Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

**Why ARE Americans still debating evolution?**

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: raVeneyes

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/fea/...41dbb83.h tml

Two books take a look at creation theory, intelligent design theory, and evolution theory; and if they should be taught in schools.

Posted by: fossten

Here's why:

• Section Front

E-mail This Story

Printable Version

Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

NEW YORK, Nov. 22, 2004

Adam And Eve Vs. Darwin

(Photo: CBS/AP)

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

(CBS) Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form
All Americans

55%
Kerry voters

47%
Bush voters

67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans

27%
Kerry voters

28%
Bush voters

22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans

13%
Kerry voters

21%
Bush voters

6%

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution
All Americans

65%
Kerry voters

56%
Bush voters

71%

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans

37%
Kerry voters

24%
Bush voters

45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.

Sorry, this is almost a year old. But it probably won't be that different now.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

OMG, fossten has just stepped in his own pile of stinking doo-doo!

Not only has he quoted from his nemesis CBS, which he has so heartily bashed time and time again here on this board for not having a shred of credibility (in his eyes of course). But he also is quoting POLL DATA, which he has also roundly bashed for not proving anything.

SO WHICH IS IT? You can't have it BOTH WAYS!! Make up your mind!

Posted by: raVeneyes

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Note that you didn't highlight that part of the article conveniently...

Also the teaching of creationism in school is NOT a matter of popular vote or public consensus. As the second book points out it is a matter of church and state.

If you want to tell your kids God created Adam and Eve out of dirt go ahead and do so at home. Federally funded and mandated public schools and federally decided public school curriculums CAN NOT by LAW include creationism.

Posted by: crazyman

I don't understand how creationalism could be taught in schools. Short of spending 30 seconds saying "God created earth and man",there's not a whole lot to teach.Its a pretty straight forward theory.As far a God having a divine hand in the process of evolution, all you would do is teach the theory of evolution and at the end say "God controls all of this".
There are 2 problems I see with this.
#1: All of these are THEORYS. Religious people tend to want creationalism or inteligent design seen as facts.The fact is that none of it can be 100% proven beyond a doubt and to teach any of the three as fact is a mistake.Personnally I don't see why all three can't be presented as options for students to consider.
#2: There are many religions in the world and they all have ideas about how the earth and man was created.The problem is that religious people tend to want THEIR ideas taught with refrence to THEIR god, whoever it may be.If we are to teach creationalism in schools it needs to be taught as an idea that can be applied to any religion,or creationalism as it applies to many different religions needs to be discussed.In this case the curriculum would begin to make it more of a class about religion than science.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Johnny, please refrain from your personal attacks. They don't help you make your point, and they are against the rules of this forum.

Posted by: barry2952

Professor: Evolution cannot fully explain biology

Monday, October 17, 2005; Posted: 1:38 p.m. EDT (17:38 GMT)

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone cannot explain complex biological processes, and he believes God is behind them.

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class.

Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether it can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."

Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.

The intelligent design theory does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic, testified he personally believes it to be God.

"I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors," he said.

The school board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Behe contributed to "Of Pandas and People," writing a section about blood-clotting. He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."

Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory rather than providing evidence for design.

Behe, who was expected to remain on the stand throughout the day Monday, compared the outcry over intelligent design to the early criticism of the big-bang theory some 70 years ago. "Many people thought it had philosophical and even theological implications that they did not like," he said.

Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He became a proponent after earning tenure, which lets him express his views without the threat of losing his job.

The trial began September 26 and is expected to last up to five weeks.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

Posted by: mespock

The whole process can be made simple.. I agree you can simply say here are your options...

As a Christian and a teacher of Science I can easily see how everything fits together...

If you follow the geologic history of the earth and follow the 6 days of creation they fit together. All things basically happened in the same order.

The only issue is time... Whether a day as described in the Bible is a 24 hour period or whether a day was one era of time..

Hadean era 4.5 billion yag to 3.8 billion yag - formation of the earth... the earth was with out form and void...

Archean era - 3.8 billion yag to 2.5 billion yag - Begins with the earth's crust forming then trapped gasses fill the atmosphere - then oceans form - no land.. about midway through bacteria appears...

Proterozoic era - 2.5 billion yag to 544 million yag - Atmosphere to 15% oxygen continents form - at the end Sea Life starts to populate the oceans.

Paleozoic era - 544 mill yag to 245 million yag - Earth’s continents start to populate with most species of life..

Mesozoic era - 245 million yag to 65 million yag - time of dinosaurs - life on land take a strong hold plus birds of the air.

Cenozoic era - 65 million yag to present - Humans and on the 6th day God creates man...

God does not describe how he did it in the Bible but science explains Gods work.

Now this is very vague but I have not found any where in the Bible where it tells me that I need to believe that the time line for creation is 6 24 hour days for my salvation or that if I believe that God took about 4.5 billion years to get the earth the way he wanted it to meet our needs that that would condemn me to everlasting torment.

To me it's not even a discussion - We need to teach our childern our religious views at home or in church or a church sponsored school.

Public school is for all - and for the children of all faiths.. We cannot teach Christianity in the schools..

Posted by: pepperman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

The whole process can be made simple.. I agree you can simply say here are your options...

As a Christian and a teacher of Science I can easily see how everything fits together...

If you follow the geologic history of the earth and follow the 6 days of creation they fit together. All things basically happened in the same order.

The only issue is time... Whether a day as described in the Bible is a 24 hour period or whether a day was one era of time..

Hadean era 4.5 billion yag to 3.8 billion yag - formation of the earth... the earth was with out form and void...

Archean era - 3.8 billion yag to 2.5 billion yag - Begins with the earth's crust forming then trapped gasses fill the atmosphere - then oceans form - no land.. about midway through bacteria appears...

Proterozoic era - 2.5 billion yag to 544 million yag - Atmosphere to 15% oxygen continents form - at the end Sea Life starts to populate the oceans.

Paleozoic era - 544 mill yag to 245 million yag - Earth’s continents start to populate with most species of life..

Mesozoic era - 245 million yag to 65 million yag - time of dinosaurs - life on land take a strong hold plus birds of the air.

Cenozoic era - 65 million yag to present - Humans and on the 6th day God creates man...

God does not describe how he did it in the Bible but science explains Gods work.

Now this is very vague but I have not found any where in the Bible where it tells me that I need to believe that the time line for creation is 6 24 hour days for my salvation or that if I believe that God took about 4.5 billion years to get the earth the way he wanted it to meet our needs that that would condemn me to everlasting torment.

To me it's not even a discussion - We need to teach our childern our religious views at home or in church or a church sponsored school.

Public school is for all - and for the children of all faiths.. We cannot teach Christianity in the schools..

Posted by: raVeneyes

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

To me it's not even a discussion - We need to teach our childern our religious views at home or in church or a church sponsored school.

Public school is for all - and for the children of all faiths.. We cannot teach Christianity in the schools..

This is the part that most proponents of creationism fail to recognize. I'm all for letting you believe in whatever you want to believe in, but we can't teach it in school. It's just like my assertion that parents need to do more parenting and stop relying on government ratings systems to figure out what their kids should and shouldn't watch or play. If you have beliefs and morals that you feel aren't being fleshed out by the school, then teach them to your kids. I'm sure you don't rely on school to teach your children how to do everything...this is one of those things that is not, and should not be covered in school.

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by raVeneyes

Why *ARE* Americans still debating evolution?

It is irrelevant.

Posted by: barry2952

Debating evolution is irrelevant? Why?

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by raVeneyes

One of the biggest problems we are having in schools today is that parents are relying on schools to raise their children.. My personal feeling is they do this so they have someone to blame for their fear of raising children.

Also too many parents are to concerned about their careers and their own activities that they have no time for their children... Kids are only $%^& trophies..

If you have spend time in a school you would see why children are the way they are today.

You wouldn't believe the behavior and language of many Kindergarteners today.. It is scary..

A school is designed to educate students not raise them..

It gets fustrating as a teacher to hear all the trash about how bad our schools are. The American Public School system is not a bad as people try to make it out to be. The statistics do not give a accurate picture of what is happening in a school. Teaching is secondary in may schools as there are so many other problems that exsist that have to be delt with before teaching can begin. And No Child Left Behind does not deal with the problems.

What everyone needs to understand is that everyday teachers need to deal with 20 to 30 students many who do not want to be in school. To get a student to want to learn is difficult and many times not promoted by parents.. In many cases the responce from parents is hey it's not my problem your the teacher. Without parent support the student is lost and all the teacher is, is a over paid baby sitter.( but people pay baby sitters more than they pay teachers). I wish I could get paid what a day care gets for watching kids.

I can go on and on on this issue and expect to get ripped as there are so many people who just don't get it and understand what goes on in a school..

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

Without parent support the student is lost and all the teacher is, is a over paid baby sitter.

My wife and I have been looking for a baby-sitter. Rich, what are you doing this weekend?

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

My wife and I have been looking for a baby-sitter. Rich, what are you doing this weekend?

Cassie is in New Berlin this weekend.. call her..

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Debating evolution is irrelevant? Why?

What difference would it make in our lives?

Posted by: barry2952

Is it only evolution that's irrelevent?

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Is it only evolution that's irrelevent?

Please go back to your drawing board.

Posted by: fossten

The first day of Biology class in the year 2015

by David Menton, AiG–USA

January 2, 2006

The following article written by David Menton, Ph.D. (cell biology), Associate Professor (retired) of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000), is really a spoof on the current situation regarding the creation/evolution battle in the secular school system. However, at the same time, what Dr. Menton has written could become reality if the secularization of this culture continues. You may smile as you read this article—but be warned: much of what Dr. Menton portrays is only an extension of what is happening right now in this culture. We print this as a wake up call to God’s people concerning the state of the nation and its future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to your federally mandated biology class—“The Evolution of You by Way of the Zoo.” I am Miss Lead, I have a B.S. degree in “Evolutionary Indoctrination” and I will be your learning facilitator.

I especially want to welcome you students who are new to our Federal schools. I know that this has been a trying year for many of you and your families, but as you know, the Supreme Court has declared that homeschooling and all explicitly Christian schools are prohibited by law and that you must now attend a federally controlled school. I thank you for your willing cooperation. It is regrettable that some children had to be forcibly taken away from their uncooperative parents, but the Court has decreed that it is the State, not the parents, who are primarily responsible for their education.

It is required by law that we spend our first class period advising you of the legal rules and regulations governing both the definition of science and impermissible thoughts in the science classroom. As your facilitator, I myself must follow these regulations to remain on the federal payroll, and you must follow them to avoid being sent for mental deprogramming. So listen up! It is no fun having your memory banks reset to that of an artichoke.

First we will consider the legally mandated definition of science: The Supreme Court has declared that “Science is the study of everything in the cosmos that is real and involves the effort to explain the origin of all real things in exclusively materialistic terms.” The Court has defined the “cosmos” (i.e., material universe) in terms of Sagan’s law—“The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.” Please note that the Court has left the entire realm of things that are unreal to the exclusive domain of the church. In this way that impregnable “wall of separation” between church and state, so wisely mandated by the framers of our Constitution, is not breached.

Next we must consider the two laws of “Unthinkable Thought” which prohibit certain thoughts and speech in the science classroom. To enforce these laws, the courts require that all classroom instruction and discussion in science be recorded for analysis on videotape and that all teachers and students submit to lie detector questioning by Federal Thought Police. Those failing such tests will be given one more chance to abandon their unthinkable thoughts before being subjected to deprogramming.

In the “First Law of Unthinkable Thought,” the courts have declared that “no student or teacher will be permitted to think, much less articulate, any thought that dares to question the dictates of evolutionary dogma.” While critical thinking and a questioning mind are essential to all fields of empirical science, such is not the case for evolutionism. The courts have found that atheists and “skeptics” never question the fact of evolution, while most criticisms of evolution, no matter how valid or scientific they might be, come from suspected “stealth” religionists and thus constitute the teaching of religion.

The “Second Law of Unthinkable Thought” (best known as the “Anti-Intelligence law”) declares that “no teacher or student will be permitted to think, much less articulate, any thought that something in nature is too complex and integrated to have been formed by random chance processes and to suggest instead that it reflects intelligent design or, God forbid, a divine Creator.” Educators have found that most students tend to think of the possibility of intelligent design when teachers give insightful, substantive and enthusiastic lectures on complex biological systems. Thus the law now requires that biology teachers must give superficial and boring lectures laced with evolutionary speculation on organs such as the eye, lest students be led astray by their intuitive recognition of intelligent design.

But why you might ask (but dare not) have the courts passed such draconian laws governing our very thoughts in the science classroom? The answer is really quite obvious. For years evolutionary dogma has been taught extensively in almost every class from first grade on, but surveys have shown that most students still fail to believe in evolutionism. Professional educators are amazed that even further increasing the quantity and intensity of evolutionary indoctrination has proven unsuccessful in producing true believers! Even worse, these unbelievers seem to have no difficulty in feeding back to us the required correct answers to evolutionary questions on examinations—indeed they seem to perform better than the true believers!

Surely you can see that it was time for the courts to intervene and require actual belief in evolutionism and not just indoctrination. The very survival of America, indeed the survival of the world as we know it, depends on it! After all, Dobzhansky’s law declares that “nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.” If students do not truly believe in evolutionism, it is a proven fact that they will be totally incapable of pursuing any field requiring scientific understanding. Thus they will be completely unsuitable as teachers, researchers, physicians, nurses, engineers, geologists, astronomers, farmers, lawyers, parents, news reporters, talk show hosts and popular entertainers.

Finally I will remind you that a federally mandated sticker known as the “revised Cobb County sticker” has been permanently affixed on the inside cover of your biology textbook declaring:

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material must be approached with a closed mind, studied superficially, and uncritically accepted.”

You are required by law to memorize this sticker and repeat it as a confession of faith before meals and each time you open and close the book.

Rest assured that all these laws forbidding unthinkable thoughts and requiring unquestioning belief in crass materialism and evolutionism have received the enthusiastic support of almost all the professional educational, legal and human rights organizations as well as from distinguished people of faith from nearly all of the major Christian denominations and seminary schools. Now, if we are all willing to comply (and of course, you are), let's get started!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...5.asp?vPrint=1

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

The first day of Biology class in the year 2015

by David Menton, AiG–USA

January 2, 2006

The following article written by David Menton, Ph.D. (cell biology), Associate Professor (retired) of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000), is really a spoof on the current situation regarding the creation/evolution battle in the secular school system. However, at the same time, what Dr. Menton has written could become reality if the secularization of this culture continues. You may smile as you read this article—but be warned: much of what Dr. Menton portrays is only an extension of what is happening right now in this culture. We print this as a wake up call to God’s people concerning the state of the nation and its future.

Thanks for the article, was worth several laughs even though it was filled with hatred, spoof or otherwise. But if the right wing religious wacko's had their way, anyone even questioning the story of creation would be burned at the stake. How's that for a Democracy.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Ummm...you're referring, I assume, to the Catholic Inquisition of the Dark Ages. That wasn't in a Democratic country.

Sorry. Wrong century and transparent hyperbole.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Ummm...you're referring, I assume, to the Catholic Inquisition of the Dark Ages. That wasn't in a Democratic country.

Sorry. Wrong century and transparent hyperbole.

No, I'm referring to what would happen now, if the right wing religious wacko's had their way. Just as your article spoofs on what may come to pass if evolutionist have their way in the future. Same thing.

How is what I said hyperbole and your article isn't? Did you read your entire article?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Because you are characterizing Christians as being people who evidently burn unbelievers at the stake. You must have no knowledge of Christianity or you are confusing Christians with Islamo-fascists.

Where is your evidence that Christians burn people at the stake?

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I didn't say ALL Christians, I said "right wing religious wackos"..... Big difference there.

The Salem Witch Trials, sure they were Puritans, but where do Puritans stem from.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I didn't say ALL Christians, I said "right wing religious wackos"..... Big difference there.

The Salem Witch Trials, sure they were Puritans, but where do Puritans stem from.

These people were wackos that separated from the Christian church. By the way, NO MENTION of evolution in the Salem witch trials.

Sorry. Wrong again.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...rms/salem.html

[snip]

II. Puritanism is a Christian faith which originated in England during the early seventeenth century. The ideals which separate Puritans from other Christians include their strict belief in predestination. This term refers to the idea that God has previously chosen those who will be saved, and an individual can do nothing to change this status. The Puritan Covenant of Grace calls for all Puritans to be actively faithful. The Covenant of Works is the belief that those who follow God's moral codes will be blessed with eternal life.

The Puritans split from the Church of England in 1633. When William Laud became the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the new beliefs he brought were unacceptable to those members who sought to "purify" the Church. These new beliefs included emphasis on individual acceptance or rejection of God's grace, toleration for a variety of religious beliefs, and the incorporation of "high church" symbols.1 The Puritans wished to rid their religion of all Catholic influence.2

Early in the seventeenth century, groups of Puritans began leaving Europe to travel to the American colonies. The New England region became the center for Puritans, but the group was spread throughout the area north of Virginia. The main goal of these immigrants was to form a religious community in which their "pure" ideals could be central. The radical beliefs of the Puritans flourished in the New World. By keeping a strong connection between Church and State, the Puritans were able to control most of the colonies' activity until the end of the seventeenth century.3

The Puritans held five basic beliefs.

* Total Depravity: By virtue of the original sin of Adam, when one is born, he has no right to salvation.

* Unconditional Election: Some are chosen for salvation, some are not. There is nothing one can do to change his status.

* Limited Atonement: The extent to which one can please God with acts is limited.

* Irresistable Grace: God showers one with a quality of grace, and one cannot resist it.

* Perseverance: Once one has been saved, nothing he does will change that fact.

These central beliefs, along with an extreme emphasis on preaching and the laws contained within the Bible itself formed the strict ideals of American Puritanism.

III. Background on Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts

Like all Puritans, the residents of Salem Village believed in witches and in witchcraft. They believed that witchcraft was "entering into a compact with the devil in exchange for certain powers to do evil."4 Witchcraft was considered both a sin and a crime, since it used the devil's power to perform cruel acts against others. Because of the severity of the accusation of witchcraft, each case involving suspected witchcraft had to be carefully and thoroughly investigated.

Early in 1692, the witch hunt hysteria began in Salem, Massachusetts. Reverend Samuel Parris' daughter and Abigail Williams started having fits of convulsion, screaming, and hallucination. A doctor examined the girls and decided that the only explanation for these wild spells was witchcraft. The girls then pointed their fingers at Tituba (a Parris family slave), Sarah Good, and Sarah Osborne as the witches who had afflicted them. Cotton Mather had recently published his Memorable Providences. This book detailed witchcraft and the symptoms of the afflicted. Since Betty Parris' fits were much like those described in Mather's book, the Puritans of Salem were very accepting of the doctor's conclusion and the resulting accusations.

Magistrates John Hawthorne and Jonathan Corwin inherited the responsibility of examining the three accused women. On March 1, 1692 the two began questioning the women. They asked each woman the same questions: Are you a witch? Have you seen the devil? How do you explain the afflictions of these girls? Based on this line of questioning, it is clear that the magistrates and all of Salem had already judged the three women guilty.5 After initially maintaining her innocence, Tituba eventually confessed to being a witch and claimed that she, Good, and Osborne had all made pacts with the devil and had even flown through the air on poles. Tituba's confession showed Salem that their suspicions were valid. For the next year the villagers, fueled by their paranoia and hysteria, searched for witches amongst themselves tirelessly.

In the following months, many more were accused of witchcraft. Martha Corey, Bridget Williams, Rebecca Nurse, Sarah Cloyce, and Mary Eastick all faced charges of witchery. Overloaded with all the new trials, Governor William Phips created a special court to hear the witch cases. The court was known as the Court of Oyer and Terminer. The trials quickly spiraled out of control, and a number of suspected witches were convicted and hanged. Bridget Bishop, Rebecca Nurse, and John Proctor all died as convicted witches. Those who stood trial for the crime of witchcraft could be convicted based on gossip or hearsay. Practically the only way to avoid execution was to admit to being a witch. During 1692, nineteen people refused to confess and died as a result.

While the specific trials of 1692 are important to America's history, the impact of the Salem Witch Trials is deeper than the simple chronology of events. The hysteria that snowballed in Salem reveals how deep the belief in the supernatural ran in colonial America. David Hall noted that "The religion of the colonists was infused with ancient attitudes and practices, some indeed so old as to antedate the rise of Christianity."6 In the quest for spiritual perfection and religious purity, there was no place for magic. The Puritans were so focused on the goal of a pure, religious commonwealth, that they reacted harshly against anything that threatened that goal. Richard Godbeer agrees. "Magic had no place in their vision of New England and so they were appalled to discover that colonists were using magical techniques."

Posted by: fossten

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Debunking Evolution
Steve Farrell
Saturday, Jan. 14, 2006
Some humorous insight on the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate from Liberty Letters staff writer Tom Grafanino.

Come now, children....
Read about Her!
Scientism's Lovely Queen!
She explodes!....A Cloud of Gases....
Textbook Flatulence Pristine!
Yes, The Goddess has erupted...
Then with No Design in Mind,
Life appeared!
A Magik Wonder!
What a Scientific Find!

Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation!
Scientessa waved her wand!
Tiny atoms Bump 'n' Grinding...
Vital Signs!
(Dumb Lucky Bonds!)

No Intelligence was needed...
"Science" waved her Magik Stick!
What religion?
....Man, who needs it!
When She turns her Magik Trick!

Power Priests of Scientessa
Have convinced us that it's TRUE!
Pompous, Mindless Gas from Nowhere
Evolved into me and you!

**********

Trust us......This is NOT religion!
(It's "The Science Paradigm"... )
Gas appeared from out of Nowhere
Making Matter, Space and Time.

That's The Truth!
The Firm Foundation.
On this Magik Rock we'll stand!
It's The Mandatory Lesson:
Viruses becoming....Man!

You can trust this Grand Explosive,
Accidental, Passing Gas;
Scientessa's Priests agree now...
That's how all things came to pass!

We've got Faith in Mindless Matter
That exploded on the scene...
Undesigned and for no purpose...
Bow before The Gaseous Queen!

She says, "Accidents DO happen!"
DNA popped up in space...
Life emerged from Lifeless Gases.
In a Nut-shell....
That's Her case!

**********

Once again, son....
This IS Science!
We've got evidence galore!
And....(wink, wink)...
Son, we can prove it!
(Check your brain there at the door.)

**********

We repeat: No Mind was needed!
Man's a "Stumble in the Dark"!
Science Priests are quite Dog-matic...
(Up this tree they've come to bark!)

It's their Faith!
It's Fundamental!
It's the Wisdom of the Age!
Scientessa's Pilot Program...
Modernism's current rage!

Her Big Bang's The Explanation!
Gas Almighty!
Have you heard?
From now on...
There's No Discussion!
Science Priests, please....
Spread The Word!

Take The Message to the masses...
Sow The Seed both far and wide!
Goddess Prestidigitation
Takes us to King Darwin's side!

**********

Once again...We must remind you:
This is SCIENCE through and through!
Take The Goddess Great Commission...
Gaseous Gospel Truth
For you!

**********

Now The High Court's in agreement...
Son, we can't allow debate!
Take your superstitions elsewhere
Trust The Queen's Most Gaseous State!

She proclaims what's only Natural...
Naturally... we all agree!
Breaking Winds of Chance have shown us
Naturalism's Reverie!

Yes, we've followed through the desert
All the evidence allowed...
Truth....at last we have discovered
Wrapped in her Green Magik Cloud.

Chance 'n' Time have worked this Magik...
Science-stirred....
A potent brew!
Unintelligent Concoction
Has some great Designs on you!

Yes...Queen "Big Bang" is most worthy
Of the praise we've given her...
Golden Calves don't hold a candle
To her Passing Gases, sir!

Please come dance around her altar;
Make an off'ring....
(What a Gas!)
Modern Man's Creation Story....
Fairy Tales in Physics Class.

**********

Holy Moses!
Stop the presses!
What a story!....Have you heard?
Scientessa's Gas has brought us
To the Threshold of The Word.

Moral Law and Law of Nature,
Somehow hid inside a Cloud;
No one needs now stop at Nebo...
Where Gold Calves still draw a crowd!

You're invited...
Choose your Cloud now;
Follow one....
Just take your pick!
Choose between the Ancient Prophets
Or this Goddess Magik Trick.

**********

Lord, we wander through this desert;
Give us eyes to see, we pray...
We've chased after Scientessa....
Now it seems we've lost our way.

Please, Good Shepherd,
Lead us onward...
We still dance 'round Calves of Gold!
Moloch, Isis...Scientessa
Lured us into this dark fold.

We've been taken.....(!)
Through the Black Holes...
By String Theory....strung along;
Now her Quantum Leaps have left us
Singing her Black Magik Song.

Posted by: RRocket

The creation of earth is explained in a couple of places in the Old Testament. This is the same Old Testament that says you should stone your rebellious children (or your whole family depending on the circumstance) . I guess I should believe that too because it IS in the Bible, right?

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

These people were wackos that separated from the Christian church. By the way, NO MENTION of evolution in the Salem witch trials.

Sorry. Wrong again.

Yes, just as the right wing religious wacko's are separated from the Christian church now. They follow their own code of what they see as good Christian conduct. God help this country if someone like Pat Robertson takes control.

Why would evolution have been mentioned during the Salem trials? But to put it in perspective, if the right wing religious wacko's had control and power in this country now, they would be 'burning' people for having opposing views just as the Puritans at that time were burning people for being witches.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Once again, YOU'RE the one who used the Salem witch trials as a comparison to Christianity and evolution (see title of this thread).

You haven't even identified what or who you consider to be a 'right wing religious wacko. Are you referring to me? If so, I can tell you that I'm against burning people at the stake, or any reprisal related to believing in a different religion. This is a free country. I doubt that you could find one person who believes that we should burn evolutionists at the stake.

Your argument is absurd and you can't back it up.

Posted by: barry2952

I'll confirm it. YOU are the RWW everyone is talking about. In fact you've taken over Bryan's position as Chief Right Wing Whacko.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I'll confirm it. YOU are the RWW everyone is talking about. In fact you've taken over Bryan's position as Chief Right Wing Whacko.

(blushing) Why thank you, barry. That's the nicest thing you've ever publicly said to me.

Posted by: fossten

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

Lev Navrozov
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006

The close of 2005 was accompanied by a remarkable event: 11 parents of schoolchildren in Dover, Pa., sued the school board for teaching their children in a public school not only Darwinism but also intelligent design (in evolution). In a 135-page ruling Judge John Jones accused the school board of "disguising their true motives for teaching intelligent design." The sneaky school board actually wanted to smuggle in creationism, that is, religion, which is against the separation of church and state enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

What about Darwinism? There was an evil anti-Soviet joke: "Why is Marx a great scientist? Because he has a big beard." A look at the photograph of Darwin in the BBC News of Dec. 20, 2005, could convince anyone that Darwin's beard was not smaller than that of Marx, and hence he was a scientist through and through, and whatever he said was purely scientific, not religious, and as fit to be taught in public schools as the multiplication tables. Hence the ruling establishing the scientist Darwin in public schools and forbidding intelligent design, sneakily concealing its religious origin and essence.

But let's look at Darwin regardless of his scientific beard. In 1828, the 19-year-old Charles Darwin began to study at Christ's College, Cambridge, from which he graduated in 1831 and went for a six-year voyage on the HMS Beagle. A clergyman? Of course! In the United States today there are fanatics of scientism who suspect everybody of being a cunning religious fanatic. But in England there were "parson naturalists," reading "the Deity's second book of revelation: nature."

What did Darwin read in the Deity's second book?

That nature produces more organisms than the number able to survive. So?

Marx and Engels and hence Soviet propaganda were obsessed with Darwin. In Soviet schools there was a special lesson called "Darwinism," and I remember the explanation of how giraffes evolved. All giraffes could not be born exactly the same. Those who had somewhat longer necks were fitter for survival because they could eat leaves off higher branches of trees. In their longer-neck progeny, some specimens had again longer necks than others. Thus there evolved giraffes with the very long necks by which we recognize a giraffe today. Natural selection! Survival of the fittest! Evolution! Origin of species!

The above example sounded to us, schoolchildren, at least plausible, since genetics was forbidden in Stalin's Russia. Now I know that the evolution of the giraffe's neck is as much nonsense as the whole reading by the Christ's College graduate Darwin of nature as the Deity's second book of revelation. Genetics (the word appeared in 1906) was unknown to Darwin, who did not understand that when a giraffe was born with a somewhat longer neck, this variation had to become genetic in order to be inherited by the giraffe's progeny.

But the rest of Darwin's science did not seem even plausible to those of us who thought, and not just memorized.

Evolution implies development from the simplest to the most complex. Its first hypothetical stage is the transition from inanimate matter to unicellular organisms – the origin of the most primitive life. But how could even the most primitive life evolve according to Darwin if it is less fit for survival than inanimate matter? The more evolved, developed, sophisticated an organism is, the more it is vulnerable, demanding, exigent – and hence less fit for survival.

We hear calls for the preservation of an endangered species. This is not a unicellular organism, but an animal with a digestive tract, a blood system, lungs, a brain, etc. Darwin's evolution is not just wrong, but is the opposite of reality: In the real nature, billions of microbes can generate at a terrific speed, while the survival of just one higher animal may be a problem.

What about man? In the time of Darwin (who died in 1882) an Englishman could imagine himself to be the fittest for survival: The territory of the British Empire exceeded 91 times that of England itself. But the 20th century demonstrated that man is able to develop weapons that can reduce England to atoms. The evolution of weapons may yet destroy mankind, not just convert it to world slavery.

Yes, the neck of the giraffe could become long if its elongations had been genetic. But what about the origin of an eye that even an insect has?

It was only in the 19th century that man's brain invented, constructed, created a photocamera. An intelligent design! But what about the eye, an organic photocamera having automatic accommodation and protection and connected to the brain? It is ridiculous to imagine that the eye could evolve by tiny, accidental, incremental changes like elongations of the giraffe's neck that ensure a greater fitness for survival. And what about the brain?

When Henri Bergson (Nobel Prize in 1927) published his "L'Évolution Creátrice" in 1907, it was immediately translated into English ("Creative Evolution") and all other major languages of Europe. Every Russian intellectual read it either in French or in Russian. Predictably, the Nobel Prize winner made mincemeat out of Darwinism. But in the argument in the United States about a century later it does not seem that any worshiper of Darwin has ever heard of Bergson.

On Dec. 20, 2005, on Time.com (page 1) Michael Lemonick begins his article "Darwin Victorious" in a key of triumph resembling such articles at the dawn of Soviet Russia when Bergson had been discarded, and Darwinism, besung by Marx and Engels, became the Light of science victorious over the Darkness of religion:

"Breathtaking inanity" [!] is how U.S. District Judge John Jones characterized the Dover, PA school board attempts to cast doubt on the theory of evolution – but in fairness, the recently ousted members of the board were relative unsophisticates, snookered [!] by the intellectual scam [!] that calls itself "intelligent design," or ID.

Thank God (or shall I say "thank Darwin"?) these were "relative unsophisticates." Can you imagine a sophisticate's "attempt to cast doubt on the theory of evolution"? This is like an attempt in the 17th century to cast doubt on the geocentric theory! It is a pity that those who cast doubt on Darwinism are not burned at the stake under the scientific auspices of Michael Lemonick of Time magazine. What about any controversy over Darwin? The Discovery Institute? Intelligent Design (ID)? The "scam"!

The Discovery Institute, a pro-ID think tank, favors teaching the controversy over evolution, but that's the scam [!]. There is no controversy, or at least, not the scientific controversy. Discovery says there is [the insolence!].

True, Lemonick admits that there is "a tiny [!] handful [!] of actual [!] scientists who back ID." But "the vast [!] majority [!] of biologists say nonsense." Perhaps Time magazine should take a vote among biologists and thus establish once and for all that Darwinism is the Science beyond all controversy (which is religious nonsense and hence to be kept from public schools). The only trouble is that if scientific issues were decided by majorities, we would still think that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that Einstein was an insane clerk in a patent office.

Posted by: TheDude

Reagardless, expain how Adam & Eve populated the entire planet to its current 6+ billion? Explain how two people spawned so many diverse ethnicities?

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

When I said "burn people at the stake" it was a metaphor.

you took it literally. Pat Robertson, a 'right wing religious wacko' as an example, in his case, he just might be willing to kill people with opposing views, that guy has said some wack-job comments in the past. I don't know you well enough to know how religiously wacko you are, some of your post are way out on the wacko right field, but that's not enough for me to label you a 'right wing religious wacko'.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

When I said "burn people at the stake" it was a metaphor.

Well. That's FIVE 'wack' or 'wacko' uses in the same paragraph. Do you know how to do anything besides ad hominem?

If you were exaggerating, then explain what you meant by 'burning.'

Could you mean:

1. The way liberals are 'burning' Bush at the stake for defending our country?
2. The way liberals are 'burning' Alito at the stake for being nominated?
3. The way John Kerry 'burned' our troops at the stake for being sent to Iraq?
4. The way Murtha 'burned' our troops at the stake for the same reason?
5. The way Ronnie Earle is 'burning' Tom DeLay at the stake for being an effective Conservative?
6. The way the ACLU 'burns' Christians at the stake on a regular basis?

Or did you mean something else?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Reagardless, expain how Adam & Eve populated the entire planet to its current 6+ billion? Explain how two people spawned so many diverse ethnicities?

I don't have to explain that to you, since I know that your question is facetious. You have the burden of proof in this thread to convince people that I'm wrong and that evolution is true. Asking loaded questions won't help your case.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Why is it you can discredit evolution on the notion (one example) that the eye is far to complex to have occured randomly in nature. But I cannot discredit creation on the basis that two humans couldn't proliferate 6+ billion people?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Don't tell me you don't remember how to debate. You know how to do this. If you don't think it's possible that that could have happened, POST YOUR FACTS that support your position. PROVE YOUR CASE. Otherwise, you're just making EMPTY ASSERTIONS.

Geez.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I meant putdown, oppress, subjugate etc. etc.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

That is my case, one man and one woman cannot produce a viable population. The severe inbreeding would eventually produce nothing but heavily disfigured and/or dead babies in a few generations. Humans would of gone extinct long before the great flood.

So I ask you, how did Adam & Eve populate the planet let alone produce so many ethnicities?

Posted by: fossten

Ethnicities is another question which I will answer later, but which has been answered before. Here is a snip that answers your question.

Cain’s brothers and sisters
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this Earth.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—‘And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.’ This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, ‘The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.’11

The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, they were commanded to ‘Be fruitful, and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28).

The wife
If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-Biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations!

We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.

Objections
God’s laws
Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of ‘one blood.’ The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.

Biological deformities
Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other—or perhaps someone’s nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone’s jaw is a little out of shape—and so on. Let’s face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

However, Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20).12 (Also, there were plenty of people on the Earth by now, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Reagardless, expain how Adam & Eve populated the entire planet to its current 6+ billion? Explain how two people spawned so many diverse ethnicities?

Think that inbreeding amongst adam and eve's offspring is evidenced by Shrub and the rest of the RWWs.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Think that inbreeding amongst adam and eve's offspring is evidenced by Shrub and the rest of the RWWs.

But evolutionary belief goes as follows:

Amoeba-->Slime-->Reptile-->Dinosaur-->Monkey-->Neanderthal-->Modern Day Liberal.

That's pretty believable, now that I think about it.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

Well, it's summed up there and it comes down to faith not science. You either have faith or you don't. Thanks for the article though, I appreciate you posting it (sincerely).

Do post an article or your own personal thoughts on the worlds ethnicities when you have time.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

This is exactly what I expected you to do: Attempt to discredit my generous answer to your question by the use of fact-less assertions.

Actually, there is sound scientific doctrine in that article which evidently passed right over your head.

You have no refutation, I noticed, nor do you have an alternative explanation.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

This is exactly what I expected you to do: Attempt to discredit my generous answer to your question by the use of fact-less assertions.

The foundation of your article is based on faith. God created Adam from dirt and then created Eve from his rib, believing in that takes faith not scientific reasoning, that is a fact. Am I wrong here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Actually, there is sound scientific doctrine in that article which evidently passed right over your head. .

The scientific doctrine the article discusses all comes down to if you believe God created the perfect man out of dirt to begin with. Once you have faith that this miracle occurred, then the science takes over, but the foundation is still faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You have no refutation, I noticed, nor do you have an alternative explanation.

No, I cannot refute anyone’s faith. Do you really want me to post article after article of evolution theory?

(Don't be so hostile, I thanked you for your post and I was sincere about it.)

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Clearing up ID, evolution, theory

Rebekah Sims, 15, whose letter appeared Dec. 12, has been selected as last month’s Golden Pen Award winner. In the judgment of the editors, she had the most effective letter to the editor during December.
The daughter of Elizabeth Nygaard and Mike Sims, Rebekah is a sophomore at Homestead High School, where she participates in drama, plays clarinet in orchestra and piano for the show choir back-up band. Outside school, she enjoys reading, writing and her hobby of dollhouse miniatures. She has a 13-year-old sister, Sarah, and a 6-year-old brother, Ben.
She received a gold-plated inscribed pen for her efforts. The Golden Pen Award was established to express our appreciation for the contribution our letter writers make to the editorial page. Here is her letter, which was inspired by lessons on scientific theory in her freshman honors biology class:

Over the past few months, the editorial page has played host to a fiery debate about creationism, evolution, intelligent design and what should be taught in schools.

In the midst of all of the controversy, I have noticed two points in need of clarification. First, there have been no clear definitions of creationism, evolution and intelligent design, and second, most people are either using the word “theory” very loosely or misunderstanding it completely.

Intelligent design is the idea that some biological structures are so complex that they must have been the creation of a superior being and could not possibly have been created by evolution.

Creationism is the literal belief in the biblical story of creation.
The theory of evolution is the scientific theory that life evolved from inanimate matter, with molecules becoming more and more complex.
In the realm of science, a theory is “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena” (dictionary.com).

The theory of evolution is not a hypothesis, nor is it simply an untested idea with no evidence. A hypothesis is only one part of a theory. The hypothesis must undergo rigorous testing, and evidence supporting the hypothesis must be present before it is considered a theory.

Evolution has evidence in the fossil record as well as the Miller-Urey experiment. This experiment simulated the conditions of the early Earth and found that in these conditions, it was possible that simple compounds could form. Later, similar experiments found that in the conditions of early Earth, amino acids, other carbon compounds, as well as the DNA base adenine. All of these compounds are very important to life on Earth.

The question as to whether one can be both Christian and accept evolution has also played a major part in this debate. It is quite possible. There are many devout Christians who believe that God created the world through evolution. I am one of them.

Currently, the theory of evolution is the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life. Why? Because it is the only explanation with a testable, verifiable hypothesis.

There is no possible way to scientifically test for a superior being, so creationism and intelligent design are not science, therefore these explanations for the origin of life have no scientific evidence.

The theory of evolution by natural selection belongs in biology class; Creationism and intelligent design belong in world religions, philosophy, debate or speech classes.

Schools do not give students choice and several explanations for gravity, the water cycle or the process of transpiration in plants. Scientific theories need to be taught in science class. There is plenty of room for other ideas elsewhere.

Posted by: barry2952

That was well written.

Posted by: fossten

But not well supported. She made a series of assertions without laying any foundation or followup support.

Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science
[Lawrence] Lerner and others claim scientists must practise methodological naturalism, i.e. that natural causes are the only ones allowed, and God, if He exists, did nothing that can be investigated (contrary to Romans 1:18–23). They claim that doesn’t necessarily imply ontological naturalism, i.e. that nature is all that really does exist, and God doesn’t. However, the converse is definitely valid, which is one reason it is promoted by so many atheists — atheists must believe that nature is all there is.

The scare tactic they use to promote methodological naturalism is reasoning like:

‘It is simply not possible to solve a scientific question if one is willing to invoke a supernatural answer, because supernatural answers foreclose further scientific inquiry. As we have already noted, a person who accounts for the motion of the planets by asserting that angels propel them is simply not going to be able to account for Kepler’s laws of planetary motion in any kind of fruitful way.’

This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science.10 Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

Operational science has indeed been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, e.g. putting men on the moon and curing diseases. As explained above, because creation finished at the end of Day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation science, and would not invoke a miracle to explain any repeating event in nature in the present. So a creationist would actually not dispute Lerner’s statement as far as operational science is concerned, despite his best efforts to caricaturize our position. This can be shown in a letter I wrote to an enquirer who believed that atoms had to be held together by miraculous means:

“‘Natural laws’ also help us make predictions about future events. In the case of the atom, the explanation of the electrons staying in their orbitals is the positive electric charge and large mass of the nucleus. This enables us to make predictions about how strongly a particular electron is held by a particular atom, for example, making the science of chemistry possible. While this is certainly an example of Col. 1:17, simply saying ‘God upholds the electron’ doesn’t help us make predictions.”

And in my days as a university teaching assistant before joining AiG, I marked an examination answer wrong because it said ‘God made it so’ for a question about the frequency of infrared spectral lines, instead of discussing atomic masses and force constants.

So Lerner is wrong that creationists are in any way hindered in real operational science research, either in theory or in practice.

In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause11) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science.

The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through silly assertions such as the following by Levitt (as quoted by Lerner):

‘… evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.’

However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no-one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.

To explain further: the laws that govern the operation of a computer are not those that made the computer in the first place. Lerner’s anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyse a computer’s workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead. Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup. For more information about difficulties with the origin of life from non-life, see Q&A: Origin of Life.

How evolution harms science
A strong case can be made that dogmatic belief in evolution has harmed science, but Lerner downplays and even ignores this.

Teaching discredited evolutionary ‘proofs’ is OK?!
Many textbooks mislead students by teaching discredited ideas. For example, many teach that embryonic development parallels its alleged evolutionary history, also called embryonic recapitulation or ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, which was based on forged diagrams of embryos by the 19th century proto-Nazi Darwinist Ernst Haeckel — see Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit. Some textbooks don’t go this far, but still teach that embryonic similarity is proof of evolution, although the pictures used are also based on other forged drawings by Haeckel — see Embryonic Fraud Rediscovered. Another favourite ‘evidence’ for evolution is photos of peppered moths differentially camouflaged on tree trunks, although the moths never actually rest there and the photos were faked — see Goodbye, peppered moths.

The biologist Dr Jonathan Wells has performed a different analysis to Lerner, this time on biology textbooks, in his new book Icons of Evolution (see full report). He gives many textbook fail grades, on the far more reasonable ground that by presenting such discredited examples, they are not telling the truth! Dr Wells and Jay Richards wrote a critique of Lerner’s paper, rightly pointing out:

‘But the Lerner report fails to point out that students are being systematically misled about the scientific evidence, and it thereby encourages precisely the sort of bad science it pretends to criticize. …

‘The Lerner report contributes to just the sort of brainwashing Finn criticizes. Lerner wants students to learn Darwinian evolution — without being told that many textbook “evidences” for evolution have been faked. Lerner wants students to be taught scientific misconduct masquerading as good science, instead of being given accurate information and being encouraged to think for themselves.’

Evidently what Lerner called ‘slipshod treatment of biological evolution’ doesn’t include presenting fallacious arguments for it! This should not be surprising, since as shown, evolution is really a pseudo-scientific justification for materialism, regardless of whether the facts support it!

http://answersingenesis.org/news/Lerner_resp.asp [snip]

Posted by: fossten

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006 10:41 a.m. EST

BBC: Most Brits Don’t Believe in Evolution

Scientists may sneer at those who question the theory of evolution but a new survey says that most people in the United Kingdom do not accept it as valid.

According to BBC, their survey of 2000 participants in a program "Horizon: A War on Science” showed that "more than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution.”

The program’s editor Andrew Cohen told Britain’s The Register: "I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue. Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."

According to The Register, the survey found that while 48 per cent of people opted for evolution as that which "best described their view of the origin and development of life", a majority had either other opinions or none at all with 22 per cent opting for creationism and 17 percent for intelligent design.

Asked which of the three theories should be included in school science lessons, 44 per cent said creationism should be on the agenda, 41 per cent voted for intelligent design, while 69 per cent backed evolution.

The Register notes that survey "participants over 55 were more likely to choose evolution over other groups, while those under 25 were most likely to opt for intelligent design."

This prompted the paper to comment that older people have either come to the "correct conclusion" over time, or are possibly "too old to accept the exciting and irrefutable truth of intelligent design."

Posted by: barry2952

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (Reuters) -- American scientists fighting back against creationism, intelligent design and other theories that seek to deny or downgrade the importance of evolution have recruited unlikely allies -- the clergy.

And they have taken their battle to a new level, trying to educate high school and even elementary school teachers on how to hold their own against parents and school boards who want to mix religion with science.

While they feel they have won the latest round against efforts to bring God into the classroom, the scientists say they have little doubt their opponents are merely regrouping.

"It's time to recognize that science and religion should never be pitted against one another," American Association for the Advancement of Science President Gilbert Omenn told a news conference on Sunday. The AAAS has held several sessions on the evolution issue at its annual meeting in St. Louis.

"The faith community needs to step up to the plate," agreed Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California.

Scott said many people held the "toxic" idea that "you are either a Christian creationist or you are a bad-guy athiest".

Recent court and electoral battles have made clear that judges and voters will reject efforts to sneak creationism into the classroom under the guise of making a scientific curriculum clearer or fairer, Scott said.

By a vote of 11 to 4, the Ohio Board of Education last week pulled a model lesson plan it had approved in 2004. The plan had permitted science teachers to encourage students to look at questions about evolution, something proponents of "intelligent design" call "teaching the controversy."

Last year in Pennsylvania, a federal court ruled the theory could not be taught in a public school and the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, which approved the teaching, was voted out.

Intelligent design proponents see the hand of God behind evolution because, they say, life is too complex to be random.

"As a legal strategy intelligent design is dead. It will be very difficult for any school district in the future to successfully survive a legal challenge," Scott said. "That doesn't mean intelligent design is dead as a very popular social movement. This is an idea that has got legs."

But pastors are speaking out against it. Warren Eschbach, a retired Church of the Brethren pastor and professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania helped sponsor a letter signed by more than 10,000 other clergy.

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests," they wrote.

Catholic experts have also joined the movement.

"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an engineer," said Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne, an astrophysicist who is also ordained. "The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me."

Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association said some teachers feared losing their jobs if they taught evolution. "The pressures come from the students and the parents," he said.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

What everyone needs to understand is that everyday teachers need to deal with 20 to 30 students many who do not want to be in school. To get a student to want to learn is difficult and many times not promoted by parents.. In many cases the responce from parents is hey it's not my problem your the teacher. Without parent support the student is lost and all the teacher is, is a over paid baby sitter.( but people pay baby sitters more than they pay teachers). I wish I could get paid what a day care gets for watching kids.

I can go on and on on this issue and expect to get ripped as there are so many people who just don't get it and understand what goes on in a school..[/quote]

I am having this exact issue right now. I have a 5 year old son that is in kindergarten. He goes a full day. He was on the honor roll the first marking period, then on the second marking period his worst grade was a "C". His teacher told my mother who takes him to scholl that he is failing. What gives, since when is a "C" failing.

I leave the house at 7AM to go to work. I drop my son at my mothers because she takes him to school in the morning, and keeps him at night until I get home at 5:45. 6:00PM we are at home, and I get him started on his homework as I make dinner.(Single Parent) We work on the homework until dinner, eat, cleanup, and then spend until 8-8:30PM finishing his homework. Bath time, 10 - 15 minutes just hanging out, then to bed for him. Typical night.

We do 1 0r 2 papers every night. We read 3 books every night and spend 15 minutes on each learning letters and numbers. We have read 260 books sinct the start of the school year.

Where does the teachers part come in??

I admit that being a teacher is not an easy job, but what other profession do you know that makes the customer do their own work??

I fix computers and am a network security expert. I do not tell my customers that they have to take their systems back home with them and diagnose their own problems, or install their own parts. That is why I get paid. I have no problem supporting my sons teacher, but when does she get to do her job??