Posted on 07/25/2009 10:11:21 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Life is not a naturalistic phenomenon with unlimited evolutionary potential as Darwin proposed. It is intelligently designed, ruled by immutable laws, and survives only because it has a built-in facilitated variation mechanism for continually adapting to internal and external challenges and changes. The essential components are: functional molecular architecture and machinery, modular switching cascades that control the machinery and a signal network that coordinates everything. All three are required for survival, so they must have been present from the beginning—a conclusion that demands intelligent design. Life’s built-in ability to adapt and diversify looks like Darwinian evolution, but it is not. Darwin’s theory of speciation via natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle, but it cannot be extrapolated to universal ancestry. What we see instead is different kinds of organisms having been designed for different kinds of lifestyles, with enormous potential for diversification built-in at the beginning, but with time this potential for diversification has become depleted by selection and degraded by mutations so that we are now rapidly heading towards extinction. Intelligent design and rapid decay point to recent Creation and Fall, as the Bible tells us....
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I’ve asked a couple times and got no response. Let me know if you get anything.
I've followed several of those links, and the real story doesn't usually support your overwrought retelling of it.
Because I exercise my rights doesn't mean I'm forcing my religion down your throat
As I just showed, students have plenty of opportunity to exercise their rights in the school environment. You and metmom seem to want something more than for kids to have the right to "pray at any time before, during, or after the school day," read their Bibles, say grace, organize religious groups and prayer meetings, and announce those activities on the school bulletin board or over the PA system. Metmom has made it clear that she wants official, school-sponsored religious activities. What do you want?
Students are free to pray at school any (free) time. I went to daily meetings at the flag pole to pray at my High School.
What is not allowed is teacher led prayer, or teaching in class that one religious doctrine is correct and others are incorrect.
Not teaching in science class that the Earth and all species were created as is by God some few thousand years ago is not an example of secular humanism.
Teaching the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation in science class is not secular humanism either; it is introduction to basic biology.
“How is it that people freely exercising their religious beliefs in ANY setting, like opening the day with prayer, swomehow “a governmental teaching of religion in public schools”?”
—Who says it is? People are free to pray in public school.
You do project-alot.
I merely point out your incoherency, as Metmom, GodGunsGuts and many others have pointed out to you over many many threads.
I know it’s the liberal position to demand the Judeo-Christian God be excluded from the public. Only a liberal would twist free exercise thereof into “religious instruction”.
This country did very well with opening the school day with prayer and not demanding that God be kept as some kind of secret from everyone while in public, thank you very much.
All your spin in the world will never ever change any of these facts allmendream.
Students are free to pray at school any (free) time.
Actually, no they’re not. All too often school officials threaten kids as in the instance of one kid threatened with arrest for merely mentioning Jesus at their HS graduation...and as I pointed out to Ha Ha, there have been literally dozens of examples of liberals and the NEA running over these rights.
Liberals trying to stop prayer at football games, etc. etc. etc.
And again, just because a child prays is in NO way a threat to your beliefs and I don’t know how on earth you junmp to this as somehow teaching that their religious doctrine is correct and others are not.
That just sounds alot like liberal gibberish and excuses and strawmen.
Now you attempt to move the goal posts to something that we all agree is allowed, most of us are for, and I have even participated in; student led and organized prayer in school.
Government control over religious instruction is a STATEIST and LEFTIST position.
Religious freedom is a conservative and right wing position.
Government teachers telling students what religious doctrines are approved (creationism) and which are not is anathema to religious freedom.
Please refresh your memory of your post that began this conversation.
You implied that I was merely pretending to be a Christian because I would deny telling a child in class that God was responsible for creation/incompetent design.
How is that NOT advocating a particular religious doctrine?
I’ve followed several of those links, and the real story doesn’t usually support your overwrought retelling of it.
What do you want?
Well skipping back up to this comment it would be nice to jerk your head out of the sand and embrace a small taste of reality fo once, for starters.
Back to blaming the victim again just hasn’t been very effective for you.
Mt. Soledad shouldn’t be that hard to follow. If necessary read more than one link! I suggest staying away from Time, Newsweek and other known liberal rags though. Perhaps that will help.
Banning Christmas trees in NYC public schools while allowing menorrahs and so forth shouldn’t be that hard to find OR grasp.
Lawsuits to have crosses removed from town logos that have been there for decades in both Los Angeles and Las Cruces N.M. (incidentally which MEANS the crosses btw) shouldn’t be that difficult to follow or recognize is wrong.
When children are forced to sing ‘O Holiday tree’ instead of ‘O Christmas tree’ in a Florida school, just so some liberals can feel good about themselves SHOULD tell a normal thinking person there’s a limit to political correctness and this insanity effects ALL of society.
Do you want public funds to remove all the crosses out of Atrlington Nat’l cemetery, or every public government cememtery?
Do you want public funds to begin chiseling out the ten commandments over the portico of the US Supreme court building and all govt buildings?
There are alot of liberals demanding exactly that, and hijacking our judicial system so they won’t be offended.
Will you speak up when it finally effects you or even just admit it exists now?
Do you understand that if a child asks you about her teeth and you tell her that there’s just no place to discuss God in science class, that this isn’t being a very effective witness for Christ? Especially given that the child ALREADY obviously has it in her mind that there’s indeed a God?
And how is it you can call His design incompetent and expect to be taken seriously?
It is the I.D. movement that posits that the design was so incompetently carried out that God must need fill the holes by miraculous intervention to effect meaningful biological change; then I suppose the premise that God is an incompetent put forth by I.D. means that they will never be taken seriously.
You think that the government should provide religious instructions; telling children that the world is the result of God’s creation in class.
No, that’s just your incessant ineffectual strawman.
What I’ve consistently said is if a child brings this up in ANY public setting they shouldn’t be told this is no place for God. PERIOD. Free exercise thereof.
Reading remains fundamental.
“Government control over religious instruction is a STATEIST and LEFTIST position”.
EXACTLY and currently any thinking person understands this religion is secular liberal humanism!
THAT’S THE ENTIRE POINT!
Supporting it and calling yourself a Christian is simply an incoherent position and will always remain a “YOU” problem allmendream.
Now you are back to suggesting that I as a teacher in a public school (I was briefly) should specifically advocate some religious beliefs; specifically creationism/I.D..
Science is not secular humanistic religion. Creationists cannot even be coherent on if people who accept evolution are denigrating mankind by thinking of us as animals or elevating mankind as an object of worship (humanism).
And is a “secular humanist religion” sort of like a “Hells Angel”? How can something be both secular and religious?
Calling yourself a Christian is simply an incoherent position tpanther.
Okay, I picked this story to follow up on out of the ones you listed. And it turns out that Christmas trees are allowed; it was the manger scene that was banned. And it was banned because it's an explicitly religious symbol, while the tree, menorah, and star and crescent are not. Once again, the real story doesn’t support your overwrought retelling of it.
Do you understand that's a strawman of your own making? No one has indicated anything about (politically) correct teaching of which religion is right and therefore which ones are wrong except YOU. OF COURSE this entire line of liberal politically correct thinking need not even come up!
More smoke and mirrors to hide your own incoherency.
Do you understand what "free exercise thereof" even means allmendream?
It is the I.D. movement that posits that the design was so incompetently carried out that God must need fill the holes by miraculous intervention to effect meaningful biological change; then I suppose the premise that God is an incompetent put forth by I.D. means that they will never be taken seriously.
So because people want to recognize God's design and not march lockstep with your idea that everything just happened without design or intelligence, you think people will buy into your premise that this means they're somehow incomeptent. Good luck with that.
If anyone's incompetent and incoherent, that'd be you allmendream.
Amazing.
Yes that’s true also, but the Christmas trees were also banned, keep digging.
But you also completely ignored just how wrong it is to ban the manger scence, and how many religions have menorrahs? To say one symbol is somehow insignificant and the other is specific is sheer liberal lunacy.
And way to ignore the overwhelming mountain of evidence of the other examples too!
TWO THUMBS UP! ;)
Who said it was ever ONLY about prayer in school?
Sheesh it’s hard to wade through all the strawmen and your reading disabilities...but trust me I do indeed understand your desperation with all your incoherency everyone around here but you grasps.
Supporting it and calling yourself a Christian is simply an incoherent position and will always remain a “YOU” problem allmendream.
You implied that I was merely pretending to be a Christian because I would deny telling a child in class that God was responsible for creation/incompetent design.
You need to stop being so defensive and paranoid and take up some kind of comprehension class.
And I DO understand your desperation I really do.
No. I went to two sites, including the Thomas More Center, who launched the suit, and they both said the same thing.
But you also completely ignored just how wrong it is to ban the manger scence, and how many religions have menorrahs? To say one symbol is somehow insignificant and the other is specific is sheer liberal lunacy
Nobody said that, of course. What they said is that the menorah, Christmas tree, and star and crescent were secular symbols, while the manger scene was explicitly religious. The menorah part seems a little iffy, but the rest is spot on. I don't expect you to grasp that distinction, of course.
And way to ignore the overwhelming mountain of evidence of the other examples too!
I didn't ignore them I just picked one to look at! I picked it because it was about schools! That's what we were talking about, remember, because you brought it up. Some stupid suit against a town in New Mexico doesn't have anything to do with the free exercise of religion in schools.
Why don't you just admit it? It's not enough for you that students have the right to free exercise of their religion, whatever it is. You won't be happy unless the school officially endorses your religion.
1) tpanther reserves the right to say you are not a Christian unless you believe in having government teaching an explicitly religious doctrine.
2) tpanther is only claiming to be a Christian.
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.