Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I’m glad you’re being so up front about the fact that ID is really an attempt to teach Christianity in science class. I don’t think you’ll find it’s a good legal strategy, but at least you’re honest about it.
Rant all you wish, but there is no scientific alternative to evolution.
You may wish to believe, and wish to teach your children, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that it is fixed in the heavens and does not move, and so forth. But it isn’t consistent with science and isn’t going to be taught as science.
I suggest that if the findings of science offend you, ignore them and teach your children to ignore them. If that approach is good enough for militant Muslims, it must be good enough for American Christians. You don’t need an understanding of physics or astronomy or geology or biology to build stuff that kills people, so why bother with icky science?
That’s evidence that our public schools teach more myth and propaganda as revealed “truth” — both the Marxist and the Biblical varieties — and no questioniing of the sacred dogma is allowed (ask David Horowitz and Richard Dawkins and Daniel Pearl how heretics are received).
And you call yourself a conservative? I have never met a conservative who was for abolishing the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Giving preferential tax breaks to some organizations and not others is defacto helping to establish those organizations -- by giving them help that others can't get.
So are you for equal treatment of all organizations -- they all pay taxes and all schools get vouchers?
Yes there is and it’s not a rant, it’s the truth! This is America, where truth prevails. The truth is most Americans reject that everything came from nothing with no explanation. Sorry charlie but that’s just how it is!
Here’s another clue...it’s not me that’s trying to have evolution banned. I have no problem with it as a theory created by an independent thinking human being. Write a ga-zillion books about it, teach it in science class; because, frankly I’m not as insecure as you are. Not even close!
The whole point is other capable SCIENTISTS believe that it’s inadequate for many plainly logical scientific reasons.
Since when did each and every scientific theory get so insecure that other competing thoughts are squashed? Oh wait...there AREN’T any other scientific theories that impossibly insecure!
Again, if your wish is to stay angry with God like a petulant child, you’ll be infinitely happier elsewhere, but stop bullying and suing everyone else around you into silence so you won’t somehow be offended by God or people that believe HE is above all including science. It simply doesn’t work in America!
No one gave you or your liberal ilk the keys or the authority to speak for all on what science even is, or how it’s defined, what it entails and you should get used to the big boy world! It’s OPEN-ENDED science. It’s not ‘etched in stone for evermore science’, and grown ups understand that man is fallibile as are his conclusions, and everything else pertaining to science. If there ever was a discipline that man studies where the jury is still out, it is science!
Again, sorry charlie, but that’s just how it is, and so long as we live in a free society, we discuss these things, and in America, we don’t take kindly to idiots trying to silence us or ban books!
People seeking REAL answers don’t squeal like little girls: “THAT’S NOT SCIENCE” or “LET ME SEE YOUR PAPERS” everytime their poor little hate-God world is threatened or upset and run to the courthouse like liberals do for pretty much everything now!
But for now it’s your game, your rules...so it’ll be interesting to see where this leads. As more sane people begin to understand (for mostly other reasons) that govt. schools are failed and getting worse, and NOW liberal judges are beginning to attack Christians by not allowing our kids to go to colleges if they didn’t march lockstep like other “secular-science-nazis”; this will continue to race faster to a conclusion once and for all that’s headed to the supreme court exposing this insane liberal PC secualrism culture war destroying this country. Sooner or later the openly hostile liberal godless agenda will HAVE to be addressed.
One day when people like Michael Newdow finally figures out how to not hijack children including his own daughter to be offended by God, your day in court will be your undoing!
If it was precious science you were seriously interested in, you’d have no problem with exposing darwinism and ToE to other ideas. But this isn’t the case. It’s easy to say: “let me see your papers” while at the very same time enforcing secularism down into the k-12 arena of PC liberal gubmint schools to the point not even so much as a library book OUTSIDE of science class is available for kids to explore...so sure, your hope is within a generation or so, NO kid in govt. school will be left to write a paper to present in the first place!
Again, if you were seriosuly interested in your kooky idea of precious science for the minority godless, you’d be spending ALOT more time addressing the hot air cultists and their junk science and refocus your God anger on more productive endeavors.
You may wish to teach your children that we just burped into existence from nothing as you wish and I suspect will continue to have the freedoms to do so...but your days of the Anti Christian Litigation Unit suing Christianity into silence is going the way of the dinosaur!
We’ve had it with the hateful secular agenda, the ACLU, the PC police, etc., it clearly doesn’t work for America!
HOEPFULLY just like all the other liberal idiocy out there, and one day you’ll have to have your book burning club bonfires chanting “let me see your papers” on your OWN dime and your OWN time, and in your OWN yard, NOT on the American people’s!
Now...we’re not going to sit around here, and listen to you BAD-MOUTH the UNITED STATRES OF AMERICA!
You sure have those liberal talking points down, don't you?
Are they speaking as scientists or religious believers?
The reason I ask is that if a scientist forsakes the scientific method and adheres to a religious belief, he is no longer doing science and his opinions on science can't be considered as legitimate. Here's why.
Below is the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research Society, an organization of "trained scientists and interested laypersons." But if you note the beliefs, which are required of all members, forbid following science when science and religion conflict. I have seen similar statements from Institute for Creation Research, Creation Studies Institute, Answers In Genesis, and Creation Ministries International.
The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
The point I wish to make by posting this is that science is practiced by adherence to the scientific method. If a scientist, no matter how well trained and qualified, subsumes his scientific training to religious belief he can no longer be said to be doing science. His opinions on matters scientific are no longer to be trusted.
How many of the scientists you cite fall into this category?
The general consensus is that the majority of people want creation and ID taught in schools in addition to evolution. That's the issue that posting the poll results was addressing.
Read again where the poll results were from, not just who published them in an article. They weren't just conducted by DI or AiG and it's not just one polling source.
But I suppose that no matter how many polls show what people want, the leftist elitists will always figure out some way to explain the results away, and demonstrate how it really supports their side after all. Some people just can't admit defeat.
I never said that the ToE is leftist, but is used to further leftist agenda. THAT'S a misuse of science.
Yeah. So?
Revisionist history?
I don't think so. Looks like a pretty fair assessment of what happened to me. However, you can learn more about it if you do a google search if you don't know.
Then you will no doubt be able to tell what is the scientific alternative to evolution. what should the people in Louisiana be teaching, now that they have official authorization?
==Giving preferential tax breaks to some organizations and not others is defacto helping to establish those organizations — by giving them help that others can’t get.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or do you just make things up as you go? Ever hear of the non-profits, non-religious charities, etc?
PS These days, the First Amendment protects YOU far more than it protects me, so I’d be careful what I wish for.
It seems that it is you who are confused about the subject. The law that was stuck down by the Scopes trial made it illegal for a Science teacher to discuss Evolution in Science class. It is hardly an example of “evolutionists who have been using litigation since the Scopes trials to force any other viewpoint out of the schools”. It was an example of litigation to overcome a law that kept Science out of Science class.
Evolution is not science, nor are its hypothetical basis’ science.
BINGO!
Using forced government schooling to indoctrinate children into their religion -- Muslims, Christians all the same. I'm for
Yep...Dagny wants to do away with the First Amendment. Little does Dagny know, that if the First Amendment goes, so goes his favorite Communist organization (read: ACLU). Indeed, the First Amendment, as it is currently read by our courts, protects Dagny far more than it protects me. As per usual, a liberal’s own worst enemy is himself.
How exactly do you feel that some are receiving MORE 1st Amendment protection than others?
==Evolution is not science, nor are its hypothetical basis’ science.
As such, evolution is falsified and should be thrown out. Unfortunately, evolution has become a political force and a religion. As such, it’s not just enough to falsify evolution, the religion of Darwin will also have to be exposed. Then and only then will we be able to demand a complete separation of Darwinian religion and state.
Greenland entered the discussion when someone else injected those buried P-38’s into the discussion, since that’s where they were buried. The original point was with regard the the Antarctic ice cores. If you don’t have anything to refute the estimated dates of those cores, I belive we’re done.
I didn’t make that assumption, and have repeatedly told you so. If repeating that over and over is the only argument you have, then you are indeed wasting your time.
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.