Reply With Quote
That was the biblical definition 1900 years ago as well.
Well, Adam did have a belly button...
That was the biblical definition 1900 years ago as well.
Last edited by Extra Stout; 08-04-2005 at 11:22 AM.
Yes, you should disregard the bible in its entirety because portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.
You should also disregard the Cons ution of the United States in its entirety, since portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.
Last edited by SWC Bonfire; 08-04-2005 at 11:54 AM.
The entire Old Testament is a case study in progressive revelation.
I don't think the Cons ution has ever been said to be the word of an omnipitant unfallible being. Jefferson was a diest, not a diety.
Well, it gets treated that way depending on whether it is politically expedient to do so at the time.
Right. Let me know when the Vatican lets us add amendments to the bible.
Sounds like two have been nominated.
They do in a way. It's called the Catechism of the Catholic Faith.
I don't really understand what all the hullabaloo is all about. I have my belief and others have theirs. But what is sad is when parents rely on schools and the govenment to determine what should be taught to their children. What is even sadder is the parents that don't even care what is taught to their children. Whatever happened to parents asking little johnny what he learned in school today?
So... I'm guessing you're not a practicing Catholic, then?
Ummm, so is the New Testament. From the Niocine Creed, to the Trinity to ?The entire Old Testament is a case study in progressive revelation.
No. I don't think I've been in very many Catholic churches after my confirmation.
I am someone who believes very strongly in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the man. I do not believe he was the son of god. But I think his teachigns are a fabulous guide to the way a person should live their life.
Anyway, maybe the teaching of creationism is best left to the philosophy department of some College, University or private school rather than using scarce public education tax dollars which are probably better spent teaching proven sciences like math, biology et al.
HS students have enough problems with problem-solving and critical thinking as it is without introducing competing theories about the evolution of God, religion and evolution. On the surface, though, you have to be really concerned about the Fundies in Texas making such a blatant assault on the Separation between Church and State and so many elected State and Federal legislators, and the WH openly supporting the idea.
I'd tend to agree, for the most part. There's probably a way to broach the question about the origins of the universe without stepping on toes, but clearly ID is being used as a Trojan horse by people who want to use the public schools for religious indoctrination, which is just as bad as using it for anti-religious indoctrination.
Extremists on both sides concern me.
The only thing I've learned since my last post is the SWC Bonfire misinterpreted my post big time. Because I like Mr. Bonfire, I will assume the misinterpretation was a mistake in haste.
Krugman, NY TimesI'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.
Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and ins utions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.
Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier at ude toward the budget deficit."
"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."
Being Intelligent About Intelligent Design
American Progress in ActionOn Tuesday, just a few weeks after the 80th anniversary of the famous Scopes trial, President Bush expressed his support for teaching intelligent design in public schools, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about." In so doing, he "invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution." That's where the problem lies. While there is nothing wrong with intelligent design as an idea, it is not a scientific theory. Treating it as such for political purposes does a disservice to the nation's children.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE: "American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints," the American Association for the Advancement of Science correctly notes. And while this diversity unquestionably enriches students' educational experiences, it is of critical importance that our educators distinguish between information acquired through rigorous scientific methods and those founded upon belief systems. As President Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, acknowledges, "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Although its proponents often point to supposed empirically based "gaps" in the science of evolution, intelligent design theory also necessarily involves positing extra-natural (if not religious) phenomena. "Outside the precincts of the religious right, though, the scientific consensus about evolution is very close to unanimous." The National Academy of Sciences, "the nation's most prestigious scientific organization," declares evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." A recent National Geographic ran a cover story asking, "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then provided the answer in the subhead: "No. The Evidence for Evolution Is Overwhelming." Evolution is, to again quote Bush science advisor John Marburger, "the cornerstone of modern biology."
SCIENCE CLASSES SHOULD TEACH SCIENCE: Commenting on President Bush's remarks, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said, "Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." O'Reilly added: "There is no reason the students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher power. ... Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject." This is a red herring. For one, despite the widespread confidence in evolution theory, virtually all involved in the debate believe that teachers must present a thorough, probing analysis of its scientific merits and demerits. Moreover, many believe that intelligent design could play an important role in public school curricula. Students should be and are taught about theories like intelligent design -- they learn of various belief systems in philosophy and humanities classes, and of the levels of religious belief in our society in sociology classes. (Indeed, consider the recent struggle over evolution in Dover, PA: the school board candidates who opposed the teaching of ID in science classes also strongly supported its inclusion in humanities curricula. "Paradoxically," the New York Times observed, "that may mean that if win, intelligent design would be examined more thoroughly, and critically, than under current policy," which was crafted by ID proponents.) But, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.
BELIEF IN GOD AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE: As physics professor Lawrence Krauss observes, "One can choose to view chance selection as obvious evidence that there is no God, as Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and uncompromising atheist, might argue, or to conclude instead that God chooses to work through natural means." In the latter case, he notes, "the overwhelming evidence that natural selection has determined the evolution of life on earth would simply imply that God is 'the cause of causes,'" as Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stated when he presided over the church's International Theological Commission. Indeed, "when a researcher from the University of Georgia surveyed scientists' at udes toward religion several years ago, he found their positions virtually unchanged from an identical survey in the early years of the 20th century. About 40 percent of scientists said not just that they believed in God, but in a God who communicates with people and to whom one may pray 'in expectation of receiving an answer.'"
THE CONS UTIONAL END-RUN: In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creationism in public schools violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. "he doctrine seemed to be shut out of public schools once and for all," Mic e Goldberg writes for Salon.com. But now "intelligent design" -- "an updated version of creationism couched in modern biological terms" -- is giving advocates of creationism new hope that they can cir vent the high court's ruling. Proponents of "intelligent design" insist, of course, that the theory is distinct from creationism, and does not posit the existence of God. Yet the most fierce advocates of "intelligent design," led by the Seattle-based Discovery Ins ute (which praised Bush's remarks), clearly have a religious agenda. The ins ute's main financial backer, savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson, spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, "a theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law." A 1999 fundraising proposal that was leaked online stated, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built"; the ins ute's goal, it said, was "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
ID PROPONENTS SHOULD ADVANCE THEIR THEORY THE RIGHT WAY: If proponents of "intelligent design" wish for their theory to hold the same stature in the scientific community as evolution, there is an appropriate course of action. Like any other researchers, they should subject their critiques and theories to repeated testing and submit their findings to be reviewed by their peers. Instead, as it stands now, "church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels" to crowbar their views into public classrooms. Neither, moreover, should we close our eyes to the scientific merits and teach "intelligent design" simply because some fear that theories like evolution, which say precious little about how humans ought to act, will open the door to "moral relativism." ("The ultimate extension of this position," Krauss writes, "may be Representative Tom DeLay's comment that the tragedy at Columbine happened 'because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial mud.'") The politicization of evolution teaching is actually harming our students by making teachers nervous about delving into the topic at all. "In districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum it may not be in the classroom, according to researchers who follow the issue. ... eachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities."
Well said.
contrary to O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.
Bingo.
Well, he said he was the Son of God, so evidently you don't believe him.
I understand Christians, I understand atheists, I understand agnostics. This is the position everyone takes that I don't understand. You're calling him a fraud and then turning around and saying you "believe very strongly in his teachings". Which is it? If the guy's a nutcase lying about being the Son of God, why believe the rest of what he said? If the rest of his teaching was so powerful, how can you say he wasn't the Son of God? This seems to be a position held by people who don't understand what they believe.
O'Reilly rousing the rabble is wonderfully honest, as rabble-raising always is:
"Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject"
Exactly. How can anyone be against the facts? Even dumb- red-state hicks can take that on board. "I love O'Reilly. He's right about THE facts."
BUT, there ARE NO FACTS, there are NO SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE HYPOTHESES for creationism or ID, which are just an idea espoused by a single religious cult, or actually a simplistic, anti-intellectual, anti-scientfic fringe of Christianity.
Last edited by boutons; 10-03-2005 at 07:17 AM.
How about we only teach theories that have a shred of evidence to back them up?
Once you prove God does exist...the faith based on his ideology ceases to exist. Then God is essentially dead.
"But I think his teachigns are a fabulous guide to the way a person should live their life."..........................................And that makes you a good person in my view
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
