Posted on 09/22/2005 6:53:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
"Class, from time to time there are groups that object to evolution because it doesn't conform to their personal religious beliefs. Those objections have all been based on emotion and not reason, and have not had any scientific merit whatsoever."
I think you could come up with more than that. Here's some help, compliments of ARN.org:
Critical Analysis of Evolution, Material for Students
Online Articles of Notable Interest
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
Enjoy!
When you accept this as the word of God, you are accepting, first, that it was actually divinely inspired, and second, that it has been accurately transmitted. When you look at the universe, you are directly seeing God's handiwork.
We are not adding or subtracting anything to this like the evos do.
Not to the text itself, but certainly everyone adds meaning when they interpret it.
Why not?
I take the reverse view. One's interpretation of scripture should be cross-checked against the reality of the created universe. If your interpretation conflicts with reality, then it is your interpretation which is faulty, not reality.
But even then, as I said, you are believing on faith that those scriptures are inspired, and that they have been accurately transmitted. You are trusting in the men who wrote and passed them down.
It helps to actually study the word to make sure the person is not a false preacher. I dont remember the verses that echo this.
I hope you don't mind my pointing out the irony here. ;o)
Off the top of my head, try Deuteronomy 18. :o)
Observation trumps belief. Science is neutral on the subject of religion, and if something in your religion is in conflict with science, that's just too bad. You can't possibly expect science to accommodate whatever "feelings" you might have.
What a shocker!! ha ha
We view the Word differently. Another obvious conclusion.
Interesting. The "peer review" in those articles is laughable at best.
ID doesn't match the basic requirements for a scientific theory. As such, it doesn't warrant anything more than the most cursory mention in science class.
Once there is another theory that meets the basic scientific requirements, then it should be discussed. "Teaching the controversy" is a desperate move made by discredited people who have admitted that their "theory" is worthless.
That was also Galileo's opinion.
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Galileo's opinion about science/scripture conflicts.
It didn't persuade the learned gentlemen of the Inquisition, however:
The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633. The heresy confession.
However, these things sometimes get corrected. More than three centuries later, the Catholic church has come around to Galileo's thinking:
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis. Referred to in the 1996 statement. Excerpt:Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [see link & excerpt below], fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
... the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Guess we'll just have to leave that up to the instructors, eh?
And creationists have rejected his creation for their particular interpretation of scripture.
And Thomas Paine's, and other men of the Enlightenment.
Right and wrong exist, in whatever relative meaning you may attach. There may be some difficulties about what is absolute, but it is definitely part of our universe and there seems to be some very real, natural consequences for the choices we make. Those choices seem to bring about a wide range of emotions, too.
Where in the world did emotions come from and what benefit are they to our existence? They seem to be a nuisance.
They're getting better then. It only took them half that time to accept evolution.
I would be most surprised, because I assumed you were male! (Sorry about that. ;o)
You can keep pounding your drum that the Bible is simply mans interpretation and I'll counter with the Word of God is the Word of God.
Its a difference of opinion. I can respect it and not Bible thump you.
Why do you feel the need to mock others?
How you going you know what the author meant without the Cliff Notes ™?
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.