Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
HARRISBURG, PA-The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.
"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, added, "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and we must resist any efforts to make them so. There is an evolving attack under way on sound science...Read More
(Excerpt) Read more at postitnews.com ...
####plausible enough to me####
Well, to those wishing to delve into theology, it certainly is a unique way of looking at things!
I think the premise is that after God's angels defeated Lucifer's forces, God chose not to destroy the evil ones. Rather, He patched up the broken earth and, in addition to repopulating it with plant & animal life, created Adam & Eve with free will. Satan & his demons were confined to the earth with limited powers (they can tempt, influence, etc.) while humans were instilled with both the power to resist and the weakness to succumb to Satan's demands. Ultimately, of course, God will judge all, but in the meantime we humans are given the chance to prove our worthiness of entering God's Kingdom by following His will and not Satan's. Of course, there's more to it than that (Original sin led to the end of the utopian Garden of Eden, etc.) but that's the basic idea of how things started in this theological interpretation.
I have never been able to imagine a better
BOOT CAMP
with which to rear and train those to "rule and reign with Christ"
evidently over countless galactic clusters and endless ages
based on an economy founded on Love and humility vs pride and selfishness.
THX.
I wonder if such a boob even understands the concepts of "evidence" or "logic" ...
Creation science is far beyond such satanic limitations. Remove your blinders! What are you afraid of?
</flaming idiot mode>
I never suggested it was mainstream. I merely wanted to know the Biblical authority for the idea that the earth had been recreated more than once.
####I never suggested it was mainstream####
I know! :-)
I wonder how old that interpretation of the early part of Genesis is? It'd be an interesting area of study for a Biblical scholar.
Thank you for calling Darwin Central. Please choose one of the following options:
To tell us that evolution is "just a theory," press 1.To listen to these choices again, hang up and redial. And thank you for calling Darwin Central.
To tell us there's no evidence of transitional species, press 2.
To tell us the odds against evolution are proof that it's impossible, press 3.
To tell us that we're all materialists, commies, nazis, or atheists, press 4.
To tell us that evolution is a faith-based religion or a Satanic plot, press 5.
To tell us about the Big Bang, the origin of life, or other irrelevancies, press 6.
To tell us about Piltdown Man, press 7.
To tell us that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, press 8.
To tell us something you learned from a Jack Chick comic, press 9.
To tell us you accept micro evolution, but not macro evolution, press 0.
To tell us that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood, press the pound sign.
To tell us that Darwin: (a) renounced his theory, (b) was a racist, (c) etc., press star.
To speak to a live evolutionist, please stay on the line.
God seems awfully limited in the courses of action He can take, doesn't He?
bump
How is it an interpretation?
Of what?
What is the passage that mentions multiple creations?
Genesis 0:1
And the Lord said, "Here we go again!"
Like I said in the earlier post, it's an interpretation of the first two sentences in Genesis:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void...."
The interpretation is that the word "was" should more accurately be translated as "became". In other words, God created the heaven & the earth in the beginning (billions of years ago), it later BECAME without form, and void. This was then followed by the Genesis six day creation, which in this case would be a re-creation, or a rebuilding of the earth after it somehow became without form, etc.
There have been sects that interpret Genesis that way. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that there have been such interpretations. I'm pretty sure the Armstrong sect, which was a fairly vocal small denomination back in the 60's & 70's taught this. They taught that the earth was "voided" by the fall of Lucifer.
Always interesting to hear from people who take the literal interpretation of the Bible seriously.
Well of course, jejones. But why is the universe the way it is, and not some other way? And why does it exist at all? These were Leibnitz's two great questions. I gather you think they aren't worth asking. Yet the universe is the way it is, and not some other way. And whatever other conceivable universes you might imagine, this is the one you've got. And happily, there was a lot of very tricky fine-tuning involved especially in its very early development that, had the tuning not happened, carbon-based lifeforms would be impossible, and you and I would not be having this discussion.
I suspect you think this proves nothing. Yet on the other hand, I wonder if you think such delicate fine-tuning somehow produced itself from randomness, from chaos. I'd love to know how you think this was done.
I wish you a very Happy New Year!
CREATIONIST FIRED BY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Archive documenting censorship against Robert V. Gentry
Gentry, btw, is the scientist who discovered pulonium halos. His find was initially hailed, until it was realized it blew holes in the Big Bang theory, then it was attacked and he was defunded, etc. Gentry's Credentials were acceptable till his work caused problems that cannot be explained away.
Dean Kenyon Ph.D., Co-author "Of Pandas and People", was Professor Emeritus of Biology at Sanfrancisco State University. In 1993 was removed from his position for raising doubts about evolution. He sued, and was temporarily put back on as a LAB assistant (a tenured professor of 20 years..). His Credentials are listed on the web - Ph.D. recieved from Stanford University in Biophysics. National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at U.C. Berkley. Research Associate at NASA-Ames Research Center and visiting Scholar at Trinity College, Oxford University. Enough??.. Were it not for tenure, he'd not have his job today. He won his legal battle and got his job back. Link
Dr. Michael Dini - An article on this was posted here at FR about this guy and I'm sure can be looked up. Here is his listed Criterion for a referral. And here is an article about it.
Four enough? It's a prevelant mindset - and a secret to no one but evolutionists and then only when put on the spot (who us).
Patrick Henry College was denied accreditation for espousing a "Biblical worldview" More info
... yeah, hearing the crickets...
Welcome ;)
Why Do Fools Fall In Love?
Ooh-wah, ooh-wahHappy New Year, BB!
Ooh-wah, ooh-wah
Ooh-wah, ooh-wah
Why do fools fall in love?
Why do birds sing so gay
And lovers await the break of day
Why do they fall in love?
Why does the rain
Fall from up above
Why do fools fall in love
Why do they fall in love
But how do you expect science to show that the universe either does or does not require a God? That's a pretty tall order, general_re. Frankly, I don't think this is a scientific question at all. One must run on over to the other side of the great epistemic divide (e.g., to philosphy, cosmology, theology) just to ask it.
My best wishes to you and yours for a Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, dear Patrick!
It all began with that atheist Newton and his laws of motion, which denied the God keep pushing the arrow continuously in flight.
I shouldn't have to point this out, but asserting that things behave in consistent ways over time does not deny God, even though it sometimes denies the need to assume miracles in everyday life.
If you assume miracle as the default explanation for an unknown phenomena, you cannot do science, because science has the opposite default assumption.
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.