Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
What Is Science?
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
What You Will Learn
Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
But I guess that's what you want, right?
Unreal, the only thing missing is flying purple spaghetti monsters and Marshall Applewhite's gang!
Liberals don't know when to stop because they have no shame.
Not in destroying what little is left of the country, not of their own abject failures and not of their multiple failed arguments and most certainly not of their ignorance.
Learning biology is not learning an ideology, but learning about the results of a scientific discipline.
But the cult of evolution is not biology.
And the cult of evolution isn’t remotely necessary to properly understand anything else you listed.
Really allmendream, parroting the same failed tired rhetoric week in week out truly does not advance your failing arguments!
What truly bothers me about creationism is the malicious fallout that can occur when it is viewed from the outside by Christianity’s opponents. Yes, you guys are clearly weak in faith and require the firmament of supposedly inerrant words to which to anchor. Fine—please reassure yourselves, but do so in private. Unfortunately, there is a lot of resistance to Christianity in the real world, and your particular small subgenre is being used to characterize the rest of us in a truly offensive way. We Christians object to being portrayed as feeble-minded by association.
So sayeth Buck W., Christian, purveyor of wisdom, seeker of truth, fair arbiter, and demonstrably kind to kittens and other small animals.
It really doesn’t matter what line of reasoning the accommodationist applies to the science vs creation argument, because he has already framed the argument from the perspective that truth is discerned independent of God.
The more basic perspective is to ask if one finds the Word of God to be more veritable or science more veritable for absolute truth.
Once that is established, then one’s faith has been identified either through faith in Christ or in something added to or independent of Him.
Now, some sixty plus years later, the world’s population is three times what it was then, and I would venture to say that the number of people dying from starvation and horrible diseases is substantially less today than it was then, not just as a percentage, but in pure numbers alone. And, this despite the basket case that is Africa, which is worse now than it was then.
Clearly, something has gone wrong with the Malthusian theory. By any standard gauge, the theory is a flop. As further testimony to this fact, I must report that I have yet to meet an enthusiastic Malthusian (or any of the modern variations) who is prepared to show us the way by being the first to plunge into a premature oblivion.
You’re a person of faith, as am I, and I respect your point. However, the content of your post is jargon. You begin by referring to opponents of creationism as “accommodationists”, and then use that opening to define the argument as science vs. God. By so doing, you have added nothing but another layer of Sunday sermon happy-speak.
It is quite clear to all that the crux of the issue can be found in the term “Word of God”. You believe that the Word of God is literally transcribed in the Bible, and that’s the last word (no pun). However, I (and most Christians) believe that the Bible is allegorical, and that science is a natural outgrowth of the brain that God gave us, to be used to gain an understanding of the universe around us.
I believe that God would be sorely disappointed it we didn’t try.
Where do you come up with this? Have you done some sort of survey? Do you believe that John 3:16 is allegorical? How about Matthew 28:5 is that allegorical? Where does you faith lie?
Do you consider Catholics and Episcopalians to be Christians?
“Do you believe that John 3:16 is allegorical? How about Matthew 28:5 is that allegorical? “
You do understand what an allegory is, right?
Try this on for size. Nobody else has bothered to answer it.
“Would you support the opt out option for students in the public schools in regards to teaching creation instead of an outright ban on teaching creation in science classes? One that would allow creation to be taught along with evolution but not requiring that children attend?”
Most Christians? You have a source for that?
If you believe that the Bible is allegorical, then do you believe that Christ is real?
Is sin real?
Did anything in the Bible really happen?
I think a “comparative religion” class or even a “Bible” class would be perfectly acceptable. And in either one it should be pointed out that creationism is a minority view among religions and among adherents to the Bible.
But creationism AS science, or instead of science is absolutely unacceptable.
Have you researched the “komodo dragon” argument yet?
Spot on.
I don’t respond to Christian litmus tests. The fact that you wish to apply such a test demonstrates that you cling to a definition of Christianity whose sole purpose it is to justify your adherence to creationism and the literal inerrancy of the bible. Those who don’t conform are therfore not Christians by (your) definition.
You don’t control the faith. I’m a Christian despite your attempts to redefine the undesireables.
Perhaps you, too, should research the “komodo dragon” argument!
Yet your expressions on this forum indicate an indifference to what beliefs are taught in public school, so long as they are secular and not “religious” (on those rate occasions when you remember, “oh, yeah, that’s right, it’s “religious” public education I oppose, not just “Christian” public education.) What values, then? Don’t bother to answer if you can’t get past generalized platitudes and deal with specifics. What values are composed of the value-sets of public teachers today, and which of those values would you wish to see passed on to the students and which would you not? How do you separate the chaff from the grain, and who decides which is chaff and which is grain, if it’s not the patrons of the school district? I don’t wish to be insulting, but I would venture to say that your thoughts have not gone much beyond “don’t let it be Christian values that are taught.” Maybe with a little foray into don’t let it be religious values.
When Jefferson and Adams spoke of the need for ‘moral instruction’ in public education, what values do you suppose they had in mind composing the base of that moral instruction? And, more importantly for our modern discussions, did not their narrative explicitly recognize that someone’s values would be included in education, public or private? Whose, then?
”. . . but children in public schools should have the expectation of a good education. .”
Why?
”Do you think . . .”
I think what is taught this country’s children is none of the government’s business. I think this is particularly the case when government (national, state, and, increasingly, even local) has come to look upon their respective education departments as ministries of information, whose chief function is to project and promote the government’s interests. I think that as soon as you begin asking some parents if they believe they have a right to enforce their values on other peoples’ children, then you have a moral obligation to explain to those parents why it’s perfectly appropriate that values inimical to their beliefs should be enforced on their children. I think, at bottom, that is a conversation you don’t want to have.
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.