Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[bhsmte]

Remember you are arguing with a guy whose chosen avatar is a magazine he never read that he assumes is against him.

Telling.

One thing that seems common place with some christians (usually the fundie types) is they need to have an enemy. If they need to manufacture one, they will. Itis like watching a dog chase their tail.

 

[Ophiolite]

How many times do I have to point out that Darwinist creationism taught in schools is inherently atheistic? Everything other than purely, only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes to create humanity is disallowed. Not needed. Discarded.

Evolution is taught in schools in science classes. In a science class it is appropriate to teach science, its methods and its findings. We don't teach French in a German class, why would we teach a specific religious belief in a science class?

Plenty of Christian sects find no issue with evolution. (Perhaps you should take this matter up with the Pope.)

However, let's say we do wish to include a theistic approach to the origin of man and the universe, which gods do you wish to include. Are you happy to give equal time to Odin, Zeus and Shiva, or will you insist that only the Abrahamic God is acceptable? Not a trick question, but I imagine the answer may be tricky.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Except it doesn't forbid god from being involved,it just isn't assumed that a god is. How can you not tell that this position isn't atheistic?

But the intention is that both the believer and God and the disbeliever in God can attend school and learn stuff, by maintaining the separation of church and state. I don't want a Hindu teaching my kids how to pray to Vishnu in a public school, do you? Maybe we should also give the Hindu family the right to have their children attend school without being pestered with baptist doctrines.

 

[Davian]

Would that have changed anything? I find that on this thread, as well as other threads in which I've participated, the responses from Darwinists frequently include mocking, ridicule and personal disparaging.

"11) We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church."

You are mistaken. Collin's statement was directed at discussion among Christians, and what came to mind were the comments directed at Dizredux by yourself and others.

I try to stay above such behavior, simply post my views and let the truth be presented.

 

[justlookinla]

You do realise, don't you Sarah, that you will never change these people' minds...?

All you can hope for is that the lurkers, the people who may not yet have made up their minds about the nature of the world, might pause to consider what you have to say...and, more importantly, the evidence you reference...

Because, clowns like this are beyond reach...

I would venture to say that NO amount of evidence will convince them....none. Their world view is not based upon evidence....it's built upon an emotional need to feel that their life will continue after this one, just as they have been promised by the same religion that informs them that everything around them is relatively new and was all created in a twinkling of an eye, and primarily for their benefit...

Evidence cannot penetrate such a mindset...we have all been treated, for example, to AV's curse that 'science can take a hike' and even that cold evidence itself can 'take a hike'...

They won't change....all we can do is be patient and wait for the last of them to die out.....it won't be long....

There you have it folks, the atheist mindset and hope for the future of the accidental cosmic creation known as mankind. This is precisely why only the inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint of Darwinism is allowed in our schools, it's the atheist agenda.

 

[Davian]

He's pointing out that God is involved in creation. He's not supporting the Darwinist creationism teaching that all of life is solely, completely, totally by naturalistic processes.

Many others agree with that view also.....

Page 1 of many many pages......

Is there one scientist on that list that can provide a scientific justification for their scepticism?

 

[justlookinla]

Remember you are arguing with a guy whose chosen avatar is a magazine he never read that he assumes is against him.

Telling.

The headline on the 'scientific' magazine speaks volumes. You aren't troubled by the message at all, are you?

 

[Davian]

If you had heart disease, would you go to a dermatologist, or a cardiologist?

Personally, I'd first go to God. It's worked in the past.

You would go to a faith healer? Which one?

 

[Davian]

I was actually an accident, no matter how you look at it. The birth control failed :/

I have heard that up to 60% of people are caused by accident. An incentive to drive carefully.

 

[justlookinla]

One thing that seems common place with some christians (usually the fundie types) is they need to have an enemy. If they need to manufacture one, they will. Itis like watching a dog chase their tail.

The enemy of atheists are those who would dare dispute, disagree, deny and discard their philosophical viewpoint of life, including the creation of humanity. The enemy isn't hidden or mistaken, it's the enemy which has been present for several thousand years now....Godlessness.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution is taught in schools in science classes. In a science class it is appropriate to teach science, its methods and its findings. We don't teach French in a German class, why would we teach a specific religious belief in a science class?

Plenty of Christian sects find no issue with evolution. (Perhaps you should take this matter up with the Pope.)

However, let's say we do wish to include a theistic approach to the origin of man and the universe, which gods do you wish to include. Are you happy to give equal time to Odin, Zeus and Shiva, or will you insist that only the Abrahamic God is acceptable? Not a trick question, but I imagine the answer may be tricky.

The issue isn't about teaching evolution, at least it's not for me. The issue is teaching a view of creationism which is inherently atheistic. The issue is demanding that only one creationist view be presented. The issue is only the atheistic view is allowed.

The answer isn't tricky at all. The answer is to allow intelligent design to be taught alongside the inherently atheistic viewpoint of Darwinism. Since contrary views of Darwinism is a challenge and enemy to atheistic creationism, of course that's not going to be allowed.

 

[justlookinla]

But the intention is that both the believer and God and the disbeliever in God can attend school and learn stuff, by maintaining the separation of church and state. I don't want a Hindu teaching my kids how to pray to Vishnu in a public school, do you? Maybe we should also give the Hindu family the right to have their children attend school without being pestered with baptist doctrines.

The solution would be to allow intelligent design to be taught alongside Darwinism.

 

[justlookinla]

"11) We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church."

You are mistaken. Collin's statement was directed at discussion among Christians, and what came to mind were the comments directed at Dizredux by yourself and others.

If you have an example of where I've mockery, ridicule or personal attacks, I would be interested in an example.

 

[justlookinla]

Is there one scientist on that list that can provide a scientific justification for their scepticism?

You'd have to ask them.

 

[Dizredux]

Is there one scientist on that list that can provide a scientific justification for their scepticism?

Not only that, but if you look at what they signed, there is no real skepticism involved.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course random mutation and natural selection do not account for the complexity of life. There are are other process involved such as Genetic Drift which some believe is as powerful with evolution as natural selection

If I did not know the use of the statement I would have no problem signing it nor would I think anyone who is familiar with the TOE at would would have difficulties with it. It goes without saying that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. A lot of the research in genetics and biology is doing just that.

The Dissent from Darwin is unbelievably bogus and dishonest.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

You would go to a faith healer? Which one?

I don't have to go to a faith healer, I know the healer personally. You aren't going to believe this and will probably respond with ridicule, but I'm here typing this today because of the healer that I have a relationship with.

Now, let the mockery proceed.

 

[justlookinla]

Not only that, but if you look at what they signed, there is no real skepticism involved.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course random mutation and natural selection do not account for the complexity of life. There are are other process involved such as Genetic Drift which some believe is as powerful with evolution as natural selection

If I did not know the use of the statement I would have no problem signing it nor would I think anyone who is familiar with the TOE at would would have difficulties with it. It goes without saying that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. A lot of the research in genetics and biology is doing just that.

The Dissent from Darwin is unbelievably bogus and dishonest.

Dizredux

The dissent from Darwin is questioning the view that all of life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic means, which is a basic teaching of Darwinism.

 

[Davian]

You'd have to ask them.

Not even one?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The solution would be to allow intelligent design to be taught alongside Darwinism.

What i would do is suggest that here, in this science class, we're going to discuss evolution; and you will be graded on your understanding of what evolution is, but we all realize some of you will not accept it as being true. You will only be required to understand what it is. We will not be discussing whether there is or is not a God; we will be discussing the history of life as deducted from the physical evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

You would go to a faith healer? Which one?

Of course, as long as that faith healer is "in-network".