Florida newspapers continue to editorialize on the side of good science. The Daytona Beach News Journal: Anti-evolution bills defy science
Lawmakers don’t seem to be questioning the validity of “alternative theories” to evolution. Instead, they’re bickering over how far they should push public schools to allow those alternatives — which don’t qualify as valid scientific theories — to be taught. In the process, lawmakers strain the credibility of an education system that already ranks among the most distressed in the nation.
And they try their constituents’ patience. Those listening to the debate on the House version of the evolution bill undoubtably came away with a poorer opinion of their elected leaders; the discussion was rancorous, peppered with sanctimony and disdain for established scientific standards.
Tallahassee Democrat “My View” column: Seeking ignorance in the name of God
The Christians for whom I am attempting to speak do indeed believe that God created the heavens and the earth, including the process of evolution, by which we have arrived at this unique place in the history of the world. We also believe that God has spoken to us through the inspired words of Scripture. And we even believe that God continues to hear our prayers, however imperfect our understanding of that phenomenon may be. But what we do not believe is that God created the universe in a literal six-day period a relative few thousand years ago. We also do not believe that mentioning God’s name in public a few more times each day will cure the ills of our country. And we do not fear the theory of evolution being taught to our children in the public schools.
Christians have no reason to fear evolution, and in fact have much to celebrate when considering the wonder of biodiversity, of which we humans are an integral part. But we should fear ignorance in God’s name. One, because it weakens the place of God in our world; and two, because legislation such as the Evolution Academic Freedom Act will inevitably invite some students to ignore the preponderance of evidence supporting the process of evolution if they so wish, weakening their own standing.
I to am a Christian. As a Christian you not only have faith in Christ but in the words he inspired. All through the Old and New Testamant it talks of God creating the heavens and the earth and all of the animals therein. He made these in 6 days. It says he spoke the world into existance and made each animal specifically. Anyone who is of the Christain faith cannot pick and chose what he wants to believe in the Bible or not. If he is to be true to his Saviour he must take the words he says as truth. There is no fear of evolution but one needs to speak up for the truth. If you allow error then you allow a lie. If you allow a lie then you are deceived and will allow another lie then after awhile you become deluded and really don’t know what you believe anymore. God created all things he spoke thme into existance. All things that are made were made from thing not seen. God is a Spirit and he made all things. This world is a shadow of the spiritual world and by faith you can “see” the spiritual world. God gives faith to all to understand enough to know that this is true. But one chooses not to believe then thats his choice and he will never fully understand life. Its a sad thing. But those who call themselves Christian should read and understand the scriptures more. But to those who don’t know the Lord this will be foolish in their eyes – the scripture says this. So this is for those here that think that the Darwinian theory is compatable with Christ’s teaching. It is not. Even Dawkins admits to this. At least he is candid on the subject – which others aren’t.
Steve is very helpful in pointing out the difference between religion and superstition. Religion can evolve over time; superstition is fixed. An argument can be made that religion requires thought, even if one is of the persuasion that the premises of these thoughts are flawed. Steve’s superstition, on the other hand, is immutable for all time. In New Testament terms, this is reminiscent of the people who refused to listen to Jesus because he represented a break from their superstitious traditions.
Mike, I appreciate your comments. But it seems like we have a different lexicon. I believe that Jesus Christ is God and came in the flesh. If that is superstition to you then so be it. Religion is man made. A relationship with our maker is sought after by God and should be by man also.
Your observation of our Lord’s confrontation with the scribes and the pharisees were indeed over the traditions of man, but he also stated that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” God is immutable man isn’t. Man’s traditions are indeed what he is exposing. Also by his Word he exposes Darwinism as a false tradition – even though you call it “science.” The term science is derived from latin for the word knowledge – however your “scientific method” excludes total knowledge and makes a narrow definition. But that is your choice and the students should be made aware of it. We can look at life through a narrow set of parameters but others look from a greater perspective than your approach. Your approach is not out Lord’s approach and thus is a tradition of man.
Wow, I especially like the part of the bible that says that if a man rapes my daughters, he’s better marry ’em or at least offer up some shekels for payment! That is of course, taking into account that they were not stoned to death because they did not cry out loud enough.
That would be Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:24
Gosh, I love God so!
Steve;
I honestly do have empathy with your position and the position of many fundamentalist of all faiths.
How ever (and I know you will not agree) there are many who favor an allegorical interpretation of the story of creation and claim that its intent is to describe humankind’s relationship to creation and the creator.
Having faith in scripture is fine,and there are many great examples of how to live a “good Life”(do unto others).
Unfortunately the bible contains many errors and scientific mistakes, so to take all scripture literally is almost impossible.This would also apply to the creation account in Genesis.
Are you aware that a allegorical interpretation of a passage in Genesis is found in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians ?(Galatians 4:22-26).The wording of the phrase, “this is being allegorized,” indicates that Paul sees the passage as being true both literally and allegorically.
Just trying to help and not be offensive.
There are many religions around the world. Who knows if there is only one “right” religion. I do not think that there is any one more “correct” than another. I don’t care how many followers or how long it has been around or to what god(s) they pray. Who cares? If people have faith/believe in something (and are not harming others in thier practices) and it helps them in life, good for them, just leave everyone else alone about it. But most important of all- leave religion OUT of government. They don’t mix well. You can have ethics and morals without religion.
And lastly- religion is NOT science and should not be taught as such!
I am an Ex-Christian and can understand why Steve is forced to play the “no true Scotsman” game regarding the beliefs of other Christians which differ from his. This is the reason there are roughly 30,000 denominations of Christianity. As the Bible is mainly mythological, it is open to all sorts of interpretations. As people tend to fear what is different, schisms create fragmentation. I’ve seen these things happen first hand.
And that’s all fine by me as long as you just keep those opinions in your church and don’t drag them into our schools.
Yes allegory is found the Bible there is no dispute with that. Also God did create man out of the ground, no dispute from scripture over that either. The problem is that there are varying views on evolution. The concept is at odds with the method of creation. Darwinian theory is void of any supernatural effect or even any Intelligent Design posit. You, Ivory, are among only a handful of those who may embrace the Darwinian Theory with a belief in the supernatural. The vast majority do not. However there was a cause from whence life came on this earth. Is it not conceivable to you that God created man in an instant ? Darwinian theory would tell you that man evolved from lower forms of life. This would be totally inconsistent with the scriptures. Man was made and the scripture says his knowledge of right and wrong were written in his heart. No other form of life has this. Is there sin to be found in any other living creature ? Indeed the basis for God’s law was to teach man, who had strayed from God, how to love God and his fellow man – from this all the law and the prophets have their purpose. Man was created as a moral agent from the beginning of time, but strayed from his moral compass, no other living thing has this. You limit God in your conclusions. So we see others are hostile in their view of God, at least your not.
Never-the-less what is wrong with having this discussion in the classroom ? Why the fury over critical thought ? If the promoters of Darwin have all the answers they should be thrilled to be challenged and then patiently explain their response. But why the vitriol ?
Again Mr Green, all religions are man made.
Spirula, I find that the most ardent Darwinians once hade a religious background. Usually they have been either frustrated with religious fanatics or have been offended by some imposter. This is understandable. Some have rejected their upbringing because they view God as being to morally suppressive. But to say that it is mythical would be an inappropriate conclusion. You obviously haven’t forsaken science because there may be many theories of evolution. Science can be a great area of exploration and it is to be commended that some use science for the good of mankind. However most Darwinian believers rule out the supernatural because its not in their frame of reference but they should not conclude his non existence because of the same method.
Now Fire, if you quote the scripture, please be more accurate. No where does it says if a man rapes a woman he is to marry her. Is it your intention to use the term rape to twist the meaning of the passage ?
To interpret that passage it has to be in the light of loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as our self.
The Exodus quote has to do with a man and woman volunteering to have sexual relations. The man is to be held accountable to the woman’s protective father. If the father sees that the man is not good for the girl he can refuse for his daughter to marry him because he wants what’s best for his daughter.
The Deuteronomy quote has to do with discerning forcible rape or a voluntary sexual relation of a woman, who is betrothed to another man. If the man forcibly rapes her he is to be put to death. If she commits adultery she was to be put to death along with the man.
You erred by not reading it out of context and by your adding words that are not there.
It should read “You erred by reading it out of context ….” sorry.
It’s Ms Green, but that’s okay, no way for you to know.
I know religion is man made, that was what I was getting at with the above statement, because it’s man made who’s to say what is right, and therefore should all religions have their say in science class as to how the world came to be? No, here’s why- it is religion, not science. If students want to take a religion/philosophy class (as an elective) and learn about alternate ideas of how things came to be that would be fine by me. But, again, Intelligent Design is not hypothesis-based science, it is based on religious doctrine and therefore has no place in a public school science classroom in which there are children of various faiths. Also, public taxes pay for public school- here again, not everyone believes the same thing, and I’m sure many don’t want to pay for religious teachings in school.
Frankly Steve, ignorance, presumption, and arrogance is what I’ve come to expect from morally challenged Christians like yourself.
Why morally challenged? Basically, my decoversion from Christianity began when I realized my creationist biology teachers (Christian school and college) were misrepresenting evolution, lying about the evidence for evolution and were dishonest about the science. They, like you, are liars. You lie about the Theory of Evolution and it’s scientific merit. You lie about motivations and intents of people who support the theory of evolution. You even lie about the “only a handful of those who may embrace the Darwinian Theory with a belief in the supernatural” (see below).
And you refer to those who support evolution as “Darwinians” attempting to paint them as some kind of religious group following Darwin (thus trying to get Evolution classified as a religion or a cult…oh, yes you do. I came out of your camp and know that is exactly why that term is used and yet not “Newtonians” or “Einsteinians” or “Pasteurians”.) It’s calculated attempt to shift the argument and ignore the evidence. It’s dishonest.
So, Steve, thanks for reminding again how grateful I am to have left such an ignorant and dishonest god-munching cult.
Oh, by the way Steve, the largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, accepts the theory of evolution. Maybe you should be spending your time explaining to them how they “rule out the supernatural because its (sic) not in their frame of reference”.
All this reminds me of this quote:
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Sorry Ms Green for the mistaken identity.
I understand your perspective, but would you not agree that congress passes laws based on some moral judgement ? Now the idea of what is right or wrong usually ends up with the majority view being passed in legislation. This is the guideline for many peoples belief system (the majority rules) I don’t necessarily agree with majority rule because the consensus can be wrong sometimes. Now a religion is based on some man made doctrines which may have their own set of values. However our country legislates from the perspective of the individual legislator’s belief system. Everyone makes daily decisions based on what their belief system is (whether they know it or not). It is true that congress shall make no law with respect to establishing a (man made) religion nor prohibitng the free exercise therof. However morality never-the-less always plays a part in legislation.
But to say ID is a religous belief is like saying anything that is intelligently designed is a religous belief.
Spirula I guess civil discourse is not one of your main suits. But if you like to call me names or cast aspersions then that is fine with me. Obviously a nerve was hit. It is important to remain calm when you have a discussion. Otherwise the observers will see how you say something not what you say. That’s just the way many observe.
ID is a religious belief. You believe that there is a creator without proof of his existence. There is absolutely no shred of empirical evidence in support of a theistic creator. None.
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” Joshua 6:21
So since Steve does not question any part of the Bible, would he say that the divinely-ordained slaughter @ Jericho is genocide or not? Was this biblical truth in action? Would he say, “They needed killin’ “? You can’t remove the meaning of simple statements like that in the OT by claiming they were taken out of context. And I already know the typical responses: that was then, this is now (different dispensation); or God had to do that to maintain racial purity. Genocideis justified, because the end justifies the means.
Likewise, re: rape in OT. “”If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days.” (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29).
Sounds like rape to me on an unwilling partner. The irony is that the penalty is chiefly economic (the father now has tainted property, that is, his daughter. Is this a timeless principle? Would you accept comparable compensation for your daughter’s virginity?
Those that believe in biblical inerrancy always argue that the Bible means what it says– except when it doesn’t–and a convoluted rationalization for a nonsensical interpretation must be inserted and defended at all costs.
Anyone who is of the Christain faith cannot pick and chose what he wants to believe in the Bible or not.
Steve, do you not realize that with this statement alone, you not only label all the Christian pro-evolutionists as non-Christian (which I’m sure was what you intended), but the majority (perhaps even all) of the creationists, IDists, and the rest of the religious fundamentalists who are facilitating this sham controversy. Here’s a little known fact that I’m sure even you yourself is guilty of: All “Christians” of whatever denomination you can find DO pick and choose what to believe from the bible. Technically, if you believe in a round earth, spinning and orbiting around the sun, you are NOT a Christian. (You would be ignoring Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1, Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Yes Karl. Steve’s statement reeks of ignorance. Ignorance of science, ignorance of his own religion, and ignorance of other Christian denominations.
Spirula I guess civil discourse is not one of your main suits.
I see nothing to be “civil” about when it comes to lying and misrepresentation. I called you on it. You don’t like it, too bad. Your preaching, condescension, and judmental attitude are getting you respect? Who’d of thought?
Frankly, I see nothing about the ID/creationist movement worthy of academic respect, and I resent the attempts to politically inject it into public schools, to which my kids go. That’s the nerve.
Steve, yes I agree congress passes laws based on moral judgements, but you can have morals without religion. Again, I understand that many peoples morals probably originate from religious teachings, but it is not necessary.
I am not Christian, and I have some understanding of the teachings (I am not trying to be a smart ass) how do you regard modern technology? The reason I ask is that I would guess there is nothing about it in the bible.
Those that believe in biblical inerrancy always argue that the Bible means what it says– except when it doesn’t
Hermeneutics 101: The bible is literally true as long as I’m comfortable with what it says, and when I’m not comfortable it is metamphorically true.
should be peoples’
Jehu, you added a word in the text to prove your point (seize) It is not in the original text. An with regards to the slaughter at Jericho. I will ask you a question – Do you believe that Ben Laden and his followers should be punished ?
Zy, you’ve made up your mind to do what you want – that’s your choice. Have a good day.
Karl that was not my intention at all. I never said all Christian evolutionists are not Christians. Please read carefully and don’t read anything into what I’m saying. That happens a lot on here I see. We can have a debate on what scripture says but I know that will not convince you of your error in your perceptions. This may be the case or not, but usually a man’s morality dictates his theology or lack thereof. We can become embroiled in what the scripture says or not. Just one example: When people say today the sun is going down do they really mean that the sun is actually going down ? Think about it.
And Spirula, there is nothing here I’ve lied about. If you want to project what another misfit has done that is your decision. All that I can say is someone must have really hurt you to be so bitter. I wish you nothing but the best.
I will leave this site, take care. Just to let you know that one of your future supervisors has been in your presence.
In other words, you are completely incapable of refuting my point that ID is a religion.
You are mistaken. I don’t work in fast food, Steve. I work in the technology field, a field in which your kooky beliefs would put you at a disadvantage. I use something every day that you should study in depth: logic.
Its interesting that I thought I could have civil discourse here. The only one who seems to be reasonable is Green Earth. I could give you my credentials but it seems that you already have your mind made up to where I am coming from.
Oh… so you consider claiming that you will be one of our “future supervisors” is completely civil?
I don’t see how I could have mis-interpreted what you have said. You stated very clearly that a Christian cannot pick and choose from the bible, yet ALL Christians do. You start playing word games with these extremes and you’ll eventually find yourself short of your own standards. I am not debating scripture with you, nor do I want to. I am merely pointing out how asinine and hypocritical your extremist views are. You declare yourself to be a Christian in your opening statement and then proceed to lay down a line between Christian and non-Christian which I KNOW you yourself have crossed many times and are still crossing now. So don’t be all surprised and indignant when we accuse you of being arrogant and judgmental.
…not to mention ignorant. 😉
Don’t bother. Even a fool can get a degree. A degreed fool is no better than a fool with no degree. I’d argue that you are worst off, since your education appeared to cost you a lot, yet did so little to open your closed mind.
worse off, even.
Ah, the “bitter” card. For those of you who may not know, this is the usual tact of a fundy Christian dealing with those who’ve “left the fold” and knows their game. Check out the comments of fundy trolls on Ex-Christian.com sometime. These people can’t accept that there are many of us who left because we decided Christianity was a fraud. That irks them no end, so they always have to come up with some “someone must have really hurt you” rejoinder. It’s easier than dealing with reality.
I like this little gem that comes after complaining about everyone being uncivil:
“Just to let you know that one of your future supervisors has been in your presence”.
Always go for the low road in the end.
Steve, kinda reminds me of someone in this exchange
Ah yes, the old out of context move hardly. I paraphrased what the passages say.
Lets look at both verses in question
Here’s the Exodus ones
22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
So, if you talk ( read force) my daughter to lie with you, then you have to get married. Or, if I refuse you must pay me.
Now Deuteronomy
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
This tells me that if you ( subjective ) rape my daughter, and she doesn’t yell loud enough, you have to stone her-most likely to death.
Am I missing anything?
Jehu, you added a word in the text to prove your point (seize) It is not in the original text.
The divinely inspired King James Version has “lay hold of” which pretty obvious means the same thing. Some other translations explicitly use the word “rape.” Regardless of how it is translated, it is readily apparent that it is NOT translated as meaning “touches her tenderly and makes sweet love to her.” This obfuscation of abundantly clear meaning is exactly the sort of thing that comes to easily to fundamentalists facing an uncomfortable meaning in biblical texts. This is why we don’t trust you to be interpreting scientific texts or empirical data either. You constantly bend facts to suit your sectarian purposes.
Do you believe that Ben Laden and his followers should be punished ?
Uh, is the Pope Catholic? What exactly is your point? The question is whether *you* think all Muslims should be put to death for the actions of Bin Laden. Well do you? Is it OK to kill 100 Iraqi children in order to kill one terrorist? Does the end justify the means.
Just to let you know that one of your future supervisors has been in your presence.
I take that to be an explicit threat to “troublesome” science teachers to shut their mouths. How charming. Or do you mean a “supervisor” once the theocratic rule is established in America and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are abolished–maybe as commandant of a re-education camp for “evolutionists”?
jehu –
My guess is that he means that he is slowly working his way up at the local fast food chain at which he works, and he will soon be able to serve us as a supervisor if we should have a complaint as a customer. His anti-science attitude certainly wouldn’t make him supervisor over me or anyone else here.
I have often wondered, how can god and jebus create this here book, and have it taken out of context. I mean, since god ordered the advance copies, you’d think that it would be written in such a way that there would be no room for interpretation and that you could not take this inerrant book out of context.