|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/26/2008 6:10:58 PM
|
|
|
flyboy2610
Posts: 142
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Let the fools laugh.
_____________________________
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
Red Green
If you're going to live like there's no hell..... you'd better be right.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/3/2008 8:23:46 PM
|
|
|
hackenslash
Posts: 6
Joined: 12/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
Since ID took a butt-kicking in the case, it would be unlikely the program could have spun any other way. Remember the issue was the teaching of SCIENCE, not Sunday School.
Still, the program was unnecessarily biased. Nova made no serious attempt to explain what ID was, but only to ridicule it. For example, in the last episode with ACTOR BEHE they did a masterful job of pulling a comment out of context so as to associate his views with astrology. If you read the Dover transcript, you can see that Behe was referring to some questions in ancient astrology that he considered valid scientific questions in their time. He explicitly said he was not referring to modern astrology. Yet, the way Nova presented the exchange, many viewers came away with that impression.
In fact, Behe was making a perfectly valid point about the proper boundaries of science. One may agree or not agree with him. But instead of fairly summarizing this issue, Nova just used the word "astrology" to make ID look foolish. The show was full of this sort of thing. It was not necessary for Nova to spin the program this way.
How could it be unnecessarily biased? Creationism is not science, and has no place in a science class, whether you believe in it or not. Science is not subject to popularity, whim, democratic processes, or anything else, other than the presentation of the best models currently in use for the explanation of how things work. the creation myth has no place in this context, especially as it is clearly bunk by any testable standards, which is what science is about.
_____________________________
Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind - David Zindell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/3/2008 9:10:22 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 5151
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
Hackenslash,
Welcome to forums. In light of your recent postings, you may not be aware of the posting guidelines for those who do not believe in Creation. Although everyone is allowed to take part in the debate, we do not allow people on this board to repeatedly teach that God had no hand in creating the world. The Terms of Service that you agreed to follow when you signed up states that:
quote:
15. You will not promote by repeated statements, by provision of URLs to other Web sites, by recommendation to engage in non-community activities such as watching programs, reading books, or attending events, or by any other means, beliefs or teachings contrary to those of Christianity as articulated by the historic creeds, as understood by Evangelicalism, and as interpreted by Salem Web Network in its sole discretion.
Here is the part of our Range of Doctrines that pertains to the Evolution/Creation debate:
quote:
4. Creation, "young earth," Evolution:
Range of views:
Most Faith Community Network staff, monitors and users believe that God specifically and individually created each species and that Darwinian macro-evolution is a lie. Many believe creation took place over six 24 hour days between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. However, many O/Es [including C. S. Lewis and most British evangelicals] believe that God may have used evolution as one facet of the creation of the universe, and that the word "day" in Genesis need not preclude creation taking place over billions of years. An increasing number of evangelicals believe that the Big Bang is a more powerful argument for a Christian view of Creation than it is for an atheistic or materialist view.
Unacceptable:
Forceful, sustained argument that science has completely disproved any involvement of God in creation and that evolution, if true, requires that God not exist or that human beings are nothing more than animals.
I would suggest that you take a few minutes to review these guidelines.
Sincerely,
Lisa Luper,
Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Bonky
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/3/2008 9:24:48 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 5151
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
Hackenslash,
Please email community@salemwebnetwork.com concerning the status of your account. Please allow time for a response.
Please do not post under this handle or any other until you have heard from the administrator.
Sincerely
Lisa Luper
Forums Volunteer
Faith Community Network
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message as I am unable to discuss it further.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please allow time for a response.
Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.
_____________________________
Bonky
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/4/2008 9:30:23 AM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 1010
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
How could it be unnecessarily biased? Creationism is not science, and has no place in a science class, whether you believe in it or not.
It probably doensn't matter now... but Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.
Also, for anyone who hasn't heard about it yet... Ben Stein's feature "Expelled: No Intilligence Allowed" was very well done and is probably a good counterpart to the PBS show.
_____________________________
P.U.S.H. Pray Until Something Happens
What if God is asking us for a sign?
Knowledge is proud; wisdom is humble.
Patiently waiting for my KSA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 7:52:03 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
quote:
How could it be unnecessarily biased? Creationism is not science, and has no place in a science class, whether you believe in it or not.
It probably doensn't matter now... but Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.
Not so different really. The creationists on the Dover school board, knowing that teaching creationism in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment, thought they could sneak their agenda in by substituting Intelligent Design. Dr. Forrest has observed that the ID Movement can trace it origins to the creationist movement and is nothing more than a transparent attempt to sneak by Edwards v. Aguillard.
According to ID creationist Dean H. Kenyon, "Scientific creationism, which in its modern phase began in the early 1960s, is actually won of the intellectual antecedents of the intelligent design movement." Kenyon is a fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and co-author of the ID textbook that began as a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 8:52:38 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
quote:
How could it be unnecessarily biased? Creationism is not science, and has no place in a science class, whether you believe in it or not.
It probably doensn't matter now... but Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.
Not so different really. The creationists on the Dover school board, knowing that teaching creationism in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment, thought they could sneak their agenda in by substituting Intelligent Design. Dr. Forrest has observed that the ID Movement can trace it origins to the creationist movement and is nothing more than a transparent attempt to sneak by Edwards v. Aguillard.
According to ID creationist Dean H. Kenyon, "Scientific creationism, which in its modern phase began in the early 1960s, is actually won of the intellectual antecedents of the intelligent design movement." Kenyon is a fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and co-author of the ID textbook that began as a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People.
How is it a violation of the First Amendment?
Here's the actual text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Darwinism has clearly become a religion to some people, yet the gov't insists on teaching it. So, if Creationism or Intelligent Design violates the First Amendment, then so does Darwinism. Teaching the two side-by-side, if anything, upholds the First Amendment.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 9:33:23 AM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 1010
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Not so different really. The creationists on the Dover school board, knowing that teaching creationism in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment,
Its not a violation of the first ammendment, I don't care what the God-hating courts have said... I would expect nothing less.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Dr. Forrest has observed that the ID Movement can trace it origins to the creationist movement .
Uhh... so what? Protestants can trace their movement back to the Catholic Church. That doesn't make them the same church nor do they adhere to the same doctrines. Some early Christians were even Jews once! *shock* That doesn't make the Jewish faith and Christianity the same thing, the only common thread is both believe in the one true God.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
According to ID creationist Dean H. Kenyon, "Scientific creationism, which in its modern phase began in the early 1960s, is actually won of the intellectual antecedents of the intelligent design movement." Kenyon is a fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and co-author of the ID textbook that began as a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People.
Again, what's your point? The only thing they really have in common is acknowledgement of a higher power. Big whoop-di-do.
_____________________________
P.U.S.H. Pray Until Something Happens
What if God is asking us for a sign?
Knowledge is proud; wisdom is humble.
Patiently waiting for my KSA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 10:40:11 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7598
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Uhh... so what? Protestants can trace their movement back to the Catholic Church. That doesn't make them the same church nor do they adhere to the same doctrines. Some early Christians were even Jews once! *shock* That doesn't make the Jewish faith and Christianity the same thing, the only common thread is both believe in the one true God.
This is a very excellent point. In fact, if one thinks about it, evolution can 'trace it's roots back' in the same sense to creationism, as creationist ideas preceded evolutionary ones in Western culture.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 11:08:34 AM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 1010
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
In fact, if one thinks about it, evolution can 'trace it's roots back' in the same sense to creationism, as creationist ideas preceded evolutionary ones in Western culture.
Yep! The Origin of Species has many references to creation. Darwin originally saw science as a way to explain the "laws" God designed.
I think it is interesting that at the end of Ben Stein's movie he is talking to an athiest scientist who admits that a more intelligent/advanced form of life could have came and started life on earth. He vehemently denies any possibility of God's existance. The glaring question in my mind at that point was, "OK Mr. Smarty Pants, how did THAT race come into existance? Or, why is it so hard to believe that the more intelligent life form was *gasp* God?" Mental acrobatics if fascinating.
_____________________________
P.U.S.H. Pray Until Something Happens
What if God is asking us for a sign?
Knowledge is proud; wisdom is humble.
Patiently waiting for my KSA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 11:18:36 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
How is it a violation of the First Amendment?
It is a violation of the First Amendment because the courts have consistently decided it is a violation based upon the evidence brought before them.
quote:
Here's the actual text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Darwinism has clearly become a religion to some people, yet the gov't insists on teaching it. So, if Creationism or Intelligent Design violates the First Amendment, then so does Darwinism. Teaching the two side-by-side, if anything, upholds the First Amendment.
Evolution is science, not religion. The theory of evolution has none of the attributes of religion. On the other hand, ID creationism is firmly rooted in religion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 11:22:40 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Not so different really. The creationists on the Dover school board, knowing that teaching creationism in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment,
Its not a violation of the first ammendment, I don't care what the God-hating courts have said... I would expect nothing less.
It is not up to you (or me for that matter) to decide what is and what is not a violation of the Law of the Land. It is up to the courts. Each and every time creationism has been challenged in the courts, creationism has been found to be a violation.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Dr. Forrest has observed that the ID Movement can trace it origins to the creationist movement .
Uhh... so what? Protestants can trace their movement back to the Catholic Church. That doesn't make them the same church nor do they adhere to the same doctrines. Some early Christians were even Jews once! *shock* That doesn't make the Jewish faith and Christianity the same thing, the only common thread is both believe in the one true God.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
According to ID creationist Dean H. Kenyon, "Scientific creationism, which in its modern phase began in the early 1960s, is actually won of the intellectual antecedents of the intelligent design movement." Kenyon is a fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and co-author of the ID textbook that began as a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People.
Again, what's your point? The only thing they really have in common is acknowledgement of a higher power. Big whoop-di-do.
If for no other reason than that, ID creationism is not science, but religion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 11:28:21 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7598
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is not up to you (or me for that matter) to decide what is and what is not a violation of the Law of the Land. It is up to the courts. Each and every time creationism has been challenged in the courts, creationism has been found to be a violation.
Well, no, actually it is up to the citizens of the United States; the courts ultimately only act on their understanding of the law, which can, and has changed; and there is no reason whatsoever why elected representatives shouldn't regularly explore the limits of the law.
quote:
If for no other reason than that, ID creationism is not science, but religion.
If the difference between scientific and religious belif is the ability to acknowledge reality, then I think it is science that is at the distinct disadvantage here.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 11:29:30 AM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 1010
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Each and every time creationism has been challenged in the courts, creationism has been found to be a violation.
Oh, that makes it a correct ruling then doesn't it? Bias is never a factor in the decisions of people.
quote:
If for no other reason than that, ID creationism is not science, but religion.
Why?
_____________________________
P.U.S.H. Pray Until Something Happens
What if God is asking us for a sign?
Knowledge is proud; wisdom is humble.
Patiently waiting for my KSA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 11:42:40 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
quote:
Each and every time creationism has been challenged in the courts, creationism has been found to be a violation.
Oh, that makes it a correct ruling then doesn't it? Bias is never a factor in the decisions of people.
Not A correct ruling. Each and every time creationism or ID has been challenged, it has been found to be unconstitutional. Creationism has never withstood a challenge.
quote:
quote:
If for no other reason than that, ID creationism is not science, but religion.
Why?
The Higher Power (Designer) is God. The creationists on the Dover School Board realized this when they decided promote Intelligent Design. Science is the study of the natural world and is not equiped to study the supernatural.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 11:45:32 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
How is it a violation of the First Amendment?
It is a violation of the First Amendment because the courts have consistently decided it is a violation based upon the evidence brought before them.
Whether the courts agree on this or not is not the issue. I can choose to disagree with their liberal interpretations.
quote:
quote:
Here's the actual text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Darwinism has clearly become a religion to some people, yet the gov't insists on teaching it. So, if Creationism or Intelligent Design violates the First Amendment, then so does Darwinism. Teaching the two side-by-side, if anything, upholds the First Amendment.
Evolution is science, not religion. The theory of evolution has none of the attributes of religion. On the other hand, ID creationism is firmly rooted in religion.
Evolution is very poor science, if science it is. It's not observable.
People treat evolution as their religion, therefore, I consider it religion.
You realize all the great scientists were creationists before Darwin? No one doubted that there was a creator to the universe. Nearly all religions believe in some sort of creator. To teach ID alongside Evolutionism is not an endorsement of one religion or another. To not teach it is actually a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 12:31:56 PM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 1010
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Not A correct ruling. Each and every time creationism or ID has been challenged, it has been found to be unconstitutional. Creationism has never withstood a challenge.
that's right, it is not a correct ruling any time it has been ruled upon. it is very telling that cases continue to be heard on the subject. the case is not so closed it would seem. just because one side outweighs another in the court doesn't mean the majority is correct.
quote:
Science is the study of the natural world and is not equiped to study the supernatural.
That's your misconception. The natural world was created by a super natural being, you can't study the natural world without accounting for that fact. If science isn't equipped to study based on that, then perhaps science needs to re-evaluate itself or rediscover it's roots.
quote:
People treat evolution as their religion, therefore, I consider it religion.
You realize all the great scientists were creationists before Darwin? No one doubted that there was a creator to the universe. Nearly all religions believe in some sort of creator. To teach ID alongside Evolutionism is not an endorsement of one religion or another. To not teach it is actually a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Excellent.
_____________________________
P.U.S.H. Pray Until Something Happens
What if God is asking us for a sign?
Knowledge is proud; wisdom is humble.
Patiently waiting for my KSA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 1:42:44 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
How is it a violation of the First Amendment?
It is a violation of the First Amendment because the courts have consistently decided it is a violation based upon the evidence brought before them.
Whether the courts agree on this or not is not the issue. I can choose to disagree with their liberal interpretations.
I happen to agree with the courts' decisions in the matter. The writers of the Constitution realized that there would be disagreements. The courts system was established to resolve those disagreements.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Here's the actual text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Darwinism has clearly become a religion to some people, yet the gov't insists on teaching it. So, if Creationism or Intelligent Design violates the First Amendment, then so does Darwinism. Teaching the two side-by-side, if anything, upholds the First Amendment.
Evolution is science, not religion. The theory of evolution has none of the attributes of religion. On the other hand, ID creationism is firmly rooted in religion.
Evolution is very poor science, if science it is. It's not observable.
People treat evolution as their religion, therefore, I consider it religion.
I know of no one who treats evolution as their religion. I certainly don't treat evolution as my religion.
quote:
You realize all the great scientists were creationists before Darwin? No one doubted that there was a creator to the universe. Nearly all religions believe in some sort of creator. To teach ID alongside Evolutionism is not an endorsement of one religion or another. To not teach it is actually a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
You can believe there was a Creator. I don't have a problem with that. You are free to have faith in your religion. But science is not based on faith. Science is based on cold hard evidence.
It's not a violation of the law unless a court decides it is. When and where did a court decide to not teach ID was a violation of the First Amendment to free speech?
ETA:
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
Whether the courts agree on this or not is not the issue. I can choose to disagree with their liberal interpretations.
Liberal? The judge in the Dover trial was a conservative Christian appointed by President Bush. Hardly a liberal!
< Message edited by Veritas -- 12/5/2008 2:02:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 2:03:04 PM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 1010
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I happen to agree with the courts' decisions in the matter.
No kidding, really??
quote:
Science is based on cold hard evidence.
Too bad they can't get past that sticky little subject of origin. BTW has science sucessfully proven there is no God? Or that their theories negate the existance of one?
quote:
It's not a violation of the law unless a court decides it is. When and where did a court decide to not teach ID was a violation of the First Amendment to free speech?
The courts are never wrong and certainly (in the rare case they are wrong) they don't uphold the same wrong rulings more than once!
ID is NOT a violation of the First amendment. The only leg you have to stand on is that a group of flawed individuals continue to uphold the same incorrect decision. BHD.
_____________________________
P.U.S.H. Pray Until Something Happens
What if God is asking us for a sign?
Knowledge is proud; wisdom is humble.
Patiently waiting for my KSA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 2:10:30 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
Evolution says that Humans came from Apes. There is no cold hard evidence for that.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 2:36:23 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
BTW has science sucessfully proven there is no God? Or that their theories negate the existance of one?
No and no.
quote:
ID is NOT a violation of the First amendment. The only leg you have to stand on is that a group of flawed individuals continue to uphold the same incorrect decision. BHD.
Dover settled that. ID is creationism, and the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment.
I stand on the courts decisions. What do you stand on?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 2:45:48 PM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 1010
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
BTW has science sucessfully proven there is no God? Or that their theories negate the existance of one?
No and no.
quote:
ID is NOT a violation of the First amendment. The only leg you have to stand on is that a group of flawed individuals continue to uphold the same incorrect decision. BHD.
Dover settled that. ID is creationism, and the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment.
I stand on the courts decisions. What do you stand on?
So if science hasn't proven there is not God and their theories do not negate the existance of one; do their theories prove that God did not set the natural world in motion? i.e. do they prove that the world wasn't created? If so, how?
I stand on the bible.
_____________________________
P.U.S.H. Pray Until Something Happens
What if God is asking us for a sign?
Knowledge is proud; wisdom is humble.
Patiently waiting for my KSA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 12/5/2008 2:54:21 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
BTW has science sucessfully proven there is no God? Or that their theories negate the existance of one?
No and no.
quote:
ID is NOT a violation of the First amendment. The only leg you have to stand on is that a group of flawed individuals continue to uphold the same incorrect decision. BHD.
Dover settled that. ID is creationism, and the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment.
I stand on the courts decisions. What do you stand on?
So if science hasn't proven there is not God and their theories do not negate the existance of one; do their theories prove that God did not set the natural world in motion? i.e. do they prove that the world wasn't created? If so, how?
I stand on the bible.
Science cannot prove God exists, nor that He does not. Science has nothing to say about God one way or the other.
If you stand on the Bible, please tell me where in the Bible does it say that the teaching of ID in public schools is NOT a violation of the First Amendment?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
