What are they afraid of?

[Zunalter]

Well, God has allowed me to see something...in the midst of me writing a huge rebuttal to the things expressed here, the Holy Spirit spoke to me. Why are we getting so adversarial at each other?

Romans 12:8 - If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

Now, it would seem that we would need this verse more for living at peace with non-believers, but it seems that in this instance, we need to remember that Christ has made us one, united in His blood, we should never become divided over such a petty issue. Whether God created us 6,000 years ago or 6 billion years ago, that should in no way diminish the reality that GOD CREATED IT, GOD CONTROLS IT, AND GOD OWNS IT. This discussion in no way advances the kingdom of Christ, in fact, it is having the opposite effect.I am ashamed of the time I spent debating against my brothers and sisters when I could have been partaking in activities more helpful to Christ. I apologize to everyone for my biting words, I have a pride issue, and it angers me to be hinted at as ignorant. Looking over these posts, I can see a huge brawl just waiting to happen, let us do Christ a favor and unite His people instead of draw our battle lines and divide ourselves.

I will concede that I do not know everything there is about either side, I may very well be wrong. However, for those of you who disagree with my point, do not lull yourselves into thinking that the case is closed. There are a lot of brilliant scientific minds out there that really believe in creationism and have evidence, just google them and you will see. But either way, please, let us just end this debate here and use the life God gave us not to tear one another down but to minister to the lost.

 

[vossler]

If the shoe fits...

Here we are...Christians telling another Christian that his belief of children needing to be aware all sides of an important topic, origins, is akin to telling these same children the Holocaust never existed. These same Christians are advocating that letting children know would be similar to telling them the Holocaust never happened. In effect, they're saying we don't want anything getting in the way of our science and if it means putting God in a corner to do it, then so be it.

Does gravity, electricity, the existence of germs or atoms get the same sticker? Why single out evolution?

God forbid we challenge the sacred cow of evolution, God's chosen method of producing man! Yes, all the wonderful ways God allowed time and natural selection to produce His creation into the awesome wonder it is today. Ah-yes, I'm beginning to see...its time to close our young peoples minds to any other option. God has spoken through His chosen prophets; the evolutionists. Hallelujah!!!

Which book would that be?

Oh I'm sorry, of course only a book that evolutionists would approve of! Which of course would certainly not be the Bible.

Allow me... the theory that "the Holocaust" actually occured should have a sticker attached, since there is some controversey... what are historians so afraid of?

That's what's so nice about evolutionists, when one isn't quick enough to respond, what do you know, another one is right there to make sure the point is carried forward. In this case the point being how a school district wanted their children to be aware of an alternative form of creation, one where, now grab a hold of your seats, God was involved.

Then the crowd hisses, heretic, heretic and brethren of the crowd chime in 'establishment clause', 'establishment clause', God cannot ever be mentioned in our schools. Bring in the ACLU, bring in the ACLU. Yeah, Woo hoo our saviors have arrived, our saviors have arrived. Glory to the ACLU.

 

[vossler]

Their numbers are about the same as ID proponents... they're just not as vocal.

Why not? Is their faith weak? Are they ashamed? Since you seem to know quite a bit about them, please tell us their numbers and what their agenda is. Maybe it's a secret government sponsored conspiracy or something else, equally sinister.

In the scientific community, none at all.

You really should get out more.

And you wish to censor those who claim the holocaust never happened.

Now you're making things up.
Please don't hide behind your advocacy of censorship by redirecting it to others. Are we now that desperate?

If people wish to claim the Holocaust never happened; please be my guest.

Evolution is not Atheism. Haven't you noticed you're in the Christian-Only forum?

Well when Christians are against any attempt to introduce God into the creation process what else would you call it?

That might be because scientific fact is not a popularity contest.

Neither is God's Word.

keep science in science class, religion in the religion class, and the philosophy in philosophy class. That's not censorship...that's prudence.

That's right, can you imagine the nerve of people actually trying to include God in something other than a religion class. What gall!

Actually, scientists welcome challenges to established theories... it's just that once the challenge has been refuted, that's supposed to be the end of it. When the IDers and other Creationists insist on beating their dead horse, and realize that it's no longer any use to parade it through the front door of scientific study... they sneak it in the back door of courtrooms and public opinion.

Yeah sure, scientists, unlike creationists, don't have agendas. Their sole purpose is to seek out the truth. I forgot.

You mean like Creationism/ID had been presented in the scientific community... and been laughed out?

Laughed at yes, but hardly out.

Except Creationism/ID has had every oppertunity to support their claims in the scientific forum. They have not done so. They are trying to bypass the scientific system and shoehorn itself directly into the classrooms. And nobody's buying the lie.

And in case you haven't noticed... IDers have been bailing out of the Dover trial in droves...

If you don't believe me, then kindly name JUST ONE scientific theory or hypothesis can can be tested, proven or disproven, which has been presented by Creationists/IDers.

Have they ever even actually tried to DO anything that even remotely resembles an experiment?

If, as you stated, their claims are not supported and they've been so unsuccessful in their endeavors; how is it they're growing in numbers and influence?

As I've stated earlier, what are you afraid of? If their ideas are the hot air that you claim they'll surely fail. Truth always wins, light prevails over darkness. Yet you don't seem to be too confident in that and are therefore advocating that 'regular' folk need protection from 'them' (you know those evil forces of a higher being).

This discussion obviously is not producing good fruit, so from this point forward I will leave the hyperbole and last word to you while I step back from this specific chain of dialog.

As Zunalter so eloquently quoted Paul "as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." I too will find something more productive to do with my time.

May God and our Lord Jesus Christ remain exalted and glorified, while man remember to be humble.

Praise the Lord!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Here we are...Christians telling another Christian that his belief of children needing to be aware all sides of an important topic, origins, is akin to telling these same children the Holocaust never existed.

Are you saying that Christians (and all people, for that matter) don't need to be aware of "all sides" of an important topic, the Holocaust?

These same Christians are advocating that letting children know would be similar to telling them the Holocaust never happened.

You obviously think the analogy is flawed... how about explaining where the flaw is with a minimum of rhetoric?

In effect, they're saying we don't want anything getting in the way of our science and if it means putting God in a corner to do it, then so be it.

Well, I wouldn't say we're "putting God in a corner," but seeing as how the approach for teaching origins is the exact same one used to teach medicine, meteorology, astronomy, chemistry, and just about every other branch of science... an approach that has worked well so far... why mess with a method that works?

Remember when people believed that lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, and tornadoes were caused by angry Gods? Why isn't that taught in class anymore?

Remember when people believed that illnesses were caused by evil spirits entering the body? Why isn't that taught in class anymore?

Remember when people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun, stars, and planets moved around it? Why isn't that taught in class anymore?

What you call "putting God in a corner," the rest of us call "Not using God as an excuse for the things we don't yet understand, and instead, looking for an answer ourselves."

You must admit, it's worked pretty well so far.

God forbid we challenge the sacred cow of evolution, God's chosen method of producing man! Yes, all the wonderful ways God allowed time and natural selection to produce His creation into the awesome wonder it is today. Ah-yes, I'm beginning to see...its time to close our young peoples minds to any other option. God has spoken through His chosen prophets; the evolutionists.

I know how badly you want people to listen to you instead of evolutionists, but jealousy is an ugly thing. If you have any evidence for your theory... I mean actual, not-yet-refuted, PRATT-less evidence, then present it.

Oh I'm sorry, of course only a book that evolutionists would approve of! Which of course would certainly not be the Bible.

So you would put the Bible in science classes. Can I post a peroidic table in the cathedral?

That's what's so nice about evolutionists, when one isn't quick enough to respond, what do you know, another one is right there to make sure the point is carried forward. In this case the point being how a school district wanted their children to be aware of an alternative form of creation, one where, now grab a hold of your seats, God was involved.

One where, now grab a hold of your seats, there's not a whit of evidence for.

Then the crowd hisses, heretic, heretic and brethren of the crowd chime in 'establishment clause', 'establishment clause', God cannot ever be mentioned in our schools. Bring in the ACLU, bring in the ACLU. Yeah, Woo hoo our saviors have arrived, our saviors have arrived. Glory to the ACLU.

Nice dodge. Now, when you're done with your hysterics, how about showing the difference between a sticker in a science book and a sticker in a history book? Don't you want students to learn all sides of every issue, or is this just about the ones you disagree with?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why not? Is their faith weak? Are they ashamed? Since you seem to know quite a bit about them, please tell us their numbers and what their agenda is. Maybe it's a secret government sponsored conspiracy or something else, equally sinister.

I leave the sinister conspiracy theories to the YECs.

You really should get out more.

I get out just fine. It's just that in matters of science, I keep away from courtrooms and political arenas, and stay in the places where actual scientific work is done.

...which brings me back to my original question: how much scientific work has Creationism/ID actually done?

Now you're making things up.
Please don't hide behind your advocacy of censorship by redirecting it to others. Are we now that desperate?

Ask your fellow YECs. Your double standard is showing.

If people wish to claim the Holocaust never happened; please be my guest.

And you would allow your children to be taught that viewpoint without raising a stink? Now you're making things up.

Well when Christians are against any attempt to introduce God into the creation process what else would you call it?

I'd call it the same scientific approach used in medicine, chemistry, meteorology, and every other branch of science... applied objectively, it's worked pretty well so far.

Neither is God's Word.

So where is it written that I must interpret God's Word the same way you do?
Furthermore, where is it written that your interpretation of God's Word is the standard (as we've already seen, the double standard) that the schools must abide by?

That's right, can you imagine the nerve of people actually trying to include God in something other than a religion class. What gall!

Indeed. Exactly the kind of gall that our First Amendment was intended to prevent.

I don't need to put God in science classes to glorify Him. Why do you?

Yeah sure, scientists, unlike creationists, don't have agendas. Their sole purpose is to seek out the truth. I forgot.

No, their sole purpose is to seek the facts, and to develop the theories which best explain those facts. When the IDers and other Creationists go into the fact-finding business, let me know.

Laughed at yes, but hardly out.

Thanks to a good grassroots political campaign.... certainly not based on the facts.

If, as you stated, their claims are not supported and they've been so unsuccessful in their endeavors; how is it they're growing in numbers and influence?

That's an easy one: Appeals to popularity and to authority... two things the politicians respect. Yell loud enough, and people won't notice that you're actually saying nothing.

As I've stated earlier, what are you afraid of? If their ideas are the hot air that you claim they'll surely fail.

Their ideas have failed... in the scientific community. Why do you think they've switched venues to politics and the law?

Scientists tend to ignore the smoke and mirrors of high-toned rhetoric.... politicians and lawyers tend to see nothing but.

Truth always wins, light prevails over darkness.

Now you need to get out more.

Idealistic, but sadly false... particularly where politics and the courtroom are involved.
Perhaps you'd like to explain the OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson verdicts to us?

Yet you don't seem to be too confident in that and are therefore advocating that 'regular' folk need protection from 'them' (you know those evil forces of a higher being).

An odd accusation to level on a fellow Christian... all I'm asking is for the Creationists and other IDers to actually put something on the table before anyone considers teaching whatever it is they have. To date, they have not.

This discussion obviously is not producing good fruit, so from this point forward I will leave the hyperbole and last word to you while I step back from this specific chain of dialog.

As Zunalter so eloquently quoted Paul "as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." I too will find something more productive to do with my time.

In other words, I asked for a single Creationist/ID experiment, and you can't find one. So, you're taking the high road out.

If you can't answer me, how will Creationist teachers answer the students?

 

[Zunalter]

Maybe I need to repost this... Since we seem bent on ripping each other apart, maybe repetition is the key to success in this case. Please, do not demonize one another - we are all supposed to be brothers and sisters. I am made aware that we are surely not searching for truth and understanding when we post things such as:

I leave the sinister conspiracy theories to the YECs.

No, their sole purpose is to seek the facts, and to develop the theories which best explain those facts. When the IDers and other Creationists go into the fact-finding business, let me know.

Those are brash and generalized statements, not meant to discuss the facts but merely to cut one another down. They are statements spoken from pride and not from love. Also, it is very laughable to believe that all scientists are looking for truth and all creationists are looking to push their religious views.

and:

Why not? Is their faith weak? Are they ashamed? Since you seem to know quite a bit about them, please tell us their numbers and what their agenda is. Maybe it's a secret government sponsored conspiracy or something else, equally sinister.

God forbid we challenge the sacred cow of evolution, God's chosen method of producing man! Yes, all the wonderful ways God allowed time and natural selection to produce His creation into the awesome wonder it is today. Ah-yes, I'm beginning to see...its time to close our young peoples minds to any other option. God has spoken through His chosen prophets; the evolutionists.

These statements are only meant to inflame the opposition, not show proof. At least you came to your senses and realized what this discussion was actually producing: nothing.

Therefore:

In other words, I asked for a single Creationist/ID experiment, and you can't find one. So, you're taking the high road out.

If you can't answer me, how will Creationist teachers answer the students?

Please do not allow your pride to overcome your sense. Do not look upon him in contempt for his willingness to follow the Lords prompting in this matter. It in no way reflects the evidence of his belief, only the evidence of his faith. I can see here that you have no intention of loving your brother, only cowing him into a logical corner with rhetoric until he realizes that the conversation is pointless and that neither side is truly speaking from love - only self knowledge. God said something about this in His word:

1 Corinthians 3:19 - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"

Please, I implore you again, do not become absorbed with your wisdom, as we have been here. Look over these posts and tell me what was said here that pleased God? I fear that you would find very little if anything. So, I will post this again, with hope that we might actually listen this time:

Well, God has allowed me to see something...in the midst of me writing a huge rebuttal to the things expressed here, the Holy Spirit spoke to me. Why are we getting so adversarial at each other?

Romans 12:8 - If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

Now, it would seem that we would need this verse more for living at peace with non-believers, but it seems that in this instance, we need to remember that Christ has made us one, united in His blood, we should never become divided over such a petty issue. Whether God created us 6,000 years ago or 6 billion years ago, that should in no way diminish the reality that GOD CREATED IT, GOD CONTROLS IT, AND GOD OWNS IT. This discussion in no way advances the kingdom of Christ, in fact, it is having the opposite effect.I am ashamed of the time I spent debating against my brothers and sisters when I could have been partaking in activities more helpful to Christ. I apologize to everyone for my biting words, I have a pride issue, and it angers me to be hinted at as ignorant. Looking over these posts, I can see a huge brawl just waiting to happen, let us do Christ a favor and unite His people instead of draw our battle lines and divide ourselves.

I will concede that I do not know everything there is about either side, I may very well be wrong. However, for those of you who disagree with my point, do not lull yourselves into thinking that the case is closed. There are a lot of brilliant scientific minds out there that really believe in creationism and have evidence, just google them and you will see. But either way, please, let us just end this debate here and use the life God gave us not to tear one another down but to minister to the lost.

God Bless

 

[random_guy]

Please tell me if this meets your criteria

Theory of Evolution: the theory that states that as species evolve, certain traits may develop that will make it more likely to successfully reproduce. Those traits will be passed down through inheritance from one generation to another, becoming more common as time passes. Inversely, traits that make a species less likely to successfully reproduce will become rarer through inheritence. So basically, as our allele's change in our genes, the desirable traits will be more likely passed down, since they will be the ones that support reprocreation, whereas the opposite will be true of the other changes, since it does not support it.

That's a pretty good definition, but it needs to include neutral alleles.

Anyway, if you knew this, why did you post:

If evolution was the truth, explain to me the origin of life.

If evolution were true, then why is one of their main claims - that creatures get better and more complex through genetic mutation, then why is the genetic structure of humans noticably breaking down and becoming worse.

Where in the definition does it include the origin of life or that creatures must be getting more complex?

Even more importantly, what part of the definition that you posted is not true?

 

[Zunalter]

That's a pretty good definition, but it needs to include neutral alleles.

Anyway, if you knew this, why did you post:



Where in the definition does it include the origin of life or that creatures must be getting more complex?

My error, I always equate Darwinism hand in hand with evolution (which I am sure is something that upsets you). I overgeneralized 'evolution' to encompass everything that I knew about what Darwin said, such as what he said in a letter to J.D. Hooker in 1871. Darwin suggested that life had begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." So basically, the atmosphere was different back when life started, and as it developed, the atmosphere became more oxygenated, a byproduct of the life that had been spontaneously created. So, since the atmosphere was changed, spontaneous generation was no longer possible, which is why it cannot happen today. However, in the 80's NASA did a study on the atmosphere and determined that it has not changed much at all. Also, I disagree with the timeline presented in evolutionary biology. "Studies on guppies by David Reznick at the University of California, Riverside have shown that the rate of evolution through natural selection can proceed 10 thousand to 10 million times faster than what is indicated in the fossil record." Things such as that, lack of transitional fossils, fossilized jellyfish, etc... give me cause to pause and think for a second before I accept the riders that come with base ToE. I apologize for making my objections unclear...

 

[The Lady Kate]

Those are brash and generalized statements, not meant to discuss the facts but merely to cut one another down. They are statements spoken from pride and not from love. Also, it is very laughable to believe that all scientists are looking for truth and all creationists are looking to push their religious views.

Fair enough. Certianly, science, when applied objectively, is a search for facts pertaining to the workings of this world... and religion, any religion, is a search for meaning and purpose by looking to something above and beyond this world.

But of course, scientists and Creationists are only human, and vulnerable to error... both accidental and deliberate, as well as the occasional lost temper, as I have done.

And for that I apologize... although I must disagree on one point. Creationism is, by and large, a religious position... would it even exist if not for the Bible?
So Creationists are promoting a religious agenda... although I have no doubt that their beliefs are sincere, even if I may take issue with some of their methods.

Please do not allow your pride to overcome your sense. Do not look upon him in contempt for his willingness to follow the Lords prompting in this matter.

My point was that I wasn't convinced that his decision to bow out was motivated by God. However, you have reminded me that whatever my opinion may be, it is not my place to judge. Again, I apologize.

It in no way reflects the evidence of his belief, only the evidence of his faith. I can see here that you have no intention of loving your brother, only cowing him into a logical corner with rhetoric until he realizes that the conversation is pointless and that neither side is truly speaking from love - only self knowledge.

The debate got heated, and tempers on both sides flared.

 

[random_guy]

My error, I always equate Darwinism hand in hand with evolution (which I am sure is something that upsets you). I overgeneralized 'evolution' to encompass everything that I knew about what Darwin said, such as what he said in a letter to J.D. Hooker in 1871. Darwin suggested that life had begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." So basically, the atmosphere was different back when life started, and as it developed, the atmosphere became more oxygenated, a byproduct of the life that had been spontaneously created. So, since the atmosphere was changed, spontaneous generation was no longer possible, which is why it cannot happen today. However, in the 80's NASA did a study on the atmosphere and determined that it has not changed much at all. Also, I disagree with the timeline presented in evolutionary biology. "Studies on guppies by David Reznick at the University of California, Riverside have shown that the rate of evolution through natural selection can proceed 10 thousand to 10 million times faster than what is indicated in the fossil record." Things such as that, lack of transitional fossils, fossilized jellyfish, etc... give me cause to pause and think for a second before I accept the riders that come with base ToE. I apologize for making my objections unclear...

I completely understand. Tempers easily get flared when debating this stuff. Heck, I had to edit out my comment about all Creationists not knowing or understanding science.

Anyway, one important thing to note is even if Special Creation is correct, so is evolution. Very few people realize that evolution is just something that has to occur since things live and die at different rates.

The second thing to note is spontaneous generation is a falsified theory and completely different from abiogenesis. While both involve life from non-life, SG was the idea that rotten meat gave birth to maggots and garbage gave birth to rats.

Finally, I'm not sure to what study, as nearly every study I've seen suggest that early Earth atmosphere is much different then the current atmosphere. This is just a result from the heat difference and difference in gas concentration.The most current research by NASA suggests:

Toon said the premise that early Earth had a carbon dioxide dominated atmosphere long after its formation has caused many scientists to look for clues to the origin of life in hydrothermal vents in the sea, fresh-water hot springs or those delivered to Earth from space via meteorites or dust. The team concluded that even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] concentrations were large, the hydrogen concentrations would have been larger. “In that case, the production of organic compounds with the help of electrical discharge or photochemical reactions may have been efficient,” said Toon.

Amino acids that likely formed from organic materials in the hydrogen-rich environment may have accumulated in the oceans or in bays, lakes and swamps, enhancing potential birthplaces for life, the team reported.

About the transitional fossil, what is a transitional fossil, because I assure you, there have been many found. The other week, they found a new fossil that helped solidify the link between dinosaurs and birds.

 

[The Lady Kate]

*whew* Now that I've had a chance to count to ten and see things clearly... (thanks, Zunalter!) I'd just like to look at my question in light of the OP

I don't think the issue is so much "why are evolutionists afraid of Intelligent Design in the classrooms," but "what has Intelligent Design actually accomplished to make it teachable?"

Zun, you made an excellent point about us tearing at each other... now let's apply that to the so-called "controversy": What has Creationism/Intelligent Design done besides tear at evolutionary theory? What exactly are its fruits?

 

[Zunalter]

Fair enough. Certianly, science, when applied objectively, is a search for facts pertaining to the workings of this world... and religion, any religion, is a search for meaning and purpose by looking to something above and beyond this world.

But of course, scientists and Creationists are only human, and vulnerable to error... both accidental and deliberate, as well as the occasional lost temper, as I have done.

And for that I apologize... although I must disagree on one point. Creationism is, by and large, a religious position... would it even exist if not for the Bible?
So Creationists are promoting a religious agenda... although I have no doubt that their beliefs are sincere, even if I may take issue with some of their methods.

My point was that I wasn't convinced that his decision to bow out was motivated by God. However, you have reminded me that whatever my opinion may be, it is not my place to judge. Again, I apologize.



The debate got heated, and tempers on both sides flared.

I understand, and I thank you for your willingness to apologize. I was a bit worried when I posted - I thought I was being a little harsh. I hope you don't think I see myself as spotless in this situation, I readily admit what a heated debate does to me, as my signature can attest. I am just glad that we could all take a step outside our emotions for a moment and take a breather. Thanks again!

 

[shernren]

Lemme just ease the tension here with a question ... anybody here using the "stable" Firefox 1.5 release? Any problems with the "Quick Reply" WYSIWYG editor down at the bottom of the threads? Mine doesn't seem to work at all.

I don't think the issue is so much "why are evolutionists afraid of Intelligent Design in the classrooms," but "what has Intelligent Design actually accomplished to make it teachable?"

I agree: that is really the central issue here. Whether it is right or not to teach ID / creationism really depends on how much your children can learn from it (and not how many parents want it taught). Evolutionist advocates of two-model approaches believe that it is worth it to spend a little time teaching it - so that students actually *know* what's wrong with it. Whereas evolutionist advocates of not teaching ID at all in the classroom believe that students should learn even that outside the classroom and not waste time and educational finance.