Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.
In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Haha! "Inevitable," eh? And how are you so certain you can predict the future fate of a particular scientific theory? You sound like more than a bit of a "historicist" -- like Marx -- yourself. Marx thought all sorts of historical developments (that never happened) were "inevitable".
Extrapolating scientific theories beyond their particular domains is always questionable, but if you want to play that game then I would suggest that Darwin is more aptly grouped with a different "great secular theorist of modernism" -- Adam Smith -- and that his ideas have experienced much the same happy fate on subsequent investigation and elaboration.
Agreed. Hardship certainly increases the desire to be led.
I don't see how evolution has to take away from the collection plate. In fact, I'm sure the conflict adds to the collection plates of the ICR and the like. I'm also sure there are plenty of religious people here who don't believe Genesis literally.
It's not an instant exodus. It's the slow and methodical aging of the churchs population that concerns them. The more science teaches children that the world could have come about without a God the less likely they are to look to the church for answers.
I doubt that many true Christians here on FR doubt Genisis. As a matter of principle I would think they would have to accept Genisis before they were to join a church.
EBUCK
That's where the book starts. I'll see where it takes me.
‘But I say to all of you: In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty One.’ (Matthew 26:64)
"If the universe is moral, (and the fact that such a person as Christ existed, is strong evidence that it is), then what Jesus said about himself and the future, must come true. If morality has an infinite source, and backing, then the moral excellence of Christ will ultimately... triumph---over evil."
"I know some very agreeable people. I know some that I would call gentle giants. But their easygoing spirit is never a threat to greed and corruption. Kindness, patience, understanding, and love are not better than envy and bitterness, if they only ever exist as counterweights to their opposites. A good man who is content to coexist forever with badness, and wrong, cannot be a good man in any absolute sense."
"The goodness of Jesus is surpassing because he not only sorrowed over sin, and was outraged by it, he set himself against it, and warned his enemies that by suffering for it, he would rise above it, and eliminate it."
"If our universe is a moral one, then Jesus' values can never be viewed in any offhand way. Rather, he must be seen as a hazard to every act, motive, system, institution, or law, that is not in sympathy with him. A question that governments and their constituents ought to ask is: Are we making laws; invoking policies that clash with Christ and the direction of his Spirit? If so we are building badly. The universe itself will not back us. The future belongs to Christ-and to all who follow him."
I provided what you asked. I showed you data. I showed you proof that the Bible was true.
First you have to define "true Christian." You'll get about as many answers as there are Christian movements. You will find that there are varying degrees of belief in creation. This runs from Kent Hovind's "Dinosaurs and man walked the earth together" literal reading of Genesis, to those who believe God set it all up to work the way science has seen it.
Darwin only got it right when he accepted Jesus Christ as his savior on his death bed. He also admitted evolution was wrong and wished people would stop talking about it. ... I have MORE proof that it this did happen than evolutionist do that evolution happened.We're waiting for the proof of that one. Big time.
You'll never see it. Disproof is here with references.
In 1996 there was a great flood in the State of Oregon and then EBUCK rose from the dead.
There was a flood in Oregon in '96 and there is a State in The US called Oregon does that prove that I rose from the dead in that year? Nope. I'm gonna need more "proof" than that.
EBUCK
No, that is a matter of faith, which demonstrates free will. I believe Kurt Gödel has shown us the reason for the inability to prove.
Thank you, that is the answer I was looking for. And you are right, giving oneself to a higher power that can never be known is an excelent demonstration of free will.
EBUCK
"You have found yourself." --Solitare, Live and Let Die
I know. We've posted that link before, but I'm glad you've got it too. I just love it when some creo shows up and blusters that he has all kinds of proof of all kinds of whacko propositions, and then when you ask him to deliver ... well, he goes into screeching mode. RickyJ shows up at invervals of a few months, confirms everyone's prior opinions of him, then vanishes for a spell. But each time he re-appears, it's the same old stuff.
You are welcome!
Dunno if you've seen this recent article or not:
I posted something on this a while back similar to this found @ http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/darwin.htm:
A few more details on the spread of the story [of his conversion] and its subsequent rebuttal, taken from the book "The Survival of Charles Darwin: a Biography of a Man and an Idea" by Ronald W. Clark, published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1985 (p. 199)`Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."
`With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."' (Ellipsis is in the book)
Clark's source for Lady Hope's supposed quotations of Darwin is given as "Down, the Home of the Darwins: The Story of a House and the People Who Lived There" by Sir Hedley Atkins KBE, published by Phillimore for the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1974.
Henrietta's rebuttal is referenced more fully as: Mrs R B Litchfield, "Charles Darwin's Death-Bed: Story of Conversion Denied," The Christian, February 23, 1922, p. 12.
And from Skeptic.com Book Review:
The third and last myth considered by Caudill is Darwin’s apocryphal recantation of evolution on his deathbed, this one obviously pleasing to evolution deniers. The story was first narrated by Lady Elizabeth Hope to a live audience in Massachusetts in 1915, and published that same year by the Boston Watchman-Examiner. Lady Hope had allegedly visited Darwin during the final weeks of his life, and he had told her that he had been a young man too quick to judge when he proposed his theory. He regretted having done so, and he was now studying the Bible, undoubtedly the most interesting book ever written. Needless to say, this story has been reprinted many times, and it is the delight of the hordes of creationists still infesting the United States and a few other parts of the world. Of course, as Caudill points out, there is not a single independent shred of evidence that Darwin ever did any such thing. Furthermore, Lady Hope was an evangelist, unlikely to have been an impartial witness in these matters. Not only that, there are subtle but important historical inconsistencies in Lady Hope’s story, among them her claim that Darwin was bedridden for a long time before dying, and that she visited him in autumn. Darwin was in fact very much active until a few days before his death, and he passed away in April, far removed from the time of the alleged visitation. Caudill does concede that Hope may have visited Darwin’s estate, since she was preaching in the area around 1882, the year Darwin died. But that is all that is consistent with historical documentation. Why would only a stranger, and not Darwin’s close relatives or friends, know of his troubles with his own theory? Furthermore, Darwin was not at all a young man when he published the Origin (he was 50). Finally, he certainly wasn’t one to publish anything under the influence of rash judgment. In fact, it took him decades to convince himself that he had barely enough evidence to publish a “preliminary” version of his ideas (that is how he considered the first edition of the Origin).
However -- and here's where the creos really show how confused they are -- if some swami were to renounce his personal revelations, insights, doctrines, etc., then his whole cult following would fall apart, as there is nothing to sustain the cult other than their faith in the swami. The creationists, in their eternal confusion, can't grasp that biology is science, not theology.
can't grasp that biology(evolution) is science, not theology.
The name for this is psychosis!
Couldn't have said it better myself :-D
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.