Posted on 08/29/2005 5:52:18 PM PDT by sionnsar
Good disclaimer. By now my ping list knows that.
This is the Episcopal Church. They haven't (institutionally) believed this for quite some time. (No reflection on individual Episcopalians who do believe in the authority of Scripture.)
Either that, or the anti-Israel agenda - but I really don't see how that one is forwarded by additional promotion of Darwinism in schools!
Many in the Episcopal leadership no longer believe in their religion. Social engineering is all they've got left.
I still think it may be a move to belittle the President who came out in favor of academic freedom in science classroom.
How it would work to acomplish anything is beyond me. Perhaps it just shows the twisted thought processes of the left. I'm sure THEY think this advances their agenda.
Social engineering without religion gets us:
big government
"the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth"
Since when? Foundational for what?
"The petition further rejects attempts to treat evolution as “one theory among others”"
So at least we know that this is dogmatic Darwinism, and not just people keeping an open mind. It sounds like these people are giving belief in evolution equal weight with belief in God. Which brings the next point:
"Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."
While it is true that they have different purposes, that does not mean that religion is non-factual. This is essentially what they are saying -- religion is a non-factual entity. Saying that evolution deals with facts while religion does not I think is idolatry. If you believe in God, then HIS ideas come BEFORE yours, not the other way around.
For those who think that the first few chapters of Genesis are folklore, I'd like them to point out where in Genesis folklore becomes actual history. Where is the transition between myth and reality? I don't see a break. The account of creation flows into the account of the fall, which flows into the account of Noah, which flows into the account of Abraham. Where along the path does fiction become nonfiction?
I hadn't thought of that ... could be!
Everyone believes different things about the Bible. You have to find your own answer for that question.
But if your answer is that the Bible requires a six day creation and an instantaneous zap of Adam into existence, and that there are no parts of the Bible that are symbolic as opposed to factually true. Then the whole Bible is bunk.
This is the stumbling block for people with an understanding of science. There's simply too much evidence in an old earth and evolution to accept 3000 year old writings about how the universe came to be.
Either faithful people can come to reconcile their faith with reality, or a good many people will reject that faith. That's the stumbling block in the ID/creationism debate I'm speaking of.
That's the point most evolutionists would like to convey...the whole Bible is bunk.
But if you believe that God is not capable of doing what is recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis, than your concept of God is bunk.
Most evolutionists would like to convey the fact of evolution. How you fit that into your interpretation of Genesis is not their concern.
But if you believe that God is not capable of doing what is recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis, than your concept of God is bunk.
An omnipotent God could have created a universe just a few thousand years ago full of evidence of a much longer history and massive evidence for evolution. An omnipotent God could have created the world 5 minutes ago, complete with your memories of a childhood that didn't exist.
I just don't think it happened in either of those ways. I think the earth and it's species came about just about like science says. However you want to interpret those few hundred words in Genesis is fine, but I can't accept any interpretation that contradicts observed reality.
You've not explained why you think it's appropriate for a religious organization (to the extent the Episcopal Church is one ...) to promote a particular version of public school curriculum.
I don't think I commented specifically on the issue. My comments were on the church's possible motivation for holding a pro-evolution policy.
How that effects conflicts like tax codes etc. I didn't comment on. If you want to attack them on tax issues, fine. Leave me out of it.
Done, you're out.
By the way. I come from Oklahoma. And I know some people who are probably the most vocal published advocates for Oklahoma in the entire state. I like my home state.
But I don't know that I would brag about Tulsa, home of Oral Roberts University, being the "cultural center of the universe". Oklahoma and Tulsa, to the extent there is a culture there, certainly aren't at the center.
Where is there a media in OK, that extends beyond the state borders? Where are the writers, artists, and movie studios? Heck, they even tried enticing Hollywood movies to produce in Ok and got very little for their efforts. Plays, music, and other media are all imported from outside the state (except for Reba McKintire).
The best thing to come out of Oklahoma that effected culture outside the state was Will Rogers, and he died 70 years ago.
And Astronauts. There's lots of astronauts from OK. That's cool, but hardly an cultural landmark.
You playing God today?
Some things are read literally and other things symbolically, or mythologically, or poetically.
This is what the Catholic Church says:
It does not exclude evolution of animals or long period of geological formation. It excludes a gradual formation of man from apes, more that one couple being the progenitor of mankind, or spontaneous formation of life from dead matter.
This is the natural reading of the Bible given its purpose, -- not to teach a geology or biology lesson but teach on the essence of man in relation to God. This is why reading of some passages needs to be direct and the reading of some other passages may be allegorical.
I thought the Catholic church didn't have any problem with evolution. I guess they do, because one of the hardest pieces of evidence for long term evolution of species is the DNA comparisons between primates and humans.
Specifically, the thousands ERV virus "fossils" shared between primates and humans, in a pattern that confirms the older morphological studies of where the species separations occurred.
That's too bad. I thought the Catholic church had learned it's lesson after dissing Galileo.
You said, "Leave me out of it."
I said, "Done, you're out."
You said, "You playing God today?"
I say, "Perhaps you should go back to bed and hope you feel better tomorrow, bless your heart."
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.