Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

[The Neo Nerd]

MoF?

How does the fact that a law has to be made so people question evolution (a rather biased way of putting it) mean that creationism is winning. I mean would you not think that if it was winning it would be allowable in the first place.

Also,

If the VAST majority of scientist support evolution and the pope (the mouthpiece of god) support evolution, how do you still argue against it. What makes you think you have the inside track on the truth here?

-Q

 

[lunakilo]

... the pope (the mouthpiece of god) ...

Only if you are catholic

 

[KnightOwl]

Anglicans agree
Church makes ‘ludicrous’ apology to Charles Darwin - 126 years after his death | Mail Online

The Mormon Church seems to be on board. Read the last paragraph of this...
LDS history of evolution

The Episcopal Church also seems to be enlightened.
Science, Technology and Faith

The Evangelical Luthern Church makes it clear they don't mix faith and science and don't find them incompatible.
Evolution

United Church of Christ says, "Evolution helps us see our faithful God through a new way."
http://www.ucc.org/not-mutually-exclusive/pdfs/pastoral-letter.pdf

The United Methodist Church declares that theology should not make authoritative claims about science.
Petition Text

So you see, there a lot of Christians who have no problem with evolution. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming and to claim the theory of evolution is not valid is to label one's self as either unknowing, uncaring or both about legitimate science and most people appreciate the benefits our advanced scientific knowledge has brought to the world and continues to bring.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

MoF?

How does the fact that a law has to be made so people question evolution (a rather biased way of putting it) mean that creationism is winning. I mean would you not think that if it was winning it would be allowable in the first place.

Also,

If the VAST majority of scientist support evolution and the pope (the mouthpiece of god) support evolution, how do you still argue against it. What makes you think you have the inside track on the truth here?

-Q

It's simply another attempt by creationist to skirt the scientific process by lobbying for creation to be taught and protected in schools.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Anglicans agree
Church makes ‘ludicrous’ apology to Charles Darwin - 126 years after his death | Mail Online

The Mormon Church seems to be on board. Read the last paragraph of this...
LDS history of evolution

The Episcopal Church also seems to be enlightened.
Science, Technology and Faith

The Evangelical Luthern Church makes it clear they don't mix faith and science and don't find them incompatible.
Evolution

United Church of Christ says, "Evolution helps us see our faithful God through a new way."
http://www.ucc.org/not-mutually-exclusive/pdfs/pastoral-letter.pdf

The United Methodist Church declares that theology should not make authoritative claims about science.
Petition Text

So you see, there a lot of Christians who have no problem with evolution. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming and to claim the theory of evolution is not valid is to label one's self as either unknowing, uncaring or both about legitimate science and most people appreciate the benefits our advanced scientific knowledge has brought to the world and continues to bring.

Nice.


Now if we could just get 'em to kick that pesky God habit, we might be getting somewhere.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It's simply another attempt by creationist to skirt the scientific process by lobbying for creation to be taught and protected in schools.

I've asked different creationists on this forum the same question.

None of them have even replied. I doubt MoF will either

 

[bobhikes]

MoF?

How does the fact that a law has to be made so people question evolution (a rather biased way of putting it) mean that creationism is winning. I mean would you not think that if it was winning it would be allowable in the first place.

Also,

If the VAST majority of scientist support evolution and the pope (the mouthpiece of god) support evolution, how do you still argue against it. What makes you think you have the inside track on the truth here?

-Q

Current pope " Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man"

 

[McBell]

Science is your God, when all it can do is examine what God created.

Careful now.
Your desperation is showing.

 

[Oneatatime]

I've asked different creationists on this forum the same question.

None of them have even replied. I doubt MoF will either

The silence is somewhat defeaning isn't it. My own reply to this issue has been completely ignored by ID/Creationists proponents. It seems another of the ID/Creationists tactics is to ignore auguements which they can't counter.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Current pope " Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man"

Don't do that Bob.

This is about the existence of the spirit, not the physical form.

-Q

 

[bobhikes]

Don't do that Bob.

This is about the existence of the spirit, not the physical form.

-Q

Never said it was. It is a quote and both pope's that talked about evolution make the same point clear. Any theories in evolution that state the spirit of man developed from anything other than god are wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Any theories in evolution that state the spirit of man developed from anything other than god are wrong.

Do you have a dis-proof handy?

 

[bobhikes]

Do you have a dis-proof handy?

I didn't know that Revoltifarian's believed man had a spirit in him.

The current pope's actual quote is posted 6 back.
The previous pope "The Pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. 'If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God'

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Never said it was. It is a quote and both pope's that talked about evolution make the same point clear. Any theories in evolution that state the spirit of man developed from anything other than god are wrong.

That's alright, you can use an invisible man to explain the existence of an invisible item. I'm fine with that.

However this thread is about the physical so your quote is off topic.

-Q

 

[bobhikes]

That's alright, you can use an invisible man to explain the existence of an invisible item. I'm fine with that.

However this thread is about the physical so your quote is off topic.

-Q

You brought up the pope not me. I just wanted to present the facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This shows the failure of evolution science to adequately defeat ID in the lab, by needing the courts to block it.

No, it shows that ID is a political movement, not a scientific theory.

 

[bobhikes]

MoF?

How does the fact that a law has to be made so people question evolution (a rather biased way of putting it) mean that creationism is winning. I mean would you not think that if it was winning it would be allowable in the first place.

-Q

Part 2 The law is being made up so people have the right to question evolution without being put out of a job or being fired(very biased acts). This will allow scientists that support creationism to be judged on completed work instead of being fired before they can complete it so not being able to challenge the theory of evolution. I would say if the law passes it could be a very big win. If said scientists can prove with scientific method creationism.

 

[McBell]

Part 2 The law is being made up so people have the right to question evolution without being put out of a job or being fired(very biased acts). This will allow scientists that support creationism to be judged on completed work instead of being fired before they can complete it so not being able to challenge the theory of evolution. I would say if the law passes it could be a very big win. If said scientists can prove with scientific method creationism.

Sounds like you been watching to much Expelled.

Creationism should not even be mentioned in a science simply because it is not science.

 

[KnightOwl]

Part 2 The law is being made up so people have the right to question evolution without being put out of a job or being fired(very biased acts). This will allow scientists that support creationism to be judged on completed work instead of being fired before they can complete it so not being able to challenge the theory of evolution. I would say if the law passes it could be a very big win. If said scientists can prove with scientific method creationism.

A similar law, the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, actually passed in Louisiana and it was for the K-12 school system. That is a fairly big win for the ID legally and politically yes, but it doesn't mean they are winning the debate about the legitimacy of ID from an intellectual standpoint. Also, there haven't been any actual cases of a teacher using the law as an excuse to try to teach creationism/ID yet. If and when they do, they will be taken to court and the precedent is clear -- they will lose and the law will be effectively revoked.

 

[camanintx]

Part 2 The law is being made up so people have the right to question evolution without being put out of a job or being fired(very biased acts). This will allow scientists that support creationism to be judged on completed work instead of being fired before they can complete it so not being able to challenge the theory of evolution. I would say if the law passes it could be a very big win. If said scientists can prove with scientific method creationism.

Scientists who wish to question evolution without risking their job can go to work for the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, or any other organization which supports their beliefs. Why should institutes of higher education, which are primarily concerned with teaching students what we already know, have to support activities which do not further that goal?