Creationism in schools?

[Debater Slayer]

I can claim to be a Christian (which I do) and an evolutionist (which I am not.) That would be a lie, of course. I believe it also can be a lie to claim to be an evolutionist (which one may be) and a Christian (which one may not be). Simply claiming to be a Christian does not make one a Christian. In fact, Jesus Christ said: "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matthew 7:21-23) Remember it was largely professed "Christians" that bloodied the world with not one, but two world wars, and many smaller but deadly conflicts, in direct contravention of Christ's teachings.

Don't you think that your comparison of Christians who try to reconcile their beliefs with modern scientific theories to those who started the two world wars and calling them liars may be offensive and insulting to them?

Most people who accept the theory of evolution don't do so because they chose to; they do so because they found it convincing enough to accept as true. I never 'chose' to accept it. In fact, I actively tried rejecting it because of people who have done the same thing you are doing now and labeled those who accept evolution as "misguided," "fake believers," and "whimsical," among other things.

Perhaps when some Christians cease viewing the world through a black-and-white lens where merely accepting established scientific theories is enough to doubt others' sincerity of belief they will be following what Jesus actually taught — that is, instead of being "largely professed 'Christians'" who judge others and accuse them of lying.

 

[rusra02]

A commitment to materialism is vital in explaining natural phenomena. What do you think our level of understanding would be if we tried to explain germ theory with reference to Odin? Cosmology with reference to the Aboriginal Dreamtime? Gravity with reference to Freya? Are you in favour of this approach, rusra?

There you go again! Comparing ID to mythology is a feeble attempt to discredit ID. Think what you are saying. It doesn't matter to evolutionists that the facts support ID. That the evidence leads to the conclusion that such complexity and design brilliance manifest in plants and animals could not happen by chance. They simply cannot accept that God created life, because to do so would be...unscientific.
Michael Behe wrote in Darwin's Black Box: "Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a supernatural being to affect nature."
Further, ID does not make claims as to who the designer is. It simply posits that design and intelligence are manifest in living things, giving evidence for a designer.
True science does not ignore evidence to advance personal agendas. I believe it is as Romans 1:20,21 states: "For [Gods] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened."

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There you go again! Comparing ID to mythology is a feeble attempt to discredit ID.

If anything it is an insult to mythology

 

[rusra02]

Don't you think that your comparison of Christians who try to reconcile their beliefs with modern scientific theories to those who started the two world wars and calling them liars may be offensive and insulting to them?

Most people who accept the theory of evolution don't do so because they chose to; they do so because they found it convincing enough to accept as true. I never 'chose' to accept it. In fact, I actively tried rejecting it because of people who have done the same thing you are doing now and labeled those who accept evolution as "misguided," "fake believers," and "whimsical," among other things.

Perhaps when some Christians cease viewing the world through a black-and-white lens where merely accepting established scientific theories is enough to doubt others' sincerity of belief they will be following what Jesus actually taught — that is, instead of being "largely professed 'Christians'" who judge others and accuse them of lying.

I think you are reading things into my post that I did not say. I simply pointed out that not all who profess to be Christian really are, according to the Bible. Neither did I call them liars. Jesus Christ spoke the words I quoted regarding some who professed to be his followers but were "workers of lawlessness."
My post was in response to the post that seemed to claim that evolution and Christianity were somehow compatible, because professed "Christians" believe the ToE. It is not judging others to state facts.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think you are reading things into my post that I did not say. I simply pointed out that not all who profess to be Christian really are, according to the Bible. Neither did I call them liars. Jesus Christ spoke the words I quoted regarding some who professed to be his followers but were "workers of lawlessness."
My post was in response to the post that seemed to claim that evolution and Christianity were somehow compatible, because professed "Christians" believe the ToE. It is not judging others to state facts.

You implied that those who accept evolution and are self-professed Christians can be "lying" and then went on to bring up the example involving the two world wars. Why else would you quote scripture about "workers of lawlessness" if you didn't hold a negative view of Christians who accept evolution and doubt their sincerity of belief?

 

[rusra02]

You implied that those who accept evolution and are self-professed Christians can be "lying" and then went on to bring up the example involving the two world wars. Why else would you quote scripture about "workers of lawlessness" if you didn't hold a negative view of Christians who accept evolution and doubt their sincerity of belief?

Again, you are going beyond what I wrote. The point, again, is that Jesus Christ rejected the notion that all who claim to be his followers really are his followers. The reference to 2 World Wars taking place largely in professed "Christian" countries adds to the evidence that professing to be a Christian does not make one such. Surely you are not arguing that professing to be a Christian makes one a Christian, are you? Or are you?
As to sincerity of belief, I made no mention of that at all. I believe a true Christian must accept and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus teachings and entire life course is a repudiation of the ToE.

 

[Noaidi]

There you go again! Comparing ID to mythology is a feeble attempt to discredit ID.

So other people's religions are mythology, but yours is the truth? Gotcha.

Michael Behe wrote in Darwin's Black Box: "Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a supernatural being to affect nature."

Keeping this within the topic of the OP, how would a supernatural approach to addressing issues be suitable for a science class?


You go on to say:

Further, ID does not make claims as to who the designer is. It simply posits that design and intelligence are manifest in living things, giving evidence for a designer.
True science does not ignore evidence to advance personal agendas.

Yet, the notion that your god is the designer is implicit. ID is a blatant attempt to get christianity into the science class. Are you happy with the notion that Odin could equally be the designer?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Again, you are going beyond what I wrote. The point, again, is that Jesus Christ rejected the notion that all who claim to be his followers really are his followers. The reference to 2 World Wars taking place largely in professed "Christian" countries adds to the evidence that professing to be a Christian does not make one such. Surely you are not arguing that professing to be a Christian makes one a Christian, are you? Or are you?

It depends on the criteria one uses to determine what constitutes being a Christian. If someone genuinely believes that they are Christian, then who am I to say otherwise or accuse them of insincerity?

As to sincerity of belief, I made no mention of that at all. I believe a true Christian must accept and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus teachings and entire life course is a repudiation of the ToE.

This is the crux of what I'm talking about: you are basically employing a no true Scotsman and using it as a springboard to judge who is a "true" Christian and who isn't based on rejection (or lack thereof) of the theory of evolution. You may think that Jesus' teachings contradicted or repudiated it, but that doesn't make all Christians who disagree with you somehow less sincere in what they personally profess to believe.

 

[rusra02]

It depends on the criteria one uses to determine what constitutes being a Christian. If someone genuinely believes that they are Christian, then who am I to say otherwise or accuse them of insincerity?



This is the crux of what I'm talking about: you are basically employing a no true Scotsman and using it as a springboard to judge who is a "true" Christian and who isn't based on rejection (or lack thereof) of the theory of evolution. You may think that Jesus' teachings contradicted or repudiated it, but that doesn't make all Christians who disagree with you somehow less sincere in what they personally profess to believe.

I think you are responding to my posts without really reading them. Again, with feeling, I never mentioned sincerity at all in my post. Nor do I profess "to judge who is a "true" christian and who is not." I believe the Bible sets the standards for true Christians and the Bible also declares that not all professing to be Christians really are.

 

[mycorrhiza]

The evidence for ID is freely available to those with a web browser.

I have yet to find any, despite having several debates with ID proponents. They mostly use arguments that are either false, terribly outdated or they argue against a made up version of evolution that no scientist claims exists (such as the crocoduck phenomena).

And all those arguments are against evolution, rather than pro-ID. Disproving evolution doesn't make ID true.

If there actually were scientific arguments for ID, or against evolution in general, I think those would be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals already.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think you are responding to my posts without really reading them. Again, with feeling, I never mentioned sincerity at all in my post. Nor do I profess "to judge who is a "true" christian and who is not." I believe the Bible sets the standards for true Christians and the Bible also declares that not all professing to be Christians really are.

Does the Bible clearly state or imply in all of its different interpretations that accepting evolution makes someone an inferior Christian?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think you are responding to my posts without really reading them. Again, with feeling, I never mentioned sincerity at all in my post. Nor do I profess "to judge who is a "true" christian and who is not." I believe the Bible sets the standards for true Christians and the Bible also declares that not all professing to be Christians really are.

Essentially here you are covering your own personal actions by saying the bible is doing it.

Nowhere in the bible are you given instruction, nor power/authority, to judge another Christian's Christianity. Yet that power seems to be taken up, quite often.

 

[Falvlun]

You declare your opinions as if they were unassailable facts, such as: "no other theory that even begins to explain the evidence half as well as the theory of evolution does. There is no contender; there is no "other side" to even warrant a page in a textbook." That is nonsense, in my opinion.

In the realm of science, it is a true statement. Otherwise, the theory of evolution would not be called the theory of evolution. Outside of science, sure, there are other "theories", but they are notably not used in the scientific sense of the word "theory", nor do they have any basis in science.

Further, you claim to know the thinking of scientists who believe the evidence supports ID. "While they may believe in intelligent design themselves, they know that it is a unfalsifiable, unscientifically supported belief that has no place in a science class." That is an amazing feat of reading these scientists minds.

I was giving scientists who personally believe in ID the benefit of the doubt. If they do believe that ID is a scientific theory then they are wrong.

Further, a "fair and balanced" review of the evidence is what is needed. Comparing the evidence for ID to discredited theories of the past is simply a feeble and unfair attempt to discredit ID.

There is no scientific evidence for ID.

It is possible for there to be evidence that evolution is wrong, or needs tweaking, but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer.

Finally, I believe evolutionists are pushing an agenda and the evidence is there to support this. Richard Lewontin, an evolutionist, wrote that many evolutionists "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism...we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Thus they refuse to even consider the possibility of ID. (Quote from
The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, 1/ 9/1997, pp. 28-32.) This agenda would account for the heated vitriole so common in evolutionists responses to those who challenge their theory.

So, supporting a scientific position equates to having an agenda? All right then. I guess the gravitationalists, meteorologists, geologists, biologists, physicists, etc all have an agenda then, an agenda to present the scientific evidence and explanation for the natural world around us.

Can you tell us what the ID/creationist agenda is?