Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
From: Cygnus X-1 (cygnusx1_at_mac.com)
Date: 03/15/05
- Next message: Cygnus X-1: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in ScienceClasses""
- Previous message: Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy): "Re: MAILGATE sucks, or at least NSA/MI6 sucks"
- In reply to: Chris Devol: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- Next in thread: Chris Devol: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- Reply: Chris Devol: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:55:23 -0500
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:40:27 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <%A8Zd.10127$cN6.8862@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
>
> "Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BE5A72A0000504FAF03055B0@news.radix.net...
>
>> Whether you like it or not, God has made the laws of the universe
>> neutral. That is part of the test. When humans commit good or evil,
>> it is they who commit it. They can't blame it on evolution, or
>> gravity, or any other scapegoat. Science creates understanding. It is
>> the fault of the person if they use that knowledge for evil.
>>
>> As I mention in another part of this thread, the lesson Christians
>> should learn from evolution are:
>>
>> 1) humility;
>> 2) the hope that humanity can change (after all, that's what evolution
>> means).
>>
>> I suspect God's real plan is far greater than you can comprehend, far
>> larger than what can fit in a 2000 year old book, and that is what
>> really frightens you.
>>
>> Tom
>
> See, here's what I don't get. You repeat the assertion you made to me, that
> "God has made the laws of the universe....", and when I asked you if you
> really believe that, you said yes.
>
> So you believe that God made the laws of the universe. That's INTELLIGENT
> DESIGN, which you say you believe in.
>
> So what is your problem with others who also believe in Intelligent Design,
> and are trying to give it a scientific framework? Aren't you being a bit
> hypocritical?
>
'Intelligent Design' as claimed by those trying to push their agenda
into the school system claims that God actively 'tinkers' in the
experiment, designing organisms and/or their components. I don't
believe that at all and there is certainly no experimental or
observational evidence supporting it. At most a supreme being set the
initial conditions, back in the earliest instances of the Big Bang -
then let the experiment run. If the multi-verse theory is correct, the
other universes may be populated by similar experiments and their
'controls'. Like the bumpersticker: "God is Why. Evolution is How."
And don't try to claim that ID is some kind of 'big tent' with room for
a wide range of views. I suspect this is among the stunts being pulled
in a number of the surveys which claim ID/Creationism has strong
support among the American public or the scientific community. Any
scientist who expresses any kind of religious belief is automatically
labelled an advocate of ID or Creationism.
Tom
-- Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1 cygnusx1@mac.com "They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
- Next message: Cygnus X-1: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in ScienceClasses""
- Previous message: Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy): "Re: MAILGATE sucks, or at least NSA/MI6 sucks"
- In reply to: Chris Devol: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- Next in thread: Chris Devol: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- Reply: Chris Devol: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|