1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Board rejects deity theory

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by moondg, Aug 27, 2007.

Top Posters
  1. moondg

    moondg Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    God is unlikely to be in science texts
    Associated Press


    AUSTIN - A majority of State Board of Education members said the theory of intelligent design should be left out of the science curriculum for public schools.
    The board will rewrite the science curriculum next year, and some observers expect backers of intelligent design to push for the theory's inclusion.
    In interviews with The Dallas Morning News, 10 of the board's 15 members said they wouldn't support requiring the teaching of intelligent design. One board member said she was open to the idea. Four board members didn't respond to the newspaper's phone calls.
    Proponents of intelligent design contend that life is too complex to have occurred by chance, requiring instead the guidance of an unnamed supernatural being. Critics say it's a ploy for introducing creationism - the biblical account of the origin of humans - into science classes.
    "Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. "Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community and intelligent design does not."
    McLeroy, R-College Station, said he doesn't want to change the existing requirement that evolution be taught in high school biology classes. But he joined several of his colleagues in arguing that biology textbooks should cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
    McLeroy and three other socially conservative board members voted against the current biology texts in 2003 over the evolution issue. The textbook debate comes up again in 2011.
    Charles Darwin's theory of evolution describes the process by which new species of life arise from lower life forms. Today, most scientists embrace evolution through natural selection as the cornerstone of biology.
    David Bradley, the board's vice chairman, said he believes "God is responsible for our creation." But the Beaumont Republican said he's not interested in changing the current requirement for teaching evolution, nor would he support a move to include the theory of intelligent design in science classes.
    Board member Pat Hardy said she was open to the idea of intelligent design in curriculum, but she added that she doesn't advocate putting any religious teachings into science classes.
    "I am open to having intelligent design in there because there is a large body of evidence unanswered by the theory of evolution. We first need to hear from science educators and experts about whether this should be done," said Hardy, R-Weatherford.
    Other board members who said they believe the curriculum should continue to include evolution and not be changed to accommodate intelligent design were: Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, R-Dallas; Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands; Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas; Bob Craig, R-Lubbock; Mavis Knight, D-Dallas; Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio; Lawrence Allen, D-Houston; and Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi.
    The four board members who didn't respond to the newspaper's inquiry were Democrat Rene Nunez of El Paso and Republicans Cynthia Dunbar of Richmond, Terri Leo of Spring and Ken Mercer of San Antonio.
    http://www.theeagle.com/stories/082507/schools_20070825008.php
    What is happening to our nation.
     
    #1 moondg, Aug 27, 2007
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Science class should stick to science. Creatiionist ideas could fit into religion or philosophy classes. Once you start with different religions' creation stories, where do you stop. This is the correct decision.
     
    #2 Magnetic Poles, Aug 27, 2007
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said. ID is a scientific matter, not a religion one. In fact, most religionists including myself reject ID as insufficient. But in a science class, ID is a scientific matter that must be addressed in the name of intellectual honesty.
     
    #3 Pastor Larry, Aug 27, 2007
  4. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since without the Creation of God there would be no science, and there would be no scientific knowlege unless God had allowed man to discover it, how does that square with your quote?
     
    #4 saturneptune, Aug 27, 2007
  5. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wow.
    Genesis 1 is insufficient?!?
     
    #5 webdog, Aug 27, 2007
  6. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    echo webdog.
    Intelligent design is insufficient? And evolution is not? big WOW!!
     
    #6 hillclimber1, Aug 27, 2007
  7. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well said, MP. :thumbs:
     
    #7 KenH, Aug 28, 2007
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point is that science is about observation, not about religious views per se. As a presuppositionalist (do you know what that is?) an evolutionist can form a coherent thought only because everything he claims to believe is false.

    But ID is not a religious viewpoint. It did not come from the Bible. There are in fact some athiests who hold to ID from what I understand. Many creationists, such as myself, see great problems in the ID camp because of it's inherent weakenesses. So teaching ID is not teachign religion.
     
    #8 Pastor Larry, Aug 28, 2007
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow what? Do you really not understand that ID is a secular viewpoint, not a religious one? From what I understand, some proponents of ID are athiestic. Perhaps you should read more direct literature from the ID proponents themselves and not from those who talk about them (whether from the Scripture side or the evolution side). Get it first hand. Darwin's Black Box is a good place to start.

    No, Gen 1 is very sufficient. But ID is not based on Gen 1 but on something entirely different. ID sees an irreducible complexity that cannot be attributed to natural causes (evolution) but must have an intelligent designer. It does not acknowledge that said designer is God or JEsus Christ. It does not necessarily acknowledge Scripture or Gen 1.

    Here is what I think is happening for some here: they believe there is evolution and creation/ID. But creationism and ID are two different entitities that share some common ideas but also share some very divergent ideas.

    Go to Answers in Genesis website and read their comments on ID to see what some of the problems are.

    I think Gen 1 is very sufficient. I don't need ID. I don't think ultimately that it helps much to support a biblical view. I think the Bible teaches that God miraculously created the world ex nihilo in six consecutive 24 hour days a relatively short period of time ago (6-12 thousand years).

    ID is a completely different type of issue.
     
    #9 Pastor Larry, Aug 28, 2007
  10. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The idea that ID is non-religious at its core strains credibility, even if some self-proclaimed atheists adhere to it.
     
    #10 KenH, Aug 28, 2007
  11. ByGracethroughFaith

    ByGracethroughFaith New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, and will add...

    The creation account of Genesis had to be removed from the school system to make room for the introduction of ID. ID fits into almost any religion, and is perfectly suited for herding children into the one-world harlot church.

    Nearly every human being is amicable with religion and a superior being of some kind, it is only when it gets to the point of redemption being outside of one's self that the fur starts flying.

    ID is ungodly to the core.


    BGTF
     
    #11 ByGracethroughFaith, Aug 28, 2007
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    posted in error
     
    #12 saturneptune, Aug 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2007
  13. UnchartedSpirit

    UnchartedSpirit New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    ID is insufficient by the mere fact that we're currently living in a fallen, unorganized, CHAOS-RIDDEN universe that makes it rather difficult to say there's any "clever" framework to it, to put it in a non-blasphemuous way. I don't see how it can show who or what God is any better than His words, which I thin ID scientists should spend some more time confirming than this outside theory.
     
    #13 UnchartedSpirit, Aug 28, 2007
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It depends on how you are using the word "religious." If by "religious" you mean related to "belief," then yes, ID is religious just as evolution is or creationism is. If by "religious" you mean "drawn from the Bible" then ID is not religious. Again, by reading the proponents of ID you will see a wide range of views presented, many of which reject Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures.
     
    #14 Pastor Larry, Aug 28, 2007
  15. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Someone please outline a "scientific" lesson plan for the study of ID.
     
    #15 billwald, Aug 28, 2007
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill,

    You could read any number of sources for that.
     
    #16 Pastor Larry, Aug 28, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...