Evolution

[And Such Were Some Of You]

We Now Know Where George Bush Stands On Creationism In Schools
by Joe Gandelman

www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1122993093.shtml


You just had to suspect President George Bush supported creationism being taught in schools, it's just that it didn't seem as if he'd embrace the idea publically — until now:


President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.


Three things on this:
(1)Isn't it fascinating how modern politics (on the left and right) resorts to a kind of Orwellian attempt to obscure a concept? "Intelligent design" is to "creationism" what "pre-owned cars" is to "used cars."
(2)If the two were taught side by side — particularly if it was ever somehow mandated by the federal government — it would indeed represent a SHIFT.
(3)Whatever happened to the days when conservatives made it a point of saying a matter such as what's taught in schools was something that strictly belonged to the states and is not a matter for the feds? Barry Goldwater had it right.

On the other hand, in terms of public opinion, Bush is with the MAJORITY on this issue. A CBS News poll in November found that most Americans don't think humans evolved, don't want evolution totally replaced in schools — but two-thirds believe it should be taught alongside evolution in the schools.

So, if this poll is correct, it is NOT accurate to say Bush is merely pushing the agenda of social conservatives on this issue.

[guest]

It's really ashame what happens when people who are uneducated in science want to decide what is true or false based on their own beliefs opposed to what can be proven....

I believe in God but I also believe in evolution... I believe that God used evolution... The first humans may not have been apes but they were indeed a "cave man" type that had a different body and protype that humans of today... Thus evolution.

I think the big problem is that white America doesn't what to accept that "Eve" probably wasn't some blond long leggy woman with hair to her waist. She probably had a strong jaw line with a lot of body hair.

Also there still need to be acknowledged that the public school systems are for everyone... not just Christians... There are a ton of different religions and they all have different beliefs... I think we as Christians should be careful about the thought that we all think alike or that our beliefs should be forced on others... After all... There are Christian schools out there... maybe people should spend more time placing their children in these types of school rather than wanting prayer in school and possibly exposing our kids to Muslims. mormons, and buddist who will also declare they have a right to pray to their god/gods also...

Also with what ever "their" believes about the start of the world are... I believe in God I believe He created the world... But I have the common sense to realize that He used "science" to do it...

I guess soon well go back to declaring the world is flat

[giantsdodie]

Evolution is the biggest load of garbage we have had shoved down our throats. Its not even scientific. Evolution itself breaks TWO of the fundamental laws of science.

All life contains DNA, so for evolution to be true the DNA molecule must first evolve. The first problem is that the rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. Thus, no significant quantities would be produced.

Another insurmountable barrier is that these amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein…like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of probability forbid this from happening.

Even the very simplest cell contains several thousand different kinds of proteins, and many billions of each kind, plus all kinds of DNA, RNA, and other highly complex molecules, along with many complex structures, arranged in an incredibly complex system.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS UNSCIENTIFIC.

It is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics that states things move from order to chaos. The "Big Bang" violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. It violates the third law too, raw energy added to an open system is not a recipe for increased organisation. It violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing


In order to believe in evolution, you have to believe this happened, even though it is statistically impossible. It is much easier to believe that a higher intelligence, God, supernaturally created this complex universe.

Simply speaking Evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible.

[ybrown]

People believe in evolution not because it makes more sense or is more scientific - because its not - they believe in evolution because they don’t want to believe in God. That's why evolution was invented - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator. Evolution isn't scientific, so it does require faith to believe in it. How ironic.

[Nikkol]

guest said:

It's really ashame what happens when people who are uneducated in science want to decide what is true or false based on their own beliefs opposed to what can be proven....

I believe in God but I also believe in evolution... I believe that God used evolution... The first humans may not have been apes but they were indeed a "cave man" type that had a different body and protype that humans of today... Thus evolution.

I think the big problem is that white America doesn't what to accept that "Eve" probably wasn't some blond long leggy woman with hair to her waist. She probably had a strong jaw line with a lot of body hair.

Also there still need to be acknowledged that the public school systems are for everyone... not just Christians... There are a ton of different religions and they all have different beliefs... I think we as Christians should be careful about the thought that we all think alike or that our beliefs should be forced on others... After all... There are Christian schools out there... maybe people should spend more time placing their children in these types of school rather than wanting prayer in school and possibly exposing our kids to Muslims. mormons, and buddist who will also declare they have a right to pray to their god/gods also...

Also with what ever "their" believes about the start of the world are... I believe in God I believe He created the world... But I have the common sense to realize that He used "science" to do it...

I guess soon well go back to declaring the world is flat

1. One can question where the idea that one evolved from "cavemen" came from. "Cavemen" have been typically described as people who weren't very "smart" and I don't believe that Adam and Eve who are the first people were "not smart".

2. I don't think that it has anything to do with "white America". Honestly, we don't know what color she was or what she looked like and I don't think that we should perse care. I don't know if she had body hair. However, it is possible that although some may say that she did, it is just as possible as she did not.

3. That was very interesting..... I can understand somewhat in reference to going to a "Christian School". However, that is not something that everyone can take advantage of due to the fact that it's not free. Should Christians "force God" on people? No. However, having them in the public school can help them impact those in school. Maybe by a tract that the kid gives to some of the people in their class can bring them to the truth. Maybe in reading the Word with them during lunch/recess will bring them to the truth. A child can pray in school and should. They even have Bible Clubs and people who come and "pray at the pole" in the morning before school. We as Christians can make a difference in the schools if our children use what they have learned to teach others in the class. Whether or not they have a "special time" over the loud speaker to pray or not. Honestly, if it was a teacher who prayed in the morning, I'd prefer them to be Holy Ghost filled. Anyone can say words and reference it as a "prayer" but there is only one God and His name is Jesus. That's where the power is.

4. Yes, God created the world. To say that God used something in order to create lowers who God is. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. How did he do it? By His Word. Additionally, to use common sense in understanding the world can at many times go against the truth of who God is. "Common Sense" is a worldy expression and sometimes your "common sense" will have you (general) going totally against God.

5. No reason to declare the World is "flat"

[giantsdodie]

ybrown said:

People believe in evolution not because it makes more sense or is more scientific - because its not - they believe in evolution because they don’t want to believe in God. That's why evolution was invented - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator. Evolution isn't scientific, so it does require faith to believe in it. How ironic.

EXACTLY in fact its a religion unto itself.

[keita]

In the great controversy of creation vs evolution, I discovered, have long enjoyed, and admire the teaching and tv ministries of Dr Carl Baugh. His is one of the (few) shows I still watch on TBN. I especially appreciate that he endeavors to use the perspective and evidences of science to support belief in the creationism/intelligent design truth of God's Word.

Check him out.

[giantsdodie]

Thanks for that website. I have seen the gentlemen on numerous occasion, and he is very good.

[keita]

Here's more news:

President Bush Boosts Design Theory's Profile
Evolution backers say it's a bid to get religion in schools

By Jean Torkelson
August 6, 2005 Rocky Mountain News


You might call it the Primordial Ooze takes on Mount Rushmore.Is life the product of evolving natural mechanisms derived from a common ancestor, rising perhaps from an ancient ooze?

Or does life reflect the design of an intelligent being, working with the purpose and deliberation of an artist carving presidential faces on Mount Rushmore?

And should both views be offered to students as theories of how life came about?

When President Bush said this week that "both sides ought to be properly taught," proponents of "intelligent design" were buoyed. They say their view of the world deserves to be judged alongside evolution, which for decades has prevailed as the culture's dominant explanation of life's origins.

The control that evolution supporters hold over the debate "is a kind of an intellectual apartheid," said Doug Groothuis, professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary and author of 10 books that explore the relationship between science and technology and belief.

"It's like they're saying, 'You can have your religious ideas in church, at home and in the family, but don't you dare argue on the basis of science,' " Groothuis said. "But intelligent design arguments don't quote the Bible. They appeal to the phenomena in nature, like the complex functioning of the cell.

"If you can't explain the complexity (of an organism) on the basis of natural law or chance, and it shows evidence of design, you can infer a designer."

Denver Rabbi Joel Schwartzman, an evolution proponent with a degree in philosophy, said intelligent design - ID to its advocates - is a wedge to slip God back into public schools.

"I don't want to battle this out as a legitimate issue for the public sphere," Schwartzman said. "This is a Trojan horse, and within this horse comes something that will continue to be the undoing of whatever gains we're making in the world of science and math. What atom does (intelligent design) help us split? What miracle medicine does it help us achieve?"

Intelligent design was first described as a concept in the 1991 book Darwin on Trial by lawyer Phillip E. Johnson. He argued that intelligence works in a specific and verifiable way and produces results that are mirrored in the natural world.

Those results produce what intelligent design advocates call "specified complexity" to describe systems that appear to be built with deliberate purpose and function, much like, say, a jumbo jet is so specifically complex that it had to be created by aerospace engineers.

Evolution supporters say the introduction of a supernatural engineer makes intelligent design theory utterly nonscientific and "a growing threat to the teaching of science," Bruce Alberts wrote in March to colleagues at the National Academy of Sciences.

Alberts, the academy's president, called for action: "We stand ready to help others in addressing the increasingly strident attempts to limit the teaching of evolution or to introduce nonscientific 'alternatives' into science courses."

Intelligent design advocates have gathered their own stable of scientists. Among the most often mentioned are biochemist -Michael Behe and mathematician and philosopher William Dembski.

Intelligent design proponents face charges that they really are plugging "creationism," which gives religious explanations for life's origins. The most common example is the Bible account in Genesis, which identifies the "designer" as the Judeo-Christian God.

Groothuis, however, says intelligent design is indifferent about who or what the intelligent designer is.

"Whether the designer is one, two or three gods, or the god of the Bible or of the Quran, that's not an issue in intelligent design," he said. "We're just saying design is the best explanation for many natural phenomena.

"You don't assume it's true or take it on blind faith; you experiment and see if it explains the data. The difference is, you're open to the theory."

The biggest objection of evolution proponents is that there are no experiments that can prove the theory of intelligent design.

"Scientists make hypotheses and try to prove it in the laboratory," Schwartzman said. "What are these people going to do? They'll wind up in a church or house of worship thanking whatever it is they want to thank. . . . I have better things to spend my time on."

The other side counters that such arguments simply show that evolution advocates want to be "the only game in town."

"Is there one experiment to prove something is a product of design? No," said John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that promotes intelligent design.

On the other hand, he said, all experiments contribute to a body of knowledge that can be used to test the theory of natural selection - evolution's claim - as well as the theory of intelligent design.

West denied wanting classroom mandates to teach intelligent design.

"That just politicizes what should be a scientific and intellectual debate," he said. "Sure, students should have the freedom to ask about it, and teachers should be able to discuss it without fearing for their jobs. But what we want is for scientists to be able to argue this in the public arena."

Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

[keita]

Here is an interesting book excerpt that I came across:

"For Christians who like to put so much emphasis on the Word of God as the creative power of God, the author cites a Jewish mystic and scholar, Franz Rozenzweig, who puts the Word in its proper perspective in this poem:

God spoke. That came third.

It was not the first thing.

The first thing was: God created.

God created the earth and the skies.

That was the first thing.



The breath of God moved over the face of the waters:

over the darkness covering the face of the deep.

That was the second thing.



Then came the third thing.

God spoke.

“From 'the beginning' God was and is revealed through the processes of creating through the evolution of the planet; its atmosphere, its life, its species....God's self is expressed, revealed through the process we call evolution. This then clearly states that God's self is revealed to all creation, not just human beings, not just in words and concepts but by the very continuing process of creation. At the far reaches of the Universe new star systems are continually being born, creation continues – perhaps forever, we who live today will never know nor understand but we can only speculate."

Making God Laugh:
Human Arrogance and Ecological Humility
by Anne Primavesi



For this thread, I thought the excerpt presented an interesting perspective in its attempted combination of the language/concepts of evolution and creation.

To keep us on subject, I also posted a thread here,
which contains the book review in its entirety, for a more general discussion of its controversial contents.

[ybrown]

You really get a sense of what's to come in an article when it starts with, "For Christians who like to put so much emphasis on the Word of God..." That pretty much tells me the author's goal is to "balance" the Christian view with a little evolution. And sure enough, the author did just that. A red flag automatically goes up for me when someone tries to appease two sides of an issue. It's only dangerous when one side is wrong, and in this situation, one side is.

Keita, I tried to read the review but had to stop at the first paragraph when this so-called Rev. said:

"...I've often said that if God were to walk into the G T U book store at the Graduate Theological Union of the University of California at Berkeley, She would believe that She had come into a multi-media comedy emporium, and would laugh Herself silly."


EDITED TO ADD:

Keita, do you know what that site is about and what they promote? I went to the homepage and found this in the second paragraph:

"We will have articles by The Rev. Dr. John Thomas, General Minister/President of the United Church of Christ,"...

*********************************************

Grace and Peace,

To maintain our focus on evolution, I have edited your post and used your remaining comments (which, for continuity, are still quoted in my post below) to start a new thread on the UCC here.

keita

[keita]

ybrown said:

You really get a sense of what's to come in an article when it starts with, "For Christians who like to put so much emphasis on the Word of God..."

That's an interesting point ybrown. (In fairness, this was an excerpt and not the beginning of the article itself.) I think I had a different reaction to those words because I read "For Christians who like to put so much emphasis on the Word of God as the creative power of God," as a whole introductory clause to the rest of the sentence. I think that makes quite a significant difference and does address itself to what is in fact a very real group of Christians for whom that is a foundational teaching. Example: Word of Faith.

That pretty much tells me the author's goal is to "balance" the Christian view with a little evolution. And sure enough, the author did just that.

What bothers you about that "goal"? You say she succeeded. Is it then perhaps possible to somehow legitimately "balance" the two views?

A red flag automatically goes up for me when someone tries to appease two sides of an issue. It's only dangerous when one side is wrong, and in this situation, one side is.

I'm less bothered by that approach when I perceive the intent to be seeking balance or even peace. (And I'm not saying the author is attempting to do either!) From that excerpt and in terms of evolution vs creation, can you explain the "sides" you see and which is "wrong"?

Keita, I tried to read the review but had to stop at the first paragraph when this so-called Rev. said:

"...I've often said that if God were to walk into the G T U book store at the Graduate Theological Union of the University of California at Berkeley, She would believe that She had come into a multi-media comedy emporium, and would laugh Herself silly."

The devil is a slickster, he'll try any and every trick in the book he can to steal god's Word from us. If we start out swallowing a grain of his lies, soon it'll be a spoonful and before you know it, he'll be the one feeding us.

I completely agree with you about the controversial language and contents of the article at large. I also agree with your description of one of the enemy's tactics but I am interested in discussing if that is what is happening in this article. That's why I placed another thread on it here. I really hope you'll repeat/share your thoughts there.

[keita]

ybrown said:

EDITED TO ADD:

Keita, do you know what that site is about and what they promote? I went to the homepage and found this in the second paragraph:

"We will have articles by The Rev. Dr. John Thomas, General Minister/President of the United Church of Christ,"

UCC is the church that recently endorsed gay marriage, that also ordained the first gay bishop, first lesbian minister, believes in abortion, as well as a slew of other ungodly nonsense. Last month they even had to VOTE on whether or not they truly believed in Jesus!

This site has even dedicated a links page to various gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered sites.

There's a lot more of this type of stuff throughout the site, and the most damaging thing about it is, it doesn't promote Jesus, its just really promoting the gays and their agenda.

Anytime a so-called Christian person/organization/site calls him/her/it self "progressive" that means they endorse "gay, lesbian, abortion, New Age, liberal Bible interpretation, feminizing God, etc." This site promotes all those things throughout.

The devil is a slickster, he'll try any and every trick in the book he can to steal god's Word from us. If we start out swallowing a grain of his lies, soon it'll be a spoonful and before you know it, he'll be the one feeding us.

I won't be going there again.

Keita, I'm not sure if you want to point the Saints there to anything on that site.

I really appreciate this addition to your previous post. I have edited my posts to remove the link to the site. My intention was and is to discuss an excerpt from a book and certainly not to lead anyone astray. You may truly charge this one to my head and not my heart. Thanks for helping me to clean up and clarify my focus.

[ybrown]

;D

[krazeeboi]

If we're speaking of evolution in the classical Darwinian sense, then it makes no sense to say that God created through means of evolution. Evolution is the result of randomness guided by chance. If God had an intent and a purpose for evolution, then it ceases to be evolution. Something cannot be the result of both randomness and intention at the same time.