Posted on 12/21/2005 2:06:09 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Just a reminder: Darwin works have always been exempt from the purges of the multiculturalists because he serves as the foundation of their whole worldview.
Oh, and, Dr. Myers, `od 'Avraham 'Avinu chay, and there is not a scientist or atheist living whose name will ever shine as brightly. Sorry.
For your interest.
Nor can fate and freewill coexist, but they do.
Excellent post. This court case wasn't so much about science, as about competing religious viewpoints. This decision also came down to the musings of an activist judge.
That, too, is debatable.
And perjury by the defendents.
Does nobody see G_d in Darwin's work except me? Can't we just all get along?
Only because the anti-science industry is determined to define study of God's creation a "religion" and are determined to make money off the false dichotomy. Christians in the sciences don't look at it that way.
I have no problem with G_d and Darwin co-existing. Neither view contradicts the other in my opinion. The only time Christians get in trouble is when the view the Old Testament as a textbook and not a guide for living. I'm sure I pissed off some people with that last statement.
The "ID" people are Theistic evolutionists. I'll never understand what anti-ID Theistic evolutionists and pro-ID Theistic evolutionists are arguing about. Never.
BTW, the smart-@$$ put down of the Hebrew Bible (as opposed to your precious "new testament") is not appreciated, but you probably thing that's funny.
"In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God."
I don't think this is true. Although "some" "Darwin advocates" are atheists, by no means all are.
I think the only generalization one can make in this area is that it is true that Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Biblical literalism. But many people who believe in God (including many Christians) are not Biblical literalists. Not being a Biblical literalist is hardly the same thing as "negating religion."
I went to Catholic schools though high school. In biology class we studied evolution. We discussed God's role as creator in philosophy and religious studies classes.
One of the principal scientific witnesses for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, btw, was a practicing Catholic.
Blatant misrepresentation in the first sentence.
"Evolution does not explain Creation" - Charles Darwin
Darwin and Darwinites don't.
THAT's the thing, right there. Many of us of faith do perceive God in all things, including the use of evolution over time to accomplish what He works. Even creating Darwin.
The problem is that Darwinites don't, can't, won't. Thus, they force a limitation to the understanding and definition of what is "science" just as this judge has...his entire argument rests upon him saying that ID "isn't 'science'" while, what IS "science" is theory when and if it includes Darwin's theory of evolution.
It's all theory. Science is nothing more than postulations that a number of people agree upon as representing accuracy, and thus, "scientific fact" is "proven." There's a more complex process involved in that, and I realize I simplify here, but, in essence, nothing is ever proven as 'fact' until and unless there's acceptance of the results proving that which is postulized.
It's a case today of human limitations determined among those limiting 'science' to mere evolution that 'science' exclude other possibilities. Darwin cannot explain and doesn't account for how life came to be, and beyond that, how the Big Bang was created and begun in and of itself.
The judge, this ruling of late, seems very limited in intellect.
A "religion" has opinions or worldviews on:
How life/universe began
How life/universe will end
Meaning or purpose to life
How we should act (ethics)
Is there a higher being/god
If there is a god, what is he like
What is the nature of man (good, bad, blank slate)
How we should relate to a higher being/god
I think that every person has opinions on these, even if it is to say that they don't know or don't care (that also reveals an underlying attitude on the subject). Everyone has a "religion." And I think theistic creation as well as strict naturalistic evolution has teachings or implications on these questions, and thus both are "religious."
The advantage of the secularist is that people usually don't recognize that the secularist beliefs are also "religious" (often because they deny it so vehemently, and because they don't worship in an organized way) and as a result, secularists are not constrained by the current interpretations of "separation of church and state." It's a nice little game that the secularists have going for themselves. They can promote their own "religious" beliefs, but censor Christians who hold opposing views.
It`s JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ,
at it`s worst.
And the FR Evos Will defend it.
The argument from design, an important part of the history of religion, wouldn't be ignored in my religious education classes, needless to say. The children would look at the spellbinding wonders of the living kingdoms and would consider Darwinism alongside the creationist alternatives and make up their own minds. I think the children would have no difficulty in making up their minds the right way if presented with the evidence. What worries me is not the question of equal time but that, as far as I can see, children in the United Kingdom and the United States are essentially given no time with evolution yet are taught creationism (whether at school, in church, or at home).
Of course what dawkins is aying is almost exactly opposite of what is the situation. Throughout school, kids are only and repeatedly exposed to evolution. I think that any proponent of ID or simply anyone who has seen some of the shortfalls of evolutionary theory would love to have Dawkins' proposal of equal time implemented.
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.