Posted on 02/22/2004 2:32:07 PM PST by attiladhun2
Let's make it simple. If you can find one useful development (in medicine, biotechnology, forestry, agriculture, or some similar field) specifically arising from the doctrine of "creation science" please let us know. Just one will do. Consult the usual creationist websites. They wouldn't miss the opportunity to tell you about it. Now let's be careful here. I'm not asking for a list of religious people who work in such fields. I assume there are many, perhaps a big majority. I am looking for something -- anything! -- that has been derived from the teachings of creation "science." Go for it.
Thank you.
As far as I know, scientists who believe an Almighty Creator is at work behind the scenes tend to leave Him there as they carry on, using their God-given brains. They do not go about their work as if they must prove the existence of God. His existence is a given. And they produce as much in the way of useful scientific knowledge as any evolutionist out there.
As I have said, one could cut all the Evolutionists out of the picture of history and lose very little in the way of scientific knowledge. We would probably lose some nefariouis episodes of unnecessary suffering as well. At the same time, I doubt those scientists who subscribe to the Theory of Evolution go about their work just to prove the theory. I'm happy to see them do their thing, because I could very well benefit from their knowledge.
I like how you put it, though: "Specifically arising from the doctrine of . . . ." That puts a finger on things. We need to get a grip as to whether either viewpoint should be foisted upon the classroom. One does not need either theory to apply the facts.
I will keep an eye out for some examples as you requested, but I think it will be difficult to find any per my comments above.
[*Sigh'] Without a theory, all one has is a list of creatures. Nothing more. In that case, how would you select an animal upon which to test a drug for humans? Why not use toads? Their plentiful and cheap. Why do we use monkeys? They're so much more expensive to obtain and house. We use them because they're so closely related to us. We get more useful results that way. See what I mean? Doing medical research absolutely demands that evolution be a part of the background -- even if no one specifically thinks about Mr. Darwin.
I don't think so. Intelligent choices in this field can be made without the Theory of Evolution. Without a creationist viewpoint, too, for that matter.
Well said.
One could make his choice using the "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" technique, but it wouldn't be an intelligent choice. From a creationist viewpoint, because all creatures were created at once, one could select anything at all. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too happy about taking a new "toad-tested" medicine, even if the creationist researcher assured me that all creatures are equally unrelated to us, so a toad is as good a test subject as an ape.
To make a truly intelligent choice, one would need to find a very closely related test subject. But once we talk about "closely related" we're in dangerous territory, aren't we? Be glad the researchers are evolutionists. You may one day have your life saved by the products of their research.
No. Not at all. I don't understand why you see it that way. Relationships between living creatures are how the world was established. It is quite natural to seek them, observe them, and make use of them.
M'God! That's something Darwin could have said.
Please. I don't deserve to be placed anywhere near his level of intelligence.
What is anti-Catholic about that?
Gee, not much other than everything.
Have you ever been to catechism?
Yep. Raised Catholic and went to catholic school. Still remember the nuns teaching two grades to a room.
The nuns used to knock us up side the head if we didn't pay attention. Was one of the reasons I quit going to church as a young man.
Very sorry to hear that you had a bad experience. While I don't disagree that Catholic schools are not hesitant to enforce discipline in the classroom, I never witnessed anything I would consider abusive. Given the discipline problems in many of our public schools, I think a "knock us up side the head" might not be a bad thing.
That's about as anti-Catholic as saying that a few priests molest children. These are true statements.
But you didn't say "a few" nuns. You broadly painted a all Catholic nuns as being "holy hags". If it was only a "few" nuns, then it is unfortunate that you left the faith based on the actions of the few and not on the actions of the majority.
If the truth is anti-something, then I guess the author is anti-Catholic in your view of reality.
The best lies are based on small truths. It is undeniable that the Catholic church has a problem in the priesthood that has not been correctly addressed.
To suggest that this means all priests are bad, or that Catholicism is a false religion is letting your emotions overcome your logic.
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.