is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America as determined by a Republican judge appointed by President Bush.
However Richard Dawkins does agree with you, “By all means let creation science be taught in schools. It should take all of about 10 minuets to teach it and then children can be allowed to make up their own minds in the face of the evidence. For children who study hard and keep an open mind it seems to me utterly inconceivable that they could conclude anything other than that evolution is true “
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6230199/Articles-of-Richard-Dawkins
At this point in time, there’s no other place to teach it.
I’ve yet to see a public school offer courses like comparative religion or philosophy.
OTOH, even if it were taught there, there would still be the issue of the teaching being presented as, *This is taught in science class. It is true*, and *This is taught in philosophy class. It is subject to your interpretation and preference.* Both should be presented in the same class to prevent the subtle but clearly implied bias that will come with it.
Evolution is part of the God-free creation account of the secular humanist and atheist. Until it can also be separated from that context, it doesn’t belong in science class either.
Evolution is still part of the ideological battle going on and as it is being used as a weapon in that battle as the primary one to attack Christianity and as it is not being presented properly either through textbooks or teacher qualifications, it ought not to be taught in schools at all.
“Evolution is part of the God-free creation account of the secular humanist and atheist”
Nice attempt at setting up the straw-man but the fact is that the evolutionary theory does not address the existence of God since that falls outside of the realm of science
So is the Pope a secular humanist or an atheist?
Most public secondary institutions offer comparative religious studies as both a major and a minor.
"Evolution is still part of the ideological battle going on and as it is being used as a weapon in that battle as the primary one to attack Christianity..."
Evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church. Are you saying that the Catholic Church is anti-Christian?
I've search Google, but I'm looking for public school textbooks that mention "Lucy" in the context of evolution.
I have not found any. Please let me know where they are.
I’m not sure myself. I can see if I can find something in some textbooks of kids I know in public schools, but it could take some time. I’d have to get hold of them and then their textbooks.
Good, at least you see the insignificance of Lucy; too bad so many Evos DO see that Lucy as significant part of Evolution or they would not be preaching about her so much.
This does not support the problem set forth by me; and you asked me for one. You asked me What "problems" would you discuss?" I gave you one and you have evaded to answer it every time.
I must’ve missed the 1st Amendment right to have a movie shown in a governmental facility.....must be tucked in there with ACORN’s right to my money.
On what evidence do you claim they see Lucy as a "significant part of evolution"? As I said before, the theory of evolution predates the discovery of that artifact. There is no reason to consider that piece of evidence critical to the theory of evolution in general.
I'll discuss whatever you have and will provide verifiable evidence of, but not what you imagine their thoughts are.
I won't even try because I don't have any experience with government elementary or high schools and have no idea what is in the text books. Any parent that doesn't get involved in their children's education and at a minimum supplements or corrects the errors presented by the teachers deserves under-educated children (unfortunately, the children don't deserve it) If you have problems with what is taught in those schools either boycott them by educating your children elsewhere or change the system by participating. Bitching at me because isn't going to help you at all.
I can say that at the college level the problems or discontinuities in evolutionary sciences are explored thoroughly and there is considerable continuing research on the subject.
When you asked, "What 'problems' would you discuss?" I specifically put down, "See line 101; do you think Lucy should be seen as a empirical observation of Evolution in any textbook?"
"Bitching at me because isn't going to help you at all."
Don't like the "Bitching" slap, stay of Free Republic.
Yes. "Lucy" is but one example of australopithecine. Since the discovery of Lucy there have been several dozen fossils of several dozen individuals discovered. They clearly were early bipedal hominids. The problems you raised have since been addressed and resolved.
Dimorphism in the lumbar spine has been confirmed in both Australopithecus, (appeared about 4 million years ago) and Paranthropus, (appeared about 2.7 million years ago) .This dimorphism has been seen as an evolutionary adaptation of females to better bear lumbar load during pregnancy, an adaptation that non-bipedal primates would not need to make.
Your “criticism” is not valid because they can tell by another Australopithecus afarensis skull (AL 444-2) that Lucy was bipedal plus Australopithecus afarensis bipedality is dramatically confirmed by a set of footprints discovered in fossilized ash.
You really should do some independent research instead of relying on your creationist talking point.
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.