Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Seeks a Place in Utah Schools - ("creationism" not same as "intel. design")
CHRISTIAN POST.COM ^ | JUNE 6, 2005 | Susan Wang

Posted on 06/06/2005 2:49:58 PM PDT by CHARLITE

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last
To: RadioAstronomer

Opps! Post #19 was meant for you.


21 posted on 06/06/2005 4:26:06 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pby
The problem exists because science teachers are specifically stating, via their definition of evolution (pure natural process without any supernatural), that God was not the Creator..

Did God make the sun come up this morning? Or was that just a purely natural process of mass in motion and orbital mechanics?

God is all around us. Including in evolution, even though you can't imagine a God powerful enough for such a thing.

Explaining that God is all around us is not the job of science. It's the job of church.

You really don't want what you appear to want. Public schools teaching about God. You may not get to choose the particular interpretation of the Bible that gets taught. They might teach my interpretation of Genesis, that understands a God powerful enough to work 3 billion years at His creation.

22 posted on 06/06/2005 4:26:38 PM PDT by narby (Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pby
The reality is...that you have no evidence for vertical evolution in the fossil record nor in current day observation...

The OJ Jury didn't see any evidence to convict either. But it was there.

23 posted on 06/06/2005 4:28:46 PM PDT by narby (Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: narby

Even your definition of evolution includes Supernatural work. That is not allowed by the definition of evolution in public school science classes. Their evolution is devoid of any work by God, which as you pointed out earlier is a philosophical assumption...And, by the way, an assumption for which there is no scientific evidence.

If I accept your premise relative to only the Church teaching about God, which I don't...(public schools taught about God for hundreds of years), then isn't the converse true...It's not the "job" of public school science classes to explain that God is not all around us?

Your interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent with the rest of God's Word therefore a fauly and unacceptable interpretation...Scripture interprets Scripture.


24 posted on 06/06/2005 4:55:33 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Mithradidit


25 posted on 06/06/2005 5:03:12 PM PDT by FreedomAvatar (Gravity is only a theory - Teach the controversy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I suppose "Divine Design" isn't creationism either?
26 posted on 06/06/2005 5:03:48 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: narby

Evolutionists dream of the day that they have evidence for vertical evolution in the quantity that the OJ jury had relative to his guilt...but for now, the evolutionists settle for assumptions like "if it does not fit, then you must acquit"!

And, again, where is the evidence for vertical evolution? You don't have any; neither in the fossil record, nor current day observation...You accept it by faith. That is reality.


27 posted on 06/06/2005 5:06:56 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I suppose "Divine Design" isn't creationism either?

Of course not! Besides ... Piltdown Man! Materialist worldview! Teach the controversy! What are you afraid of?
</Threatening-neighbors-in-the-trailer-park-with-a-chainsaw mode>

28 posted on 06/06/2005 5:07:53 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pby
And, again, where is the evidence for vertical evolution?

What evidence of "vertical evolution" would you accept?

29 posted on 06/06/2005 5:09:06 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

30 posted on 06/06/2005 5:19:19 PM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

Light-spot to eye; reptile to bird; dog to horse; etc. or any fossil that palaeontologists or experts in their field have confirmed as verified evidence of vertical evolution. I will let you choose today's current observeable evidence/evidences...given the theory, the evidences should be observeable in the millions.


31 posted on 06/06/2005 5:21:35 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

They already do...secular humanism.


32 posted on 06/06/2005 5:24:36 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Moi: I suppose "Divine Design" isn't creationism either?

Vous: Of course not!

Nobody's a creationist anymore! They're jumping ship in droves! Even people who don't believe in common descent and think mammals may have existed as long as the Earth's been around aren't creationists these days.

I guess this means we've won the conventional war. Now we just have to deal with the insurgency.

33 posted on 06/06/2005 5:35:53 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pby
It's really quite ironic, but the primary evidence against OJ was DNA. Over a hundred years after Darwin, "fossil" viral DNA embedded within primate DNA demonstrates evolution of man, just as Darwin's theory predicts.

On rare occasions, virus infections are incomplete, and happen to infect reproductive cells which then pass down the viral DNA to ancestors. This is such a very rare event, that the rate and scattering of new viral fossils demonstrates evolution very well.

It's just like OJ, except you're on the wrong side.

Here's Ichneumon's great post from 2003

Welcome to the OJ Jury, pby.

34 posted on 06/06/2005 5:36:06 PM PDT by narby (Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pby
The problem exists because science teachers are specifically stating, via their definition of evolution (pure natural process without any supernatural), that God was not the Creator...

Really? The theory of evolution specifically excludes the possibility of supernatural invervention? I thought that it simply declined to address matters of the supernatural, being as such matters are outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.
35 posted on 06/06/2005 5:37:39 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: narby
LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you! Did I tell you there's no evidence for evolution?
</pre-emptive creationist imitation>
36 posted on 06/06/2005 5:39:11 PM PDT by anguish (while science catches up.... mysticism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FreedomAvatar
Mithradidit

Ahura Mazda, silly.

37 posted on 06/06/2005 5:42:25 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA

That's interesting. If that's your work, you're just a step or two away from having the big Darwin fish with feet eat the little fish symbol.


38 posted on 06/06/2005 5:55:45 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pby
Light-spot to eye; reptile to bird; dog to horse; etc. or any fossil that palaeontologists or experts in their field have confirmed as verified evidence of vertical evolution. I will let you choose today's current observeable evidence/evidences...given the theory, the evidences should be observeable in the millions.

Suppose we have Fossil A and Fossil C. The species represented by Fossil C is believed to be descended from the species represented by Fossil A. Suppose you deny this connection, citing a 'gap' in the fossil record between the two species.

Suppose further than scientists discover Fossil B which, based upon observable evidence, is declared an intermediate species between Fossil A and Fossil B.

Do you:

1. Accept this as evidence of evolution.

2. Deny this is evidence of evolution, and assert that there are now two gaps in the fossil record?

39 posted on 06/06/2005 6:42:17 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: narby
Sounds good to me. The only problem is that there's no proof that God exists.

There's no proof that evolution could have produced the essential amino acids necessary for life, let alone informed them with the information content necessary for induce automatic replication through RNA (despite the laughable Miller-Urey fraud).

According to your own criteria evolution shouldn't be taught as science but as a philosophical conjecture.

I'll agree with you on that point.

40 posted on 06/06/2005 6:47:45 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson