Sanity Returns to Kansas

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by The Galatian, Feb 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
    The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
     
  2. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ah yes, evolution is so unsure of itself it cannot afford to be looked at via common sense, let alone real science.
     
  3. Walguy

    Walguy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    1
    As Solomon so aptly observed, "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17) Evolutionists obviously understand this basic truth, which is why they will go to any length to make sure evolution is taught to students without any 'other' teacher or teaching allowed to examine it. Contrast that to the creationist position, which is that BOTH models should be taught side by side (and studies have shown that kids learn evolution better through the two-model system then with one-model indoctrination, but with evolutionists it's only the indoctrination that matters, not how much is learned). Creationists aren't afraid to be examined by the 'other' the way evolutionists are. That one fact speaks volumes about which model better explains the actual evidence in nature.
     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see christians who do not want the Bible or it seems god in any way in our government and our schools. The two do not line up.
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    As you might know, "real science" is why Kansas removed the creationist dogma from their standards. Only evidence-based science is real science.

    It might be tempting to argue that one's religion should be taught in science classes, but it opens the door to indoctrination of all kinds, Islam, Wicca, and all the rest would then be required to be taught as "science."

    A geniune Christian wants God in public schools, but in the hearts and prayers of the students and teachers, not by government fiat, nor as a second-class "science" that has to tag along as an "alternative" to real science.

    My daughter once organized an "at the flagpole" group. And we had public prayer in public school which was perfectly legal and no one could do anything about it.

    That's how God should be in public school. It's what Christians do.
     
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's give the stork theory equal time in biology class. Why indoctrinate kids with the idea that sperm & ova make babies? Or maybe we give geocentrism equal time with the idea the earth revolves around the sun?
     
  7. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sanity?

    I don't know why people continue to be surprised at what happens at the Gov't schools. Gov't regulated and funded, philosophies abound that show paganism rampant and then all the killing, stealing, rapes and mayhem (that's why the police units and metal detectors are needed), sounds like a wonderful environment for learning.

    Bartimaeus
     
  8. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh yeah...that happens every day.
     
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==If this is the case evolution cannot be taught in public schools either. Evolution, intelligent design, and creationism are all models which attempt to explain the physical evidence. Not one of the theories is based on solid evidence. All three are man's interpretation of the physical evidence.

    Besides evolution is not totally accepted by all secular scientists. What you find, when you listen to them, is that most of them accept parts of the theory while rejecting other parts. Evolution is far from real science.

    Also let's not confuse intelligent design with creationism, they are two different theories. The only thing they have in common is the belief in an intelligence that created the universe which, btw, is a theory some evolutionists also hold. The intelligent design view is compatable with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Deism, and almost any other system that allows for a creator. Even the former atheist Anthony Flew now accepts intelligent design (he is a deist).

    ==Religion should not be taught in science classrooms however theories, like evolution, should not be passed off as "real science". The two major "secular" theories (evolution/intelligent design) should be explained as possible theories and then the class should move on to physical science.
     
    #9 Martin, Feb 14, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2007
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0


    ==Of course the separation of church and state is a historic Baptist position. The first Baptist church in America was founded by a man who believed in separation of church and state. That man was a Calvinistic, Separatist Christian by the name of Roger Williams.

    Indeed I would argue that separation of church and state is a New Testament position.

    Of course the separation of church and state has been perverted by the left.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    What's really sad is Christians accepting, without question, a scientific theory over the Word of God.:tear:
     
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    4
    What I see is people demanding the government teach their kids, and then bellyachin' about what they get taught.

    Option one, home school.
    Option two, Christian school. (my choice)
    Option three, daily deprogramming. (That's what my dad did.)
     
  13. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Testable theories are how real science gets done.
     
  14. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Macro evolution is not a testable theory. Neither is creationism or intelligent design for that matter.
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbarian observes:
    As you might know, "real science" is why Kansas removed the creationist dogma from their standards. Only evidence-based science is real science.

    No, evolutionary theory is based on evidence, and even changes when evidence indicates. ID and creationism are religious beliefs, which are not dependent on evidence. Darwin's theory is accepted by almost all biologists because it adequately explains the evidence.

    Even YE creationists like Dr. Harold Coffin have admitted that if it were not for his religious beliefs, the evidence would lead him to think the world was very old.

    There are still some geocentrists, and so on. But the overwhelming majority admit it. Even YE creationists readily admit the evolution of new species. Some go a lot further. John Woodmorappe, whose "Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study" was favorably reviewed by the ICR, says that new genera and familes can evolve. He thinks they had to, since the Ark would not have had capacitiy for all animals otherwise.

    Right. Almost all scientists accept the Modern Synthesis that forms evolutionary theory, but neutralist theories, punctuated equillibrium, and other theories are not universally accepted.

    It is regarded as a theory because it is based on evidence, and is testable.

    Can be. ID is basically creationism lite. Some IDers, like Michael Denton, have come far enough to be essentially theistic evolutionists. Others, like Jonathan Wells, of the Unification Church, are pretty much hard core creationists.

    See above. About the only thing that keeps the latter from being orthodox Christians is that they insist on demoting God from Creator to designer.

    The big sticking point is in considering God to be limited to design. Omnipotence is consistent with creation, but not design. If by "design" you mean "creation", then it's not a problem.

    One of the key clues in this was the discovery by engineers that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complex problems. Looks like God was a lot smarter than some folks thought.

    Anyway, since Darwin himself saw teleology in living things (even attributed life to the Creator), there's not that much difference left, unless on wants to split hairs on whether God is omnipotent or not. I think He is, so ID isn't that appealing to me.

    "it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.

    This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.

    Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii)
    Michael Denton, from "Nature's Destiny"

    I'm not too pleased that he considers God to be a "cosmic Saddam Hussein." So that decreases my confidence in his opinions. If one begins by assuming that God has faults, it surely makes it easier to accept ID.

    Barbarian observes:
    It might be tempting to argue that one's religion should be taught in science classes, but it opens the door to indoctrination of all kinds, Islam, Wicca, and all the rest would then be required to be taught as "science."

    That's a hopeless line of argument, since evolutionary theory is based on evidence. It's been tried, and it's failed every time.

    The Wedge Document, in which the guys who invented ID admit that the "governing goal" of their ideology is religious, pretty much destroyed that argument. This is probably the main reason it failed in the Dover case.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evolution is a theory to account for evidence. It is based on presuppositions such as naturalism. It is not a necessary conclusion for the evidence, and indeed cannot account for some evidence.

    Evolution cannot be tested. It is, by definition, random and it is not repeatable. The fact that new varieties of animals have "evolved" is hardly proof against creationism. Creationism admits that such "evolution" takes place. It is called microevolution.

    Evolution is a religious belief. It believes (without evidence) that God was not controlling creation. It believes (without evidence) that Genesis is not an accurate account of creation. It is a belief system. The reason is keeps changing is because it is a belief system. It has to change to account for the evidence, and in so doing, reveals just how much theory and belief (without evidence) went into the prior belief that had to be changed.
     
  17. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Evolution is not evidence based, at least not any more than creationism (etc) is. It is a theory constructed by men to explain the physical evidence they see. If you think intelligent design is religious then I doubt you know many people who hold to intelligent design (not creationism). Many of them are deists at best or agnostics.

    ==Personally I don't know how old the earth is, second I don't know who Coffin is.

    ==With that last statement I think you are failing to separate what is sometimes referred to as macro evolution from micro evolution. All creationists that I am aware of believe in micro evolution.


    ==Macro evolution is not testable. Come to think of it neither is intelligent design or any form of creationism.


    ==Wrong. Creationists believe that the God of the Bible created the universe. There are young earth creationists (Ken Ham, etc) and then there are old earth creationists (Hugh Ross, etc). Intelligent Design does not believe that the God of the Bible created. In that view any intelligent being could have created the universe.

    ==People like Flew are the major reason I still consider what you refer to as "ID" and creationism to be two very different animals. Maybe related somewhat, but still different.

    ==Teaching only one side of any controversy is not teaching.
     
  18. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep. The purpose of scientific theories are to account for the evidence. Evolutionary theory is accepted by scientists, because it is the only theory that can adequately explain the evidence.

    I think someone's pulled a small switch on you. Methodological naturalism is the way science works, but it's only a tool. The idea is that natural phenomena have natural causes. I think you've been fooled into thinking it's ontological naturalism, which says nature is all there is.

    So far, it's worked for all sciences. Every time we get to the bottom of things, it's natural causes. Of course, there are events that we can't explain, some of them miraculous. But they don't happen very often, and the number we can't explain is getting smaller and smaller. What about the miracles? Not a problem; as you see, methodological naturalism doesn't deny them.

    It's tested daily by college undergraduates. And by researchers, who make predictions that have been validated. Would you like to learn about some of them?

    They weren't honest with you about that, either. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random.

    So far, it's happened every time we test it.

    As long as creationism admits evolution, it doesn't.

    They lied to you about that, too. "Microevolution" is variation within a species. "Macroevolution" is the evolution of new species.

    I'm always amazed that when creationists want to say something bad about evolution, they accuse it of being a religion. Have some faith in faith, Larry.

    Um, no. They lied about that, too. A lot of people, including Darwin, thought and think that God is behind it all.

    Wrong again. It makes no claims about Genesis, which says nothing at all about evolution either way.

    Technically, it's a scientific theory. A belief system would be more comprehensive than one theory.

    That's how science works. You see the same things in chemistry, physics, geology, etc. It differs from religions like creationism, because it does change when evidence indicates. You might see this as a flaw, but very little humans do works better. Here's a way to keep them straight:

    Science changes to fit the evidence.

    Creationism changes the evidence to fit the belief.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is simply not true. The reason they keep changing their theories is because the previous one couldn’t account for the evidence. And they are asking you to believe some preposterous things in defense of their commitment to naturalism, even though it is completely irrational.

    Actually, it is both. But the belief that natural phenomena always has natural causes is simply not true. Furthermore, how objective can a theory be when you start out with the absolute denial that one possibility cannot be true?

    It denies the miracle of creation, in favor of evolution.

    No its not. Macroevolution has never been tested or proven. Microevolution has, and creationists admit that. It is perfectly consistent with Scripture.

    Please be serious, Galatian.

    When was the last time it was tested and proven that something evolved into a higher life form?

    Creationism has never denied the existence of microevolution, which you should know. And “science” has never proven the even the possibility of macroevolution, much less its existence.

    Duh. This is what was being discussed.

    Faith is only as good as its object. Sincerity of faith is of no value when it is in a bad object. To say that evolution is a belief system is axiomatic.

    I think you don’t understand the presuppositions behind evolution. It is naturalistic view that excludes the supernatural.
    If you read Genesis, it says that God created the world in six, successive, 24 hour days. That is a claim about evolution, and evolution says that God did not create the world in six, successive, 24 hour days, but rather through long processes of time over billions of years. These are two distinct views.

    It’s a belief system. They believe that the world evolved. They have not proven that. That’s why it is a belief system.
    This is simply incorrect. Creationism accounts for the evidence, but it admits the possibility of the explanation that evolution won’t. Evolution changes because it has no answers. It has to change to keep from demonstrating its absurdity.

    Here’s the bottom line: You are committed to a philosophical explanation that does not take into account the reality of God and his declaration of his work in this universe. That reveals a fatal flaw in your understanding. Which we should expect, based on that declaration of God’s work in his word. He tells us of people who profess to be wise because have become fools (Rom 1), of people’s whose understanding is darkened, and who are ignorant, being hard of heart (Eph 4:17-19). So as believers in Scripture, we expect the responses like you have given. We do not expect them from people who claim to believe God and follow him.
     
  20. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pastor Larry, Galatian, alias Barbarian, alias tons of other names, has been giving these same somewhat supercilious replies for about eight years or more on the net. I remember him from a long time ago and he hasn't changed a bit. Facts don't phase him.

    However, macroevolution is NOT the evolution of new species. We can declare new species whenever we like, actually, depending on which definition we use. But a new species of hummingbird is still a hummingbird. Macroevolution claims that single celled life forms evolved into multicellular life forms and they evolved into everything we see today. And THAT sort of change has NEVER been seen anywhere except in anyone's imagination.

    They say it is too slow. But the fossil record is so sparse that something called 'punctuated equilibrium' was fabricated in order to account for that; it says that evolution was too FAST to be seen in the fossil record. No matter the problem, they have a trick to 'solve' it, even if one trick is directly in opposition to another trick. It doesn't matter.

    Galatian wants you to have faith in faith. That is an absurdity. One has to have faith in something or someone, not in faith itself. However it does show the word plays he will use to try to make something sound right.

    And as Larry said, Genesis directly opposes the fantasy of evolution. The two simply cannot be reconciled to one another without doing serious damage to one of them! Sadly, it is usually the Bible which is the 'victim.'

    And yes, evolution is a belief system. It is the approach necessary to secular humanism, which is the religion behind it, whether or not those who claim to be Christian recognize that or not.

    Finally, what evolutionists won't admit and usually won't even consider looking at is that the data itself denies evolution and supports a recent creation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...