Posted on 08/31/2006 7:42:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
More adults in the United States believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 51 per cent of respondents think that humans and other living things evolved over time, while 42 per cent say they existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Charles Darwin’s "The Origin of Species" was first published in 1859. The book details the British naturalist’s theory that all organisms gradually evolve through the process of natural selection. Darwin’s views were antagonistic to creationism, the belief that a more powerful being or a deity created life.
In the United States, the debate on the topic accelerated after the 1925 Scopes trial, which tested a law that banned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. In 2004, Georgia’s Cobb County was at the centre of a controversy on whether science textbooks that explain evolutionary theory should include disclaimer stickers.
The theory of intelligent design suggests certain biological mechanisms are too complex to have developed without the involvement of a powerful force or intelligent being.
Last month, Austrian cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said the two views are not necessarily incompatible, declaring, "There is no conflict between science and religion, but a debate between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation. (...) The possibility that the Creator used evolution as a tool is completely acceptable for the Catholic faith."
Polling Data
Some people think that humans and other living things evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?
|
|
||
|
Jul. 2006 |
Jul. 2005 |
|
|
Evolved over time |
51% |
48% |
|
Existed in their present form |
42% |
42% |
|
Don’t know / Refused |
7% |
10% |
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Methodology: Telephone interviews with 2,003 American adults, conducted from Jul. 6 to Jul. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
i can only assume you meant 'as do the science'.
Of course an 'image' is physical, but GOD is Spirit.
NIV 1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
NIV 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
3. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
4. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
NIV Colossians 1:15-16
15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
One person's 'bad behavior' is another's 'rebuke'.
1. In the years preceding 1492, there was a time when, if a 'poll' could be taken on how many people thought the earth was flat, the majority would have agreed,
2. In the end (as in the end of our individual lives), the question of evolution or divine intervention will be answered. Those that believe in intervention, will be satisfied with the answer. Those that believe in evolution....well, I think they're not gonna like the answer.
For me, I really don't care about evolution or divine intervention as a point of question. For all I know, the 6 days talked about in the Bible could be a metaphor for eons, and God's intervention might well have taken the route of evolving. From my perspective, proponents of evolution are really an undercurrent of those in this country that live and breathe to control our lives, thoughts, and destiny. When accessition is given on evolution vs. intervention, then 'they' will start on their next little bit of slow steady destruction of religion, the family and freedom.
Ha ha!
Someone thinks you are a coprofagic canid who hates felines!
4.) "Does it feel good?"
Build a man a fire, and keep him warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and keep him warm for the rest of his life....
Works two ways.
Everything is *updated*. That way they never have to say they were wrong; it's just *a better fit with what we now know*. Science, constantly correcting itself to correct all the errors in the past.
Thank you so much, HayekRocks, for the links re: Newton's theological views! Most valuable!
Thanks again!
So would I, stands2reason. Did you want me to do some "admonishing?" (I don't think I'm a very good "admonisher," though, taking to heart Christ's maxim, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."...)
I get pretty aggravated about this too, FWIW. And it truly saddens me.
4.) "Does it feel good?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, that should be added to the first three.
Satan appealed to Eve's pride in self, the same appeal used in so many various ways even today to draw people into rebelling against God's sovereignty.
1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.
While Newton may have been agnostic on the Trinity he was not agnostic as to the Word. He was a fervent believer in the God of Abraham.
Well, I do admonish those evos who get out of line, but I've never seen a creo do the same.
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.