Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because when a claim that supports evolution also supports creation, it can't be regarded as proof of one theory over the other.
I wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be that if children were allowed to hear the other side of the argument, they might start to question the evolutionary indoctrination that currently takes place?
What wouldn't support creationism? What features would a fossil need in order to falsify creationism? What genetic marker shared by humans and chimps would falsify creationism? What features in a geologic formation would falsify creationism?
It would seem that creationism is a dogmatic belief, not a scientific theory.
The scientists of project Steve are quite real and quite sincere. It's purpose is to (in humorous way) demonstrate how trivial the illusion of a growing support for creationism is.
You are citing a parody from an openly hostile, anti-creationist organization. So, well, that doesn't really mean much to this excellent thread.
Over 14,000 clergy members from all corners of the United States have signed one of our four Clergy Letters promoting the teaching of evolution in public school science classrooms and laboratories as a "core component of human knowledge."
Thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy members, from Baptists to Quakers and from Methodists to Episcopalians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and many more, have stated as clearly as possible that their religion and modern biology, including evolution, are fully compatible. They have been joined in this movement by Buddhist, Jewish and Unitarian Universalist clergy. These men and women of faith have come together, despite their theological differences, to embrace the knowledge and wisdom that humans have discovered over the years. And they have done so in a manner that is fully respectful of their religious diversity. Indeed, they welcome meaningful discussion and treasure learning about their differences.
Discussion, dialogue and discourse are so central to members of The Clergy Letter Project that each year on the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, hundreds of religious congregations all around the globe celebrate Evolution Weekend. The purpose of this annual celebration is to move beyond sound bites and to delve deeply into a complicated, contentious topic.
Maybe they're afraid of kids growing up to be like some of the posters on this forum who waste an absurd amount of time arguing the earth is flat, the universe is 6000 yrs old, giants are real & there were dinos on Noah's Ark, in addition to getting pretty much all the facts wrong on evolution.
When I first read your post I thought that you made an error by incorrectly referring to the clergy project:Precisely.
The Clergy Letter Project was initiated in 2004 as a response to the common misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict, especially around the question of evolution, and has been officially endorsed by several prominent Christian denominations. Within two weeks nearly 200 clergy from a variety of Christian denominations had signed the letter, and today there are over 14,000 signatures. They also organize the annual Evolution Weekend that takes place in mid-February.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/evolution-weekend-an-exam_b_9206764.html
The Clergy Letter Project was initiated in 2004 as a response to the common misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict, especially around the question of evolution, and has been officially endorsed by several prominent Christian denominations. Within two weeks nearly 200 clergy from a variety of Christian denominations had signed the letter, and today there are over 14,000 signatures. They also organize the annual Evolution Weekend that takes place in mid-February.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/evolution-weekend-an-exam_b_9206764.html
Okay. Is it fair to assume you will never again post a list of creationist scientists or stats about theists in the community?Numbers do not make something accurate.
That figure is extremely depressing. It means exactly one thing: that we need to do a much better job in science education. It doesn't mean that science suddenly becomes a rote "majority rules" exercise in the democratic shredding of the ivory tower.
Wait, I'm sorry, didn't you just get done with saying that 90% of the public wanted creation to be taught in schools? Apparently Matthew 7:13 only applies to people with an education. This is in fairly blatant contradiction to your previous point.
"...overtly pro-globe and anti-flat-earth"
So, how can they be non-biased?
That's what you sound like. That's how wrong your statement is. These organizations are "anti-creationism" because creationism is not science, and indeed, the creationist movement exists almost entirely to attempt to tear down modern scientific progress and replace it with religious dogma. These are scientific organizations; their purpose is to understand and spread understanding of science, and as such, groups like AiG are the largest hindrance. There's no two ways about this. These groups have become anti-creationist because they recognize the threat to public education posed by religious zealots who don't understand evolution and want to protect their kids from understanding it. Complaining about bias when a scientific organization props up a well-established scientific theory and rejects an unfalsifiable religious dogma that runs directly against essentially everything we've observed in the past 150 years is absurd. You might as well be complaining that NASA doesn't respect the verse about the corners of the earth, like @mike van wyk over in that other thread.
Sure.Is it fair to assume that you will look at the evidence as opposed to the numbers who agree or disagree?
Sorry about the wait on some abiogenesis sources, my internet at home was unstable. Luckily, someone compiled a list of many sources on the subject, going across roughly 50 years. I recommend looking more into the recent ones than the old ones, but I thought I would post the whole thing rather than leaving them out. They aren't links, but googling the authors and title of the articles together should be sufficient to find them.We're not talking about the theory of evolution. Someone earlier in the thread claimed that life had been created from non-living chemicals and that there was proof of it. I want to see such proof.
Is it fair to assume that you will look at the evidence as opposed to the numbers who agree or disagree?
I have never seen evolution taught at young enough ages that it could have the effect of indoctrination. In religious communities or countries with a high population of religious people, exposure to the culture around you will usually expose children to creationist concepts before even the very basics of evolution ones.I wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be that if children were allowed to hear the other side of the argument, they might start to question the evolutionary indoctrination that currently takes place?
Numbers do not make something accurate.
When I first read your post I thought that you made an error by incorrectly referring to the clergy project:
http://clergyproject.org/
That is actually a quite different group than the one that you linked. But you might want to check out biologos:
http://biologos.org/
This is a group of scientists that accept science and Christianity.
Of course not. It's the abundance of evidence that substantiates the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution. Your choice to dismiss or manipulate that evidence does not undermine it. I do think the fact a multitude of Christian theologians who have thoroughly and carefully studied Scriptures also support TOE and view science and their faith as harmonious is significant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?