<p>I learned the moon was made of cheese.</p>
<p>If I am going to comment I want to have some facts…what do you think of the science book?</p>
<p>Genesis and the Big Bang, by Gerald Schroeder, a nucl. phys., offers a possible reconciliation of bible and science. He uses strict science, and sentence by sentence analysis of Torah in the style of older commentators but from a scientists viewpoint.</p>
<p>"Biology God’s Living Creation</p>
<p>Thoroughly Christian in perspective and tone.
Truly nonevolutionary in philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study."</p>
<p>A description of the 10-12 grade biology book</p>
<p><a href=“Abeka | Product Information | Biology God's Living Creation”>Abeka | We are performing routine maintenance;
<p>so, if they are truely teaching both sides fairly, their description of their own books say otherwise…</p>
<p>interesting reading, gonna look up some more bio-christian text books…learning a lot I am</p>
<p>The main mistake you guys are making is treating ID like it’s an “alternate viewpoint” in a “controversy.” I keep hearing about the “flaws” in evolution and how we should “teach both sides.” THERE ARE NOT TWO SIDES, NOR ARE THERE FLAWS. EVOLUTION ACCOUNTS FOR ALL EXISTING EVIDENCE AND IS WELL SUPPORTED. While we’re at it, let’s just teach that disease is caused by God instead of microbes, or that the seasons exist because God is manic-depressive, or that thunder is God bowling.</p>
<p>GDWilner, hehehhe</p>
<p>This thread has been going on far to long, but new scary stuff keeps coming up in the news</p>
<p>And when it gets politcal, watch out…</p>
<p>And ID is a way of trying to make creationism more palatable to the public, but when some research is done, it is easy to see how the two are kissing cousins</p>
<p>Sigh, off to look for the man in the moon</p>
<p>[see above]</p>
<p>I would have thought, considering the subtleties of nature and precision of science, there would have been some difficulty in distinguishing those who simply do not see design in science and nature and those who simply hate the idea of a God and therefore see design in science as a way of attacking their main and real foe: the suspected designer, God.</p>
<p>Alas, it is all too obvious. </p>
<p>Some here have started entire threads in order to ridicule and despise belief in something greater than themselves, i.e. God; others have just never missed a golden opportunity to exhibit their intolerance of those imperfect beings who do believe that there is something greater than themselvesgod.</p>
<p>Ironically, in any other context these same posters often see tolerance as the only substantial virtue worth addressing (the other virtues having been overly tainted with their past association with the aforesaid greater being and in the behavior of those who practiced such virtues in praise of that greater being); though, it seems, they only mean tolerance of what they are predisposed to approve (notwithstanding the fact that tolerance demands charity toward what you are not predisposed to approve, rather than what you are a boundless advocate of).</p>
<p>I suppose it makes some people feelin some wi****lly charming waythat they are smarter, or of better stock than others.</p>
<p>Design in Science? The books are blatantly anti evolutionary, not tolerant of it, not tolerant of science and the Bible has all the answers.</p>
<p>Okay, there are many views I am intolerant of, as a liberal- some are religious and culturely based and I don’t care.</p>
<p>Female Circumcision…Burkas…child brides…boy soilders…private citizens caring around loaded guns…taking parts of the Bible so literally it allows for beating of children and wives…subserveance…saying that the Christian way is the only way…</p>
<p>Tolerance does not mean ignorance, hurting others and thinking, well thats okay, teaching hate and accepting that others hate</p>
<p>And yeah, I made a joke about the book. It was really quite funny. A poster made the claim that kids that learn “both sides” of creation and evolution and ID are taught fairly. I saw no fairly in the short parts they posted.</p>
<p>One book said NON EVOLUTIONARY and the other said that the only ture story of how the moon was created, the only scientific story is the one from Genesis. Sorry if it offends that I found that ironic. Genesis is not science. To say it is is pretty blatant.</p>
<p>And why don’t you address the books? You didn’t do that.</p>
<p>You choose to show that some people who claim tolerance are not always 100% tolerant of all things all the time. </p>
<p>But teaching bad science and then expecting those kids to understand the world in a scienctific way when their science and biology comes from the bible. </p>
<p>As someone who take pride in being an intellectual and a lover of science in its purest form, I wonder what you think of the books?</p>
<p>But, you choose to ignore that aspect and once again jump on everyone else</p>
<p>Well, I went and looked at both “Christian” books. Wow, what can I say?</p>
<p>They’re complete trash, and I despair of the future of this country if that passes for science in any school that is certified to give a diploma.</p>
<p>You know, I think Christ had a lot to offer, but I don’t think a literal interpretation of the Bible is what He had in mind.</p>
<p>Ill take the bait, such as it is: </p>
<p>Seems to be a textbook for creationists and thus hardly relevant to a discussion of design a la Einstein, Nobel prize winners Charles Townes and Paul Dirac, Polinghorne, Davies, Kistiakowski etc., or even to this thread.</p>
<p>I suppose this textbook to be exactly what ABeka publishers promise: Biology God’s Living Creation; wherein the raison detre of the text is Gods living Creation rather than Biology. There is no hidden agenda here; the agenda is printer in bold type on the front of the book, even those with blinders on should have no problems in guessing at this one.</p>
<p>I see no need for this endless confusion and obfuscation.</p>
<p>Design in nature does not exclude or contradict</p>
<ol>
<li> Evolution</li>
<li> Creation</li>
<li> First Principal/Cause</li>
<li> Reason/logic</li>
<li> Monotheism</li>
<li> Pantheism</li>
</ol>
<p>I believe many here are interested in a different thread; either, Christianity v Atheism, or Creation v Evolution. </p>
<p>Or, more to the point: the endemic evil of Design in Nature.</p>
<p> …</p>
<p>PS.
What an interesting definition of tolerance</p>
<ol>
<li>That which I approve of; otherwise, ridicule and contempt on you and yours.</li>
</ol>
<p>Look, Ill end this here and now. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state, there is no God or that Christianity is a load of ****. Darwin and his contemporaries had no anti Christian intentions when they established their theories. They were blind to religion, and just followed their understanding of the universe to the establishment of a theory. The problem is, this theory does conflict with religion. Christianity in particular, because if it conflicted with any other religion: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any other ism under the sun, the majority of this country wouldnt care. But because it does seem to conflict with Christianity, the people of this country feel a need to teach ID to prove that Christianity isnt wrong. I say this country because european countries that are also predominantly Christian dont put one iota of stock into this, rather they accept the contradiction for the time being and move on. These countries also realize that their students will grow up and be the worlds leaders in biology and the sciences, so they must be correctly educated. And, as I have said repeatedly, while evolution makes no comment one way or another about God, ID teaches the existence of God (Jesus in particular, the others dont matter) and as such is a violation of Church and State, no quesions asked.</p>
<p>Not that it should matter, but I am not a Christian myself and I know quite a number of people who are not Christians, even some atheists but quite a few Hindus and Muslims who believe in design: most.</p>
<p>As to violation of church and state this would not be possible as there is no absolute separation of the two in the constitution of the USA.</p>
<p>If you believe there is a separation of church and state refer to the section or amendment in the constitution.</p>
<p>They were blind to religion, and just followed their understanding of the universe to the establishment of a theory</p>
<p>This is patently untrue and even a quick perusal of any serious writing on Darwin would confirm this; Darwin was very concerned about the religious implications of his theory on the descent of man and was loathe to publish it for this very reason. However, it would be correct to say that Darwin was not trying to invalidate religion or theism as such.</p>
<p>The problem is, this theory does conflict with religion. Christianity in particular, because if it conflicted with any other religion</p>
<p>This is an overbroad statement; most of the initial supporters of the theory were Christian and even today, evolution as a process is accepted by most people of faith and Christians in particularthey just do not see that evolution as a scientific process excludes a design and they are right.</p>
<p>I have been looking at scientific journals- biology mostly- to get some better understanding of my daughters undergrad thesis topic and I was wondering- are there articles by proponents of ID/creation theory in the scientific research ?
Ive read articles re: scientists attacking the premise that ID is science and I’ve read articles by backers of ID arguing their case, but I haven’t run into an article that uses science to prove that theory- not one that I understand anyway.
( oh never mind I googled my own question)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As per my good friend Merriam-Webster-
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity</p>
<p>Someone who believes in ID by definition isnt an atheist. ID as Bush advocates it calls for an active creator who is still working among us.
Please dont put words in my mouth. Darwin of course understood the religious implications of his theories, but he did not set out to undermine religion, only the furtherance of science. The fact he did decide to publish his papers after deliberation is proof of that. Now I dont know your firends, but my instinct tells me you are confusing the two forms of ID. The first is simply, the universe was designed by a creator, and it was designed by certain laws we call science, the end, without any calling for divine intervention and has no bearing on science in general. It is simply something most people believe. But Bush proposes teaching that God intervened after the creation of the universe to speed up natural evolution and change the laws of probability. Believing in design is fine, I believe in design as I stated earlier, but that is where it ends. Calling for divine intervention after the Big Bang is another thing entirely. And of course most people who support evolution are Christian. Most of the western world is Christian. As for speration of C&S, where do you draw the line. Its a slippery slope between public schooling and an all out Christian theocracy.</p>
<p>
Yes. What is so hard to understand about this? I just came back from a week’s vacation, and I can’t believe that such a simple concept is still a point of contention here. But, I will say again, everything I have to say on this subject appeared on the first page of this inaptly named, and seemingly-neverending thread. <em>IF</em> a school district insists on teaching the “fact” that random evolution explains the process of <em>CREATION</em>…<em>THEN</em> that school district should teach that this is just one of several theories regarding <em>CREATION.</em> I’ve never met anyone who disagrees with the concept of biological evolution, although I know that such exist, and that they make convenient strawmen (persons) for the secular left. Otherwise, I see no inconsistency between evolution and the notion that evolution wasn’t <em>necessarily</em> an accident, i.e, ID. Too much NPR going on here.</p>
<p>driver, did you read emeraldkitty’s post?</p>
<p>
Hey there, dmk092…welcome. Where the heck are you getting that piece of information? I hate to be rude, but there’s way too much garbage floating around here to let that particularly exquisite example pass. Put up your source. I did read EK’s post.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you. There is too much **** out there and you should challenge everything you read. The problem in a forum is as new people join a conversation you end up repeating yourself. So here I go again…
Here you can read the transcript from Bush’s intervie where he comments about ID
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/08/02/BL2005080201070_5.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/08/02/BL2005080201070_5.html</a>
Where it is mentioned that ID is clearly at odds with evolution. Plain ID and evolution are not at odds, many scientists believe in both. Irreducible complexity is where it gets hairy and contradicts evolution as it is taught in schools. For everyone who has been on this board awhile, forgive me for not having referred to Irreducible Complexity by name in prior posts, the name slipped my mind for a while.</p>
<p>DMK,
Nothing in the Froomkin column you cite says that the president thinks that “ID is clearly at odds with evolution.”</p>