Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Heard this on BreakPoint commentary this morning and thought I would share it. Archive of online comentaries found at breakpoint's web site
1 posted on 04/05/2002 6:38:21 AM PST by tang-soo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: OhioWFan
Sadly, when this was proposed in KS it was portrayed the same way by the Left and their media pals.
2 posted on 04/05/2002 6:48:48 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tang-soo; DittoJed2;esther2; Azbushgal; GretchenEE; ohioWfan; rabidralph; whoever; Hila...
Ping for truth!
4 posted on 04/05/2002 7:09:40 AM PST by ohioWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tang-soo
Ugh. Another frustrating go around with obsessives determined to get their fairy stories into a science class.

You know, I've long been frustrated with theories of light transmission. The "theory" is that electromagnetic radiation just emanates from a source with no purpose or destination. Yet, light from millions of light years away reaches us, and gives us information about the universe! Clearly we need an alternative. We need to discuss with school kids the possibility that some invisible person directs the light from the source to our eyes. That's just being scientifically objective, after all.

Well, on second thought maybe the "intelligent direction" theory of the propagation of light would be silly. But, tell me, how is it that any serious person thinks it worthwhile to have kids speculate in a science class whether a process as mundane as the alteration of species over time is directed not by genetic variability and differential survival but by an invisible supernatural being?

5 posted on 04/05/2002 7:23:56 AM PST by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tang-soo
"A quality science education," they say, "should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science."

They refer to evolution theory, I presume?

6 posted on 04/05/2002 7:32:35 AM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tang-soo
It's just astounding to me that religious people have this obsession with trying to "prove" God scientifically.

Face it people, if you're going to believe in God, you have to do it on faith alone. Science will not help you. And God, who certianly should be able to prove His existence beyond a shadow of a doubt if He wanted to, does not appear to want to give you definitive proof either. I think perhaps He WANTS you to believe on faith rather than science.

And besides, how do you know that God didn't create the rules of physics and chemistry, with foreknowledge that it would lead to life and evolution, and then sit back and watch his handiwork grow? To me, that is a much more powerful God, that can create a functioning system that will grow and change, rather than a God that must activly create every detail of every creature, every time.

7 posted on 04/05/2002 8:14:27 AM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson