Is there any doubt?
Posted on 11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST by Nebullis
The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.
"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."
American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.
Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:
"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."
In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."
The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.
In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.
A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
1315 posted on 11/19/2002 8:44 AM EST by gore3000
We now have it from unquestionable authority that Man Is Divine!!!
No need now for mere "Nobel Prize" winning authorities or examples of humble science --- man is divine! My only question is whether we were always thus or did we evolve into gods?
Actually, God said man was divine. I'm not sure 1315 says all men are divine.
Psa 82:1 God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.
Psa 82:2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked ? Selah.
Psa 82:3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
Psa 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psa 82:5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
Psa 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High .
Psa 82:7 "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."
Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth ! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
The information on fellows at the discovery.org website does not indicate religious affiliations, so I'll need to research this further, but I do want to give you what I found on first blush.
First is an article from the materialist side: At the Intersection of "Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Intelligent Design"
A central tenet of both Hinduism and many, many "New Age" philosophies/religions. The anti-Pope is marching straight off the deep end here.
I've seen different translations of the same psalm, some of which muddy the waters (as it were).
GoreMMM's statement is not qualified in any way, so I would assume that in addition to being authoritative in the matter, it's also all-inclusive.
Jesus used it as an argument against those that accused him of blasphemy.
Jhn 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Jhn 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?
Jhn 10:35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken ),
Jhn 10:36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God '?
Jhn 10:37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
Jhn 10:38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
If you read this story without knowing what the rest of the Bible says, you might think that Jesus was saying that everyone is actually God or at least equal to God. But if you look up the passage that Jesus was quoting (Psalms 82:6), it is evident that this is not what he meant. Psalms 82 makes it clear that, while everyone is divine in the sense that we were all created by God and that we are all children of God, we are nothing in comparison to Him.
Psalms 82:6-8 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
The Hebrew word used here for "gods" can mean "rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, or gods." It is a form of the same word used to refer to the one God. Since the Psalms were written as songs or poetry, the writer probably specifically chose this word to represent the contrast between the creation and the creator. He was addressing the leaders of mankind. Even though they were great lords among men and even though God himself gave them their power, they are still accountable to Him for their treatment of the poor and needy. It is a warning against undue pride and an admonition to humble, godly rule. Don't set yourself to be like God because He can take you down as easily as He put you up. The desire to become like God is one of the gravest sins the Bible describes. This was the sin which tempted Eve and caused the fall of mankind. This is also the sin which brought about the fall of the civilization of Babel and the division of all mankind. It is also the sin which caused God to exile Satan and his angels from Heaven.
And then there's this:
Are mighty or exalted men gods? [...]
7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.The part I'm quoting is a little less than half-way down the page.a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.
b. Asaph's meaning is not "Although you are gods, you will die like men," but rather "I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are"
c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b)
d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 5 above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)
e. Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82
f. The words, "The Scripture cannot be broken," means "the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what they could not do, and is what they could never be (see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a simiar use of OT Scripture)
g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God came" (John 10:35) shows that this "word" was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all
h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not "godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal
Not as cool as I am. That same authority has proclaimed me the King of Slime, which is obviously above everything else. I consent that you may occupy a place in my entourage.
I'm shocked that you would compare other (or all), men to Jesus. If that were true, what would have been the point?
Hmmm. We'll have to await the next Bull.
Is there any doubt?
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.