Problem is, there are no specific science courses in lower grades, but random naturalism is still tught then. Actually, even though they may label it with this title of "qualifiable science", but it ends up becoming philosophical as well. Once again, this one philosophy becomes the mandate by default, because of this "qualification".
Why does an assumption that matter just appeared and developed into the universe by itself belong there, then?
Those are not the same thing, because a round earth is clearly observable to anyone who has travled around it. (actually, relativity theory acknowledges that the earth technically still could be considered the center of the universe, because it's all relative to the frame of reference).
Intelligent Design under attack
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Eric B, Aug 29, 2005.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
The fact that an ID theory is not allowed, and people are railing against it as just some mythical "religious nonsense" conveys an attitude that their theory is proven fact. It is extremely rare to see these admissions that you describe.
-
Paul of Eugene
I see you still haven't learned anything about thermodynamics! :D -
-
That's actually untrue. Microevolution has been observed copiously. Macroevolution has been predicted, and observations matching those predictions have been documented, though macroevolution as a whole has, as far as I know, not been observed as a whole.
</font>[/QUOTE]Micro-evolution is not macro-evolution which is what is commonly taught as evolution. There are some who now incorrectly claim micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution since other theories are being discredited. -
-
What is the theory of ID? How can it be used in research?
OldRegular, what is the 2LoT? How does it preclude evolution? -
Originally posted by OldRegular:
Micro-evolution is not macro-evolution which is what is commonly taught as evolution.Click to expand...
When I was a young YEC'er myself, YEC's used to claim that microevolution was wrong. They since had to change their tune, because microevolution has now been observed and documented. It's just a long list of changes that the YEC community has had to make in their view in the last 100 or so years. YEC'ers now state that microevolution is not macroevolution, which is technically true. YEC'ers used to state that speciation was an impossibility, yet, when speciation became observed and documented, they one again changed their tune and raised the bar. I believe the current bar has been raised to development of "kind", though "kind" has been left open. If Geniation (a change in genus, which is above species) is observed, the YEC comunity will no doubt redefine "kind" to exclude genus change as evidence. -
If people want to put their faith in the atheistic concept of evolution rather than Faith in a Creator God nothing I could say would change their mind. However, people should understand that according the concept of evolution there is no God and only the material exists.
There is a passage of Scripture that seems appropriate:
2 Timothy 4:1-5
1. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. -
quote:
Originally posted by Johnv:
Creationists have likewise failed to instantaneously create something out of nothing. So instantaneous creation must therefore be false by your standard.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by OldRegular:
If people want to put their faith...Click to expand...
Originally posted by OldRegular:
...people should understand that according the concept of evolution there is no God and only the material exists.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by OldRegular:
What scientists have tried to spontaneously create something? Was it Dr. Frankenstein?Click to expand... -
I also forgot to address this pertinent point from Paul of Eugene:
It is not the fault of science that what it turns out we can find out happens to be contrary to the deeply held beliefs of some, but it does, unfortunately, provoke resistance to the increase in knowledge foretold by Daniel in the Bible. It is ironic to see people claiming to accept the Bible while they strive to hold that particular prophecy back from its destined fulfillment.Click to expand...
Only in the sense that this might be apart of the "strong delusion" also foretold in prohecy. (2 Thess.2:11)
Daniel does not even tell us that this "knowledge" is a good thing, or necessarily truth. Most understand it in light of 2Tim.3:7: "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of truth"
Page 2 of 2