The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Creation, cultural wars and campus crusade > Comments

Creation, cultural wars and campus crusade : Comments

By Alan Matheson, published 30/12/2005

Alan Matheson sees sinister implications behind the Intelligent Design debate

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 26
  9. 27
  10. 28
  11. All
Dear Coyote
it seems like you have your mind made up. A few facts would not matter ? :)

Why not have a read of Genesis 10 where we pick up on the 'table of nations' resulting from the 3 sons of Noah.

I know of no document which attempts to outline the branching out of human history in such a detailed and verifiable manner.
Even the 'hook' point of the Flood is contained in 35 known ancient 'myths' from all parts of the world and many cultures. Of those 35, 18 include 'God caused the flood' and 17 include 'warning by God'

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

I read Genesis 5-50 during my holiday (again -for the umpteenth time)
but this time I focused on the 'genealogies' and tribes etc. Mentally I put myself among my wifes people of Borneo, and recalled how I'd listened to complex genealogies from many branches of complex families being uttered in oral tradition as if they had happened yesterday. Then, you go to a different village, and hear the SAME structures uttered by different people, and they are.. surprise the SAME. What we read in Gen10 is so believably natural and true, and is supported by history, archeology and common sense.

The fascinating thing about genealogies is the little 'tidbits' of extra information that often goes with an outstanding name.
Example:

Gen 36:24
<<These are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. This is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father.>>

This presupposes WIDE KNOWLEDGE of a certain Anah, and the Hot springs he found. Why put this there unless it happened, was real, and related to verifiable events and places.

If you know of any other document which explains the origins of the tribes and races and langauges, in such believable terms, please feel free to let me know.

But re topic, I assure you, it is not 'theocracy' we seek, but 'balance' and in a democracy, we have just as much right as anyone to shape the nation. Thinking is alive and well.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 30 December 2005 3:33:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to coach and david

i presume you also belief that leviticus needs to be followed hence you would support the reintroduction of stoning adulterers to death

If you don't then you are advocating only following a sub set of the bible's teachings that you agree with. In fact you would be using god's name in vein to support your ideology and beliefs

Isn't that a sin?
Posted by slasher, Friday, 30 December 2005 3:44:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"When ANY group in our society feels morally superior and imposes its views on others we are in trouble."

I agree. It's interesting that Christianity teaches its adherents to be humble, and that the greatest sin is pride. When people get uptight about people who "sin differently to themselves" and use whatever religious/political affiliation they have to denigrate such people, its wrong. The paradox of the Christian faith is, while it teaches all are sinners (and equal), it also teachers that "right vs. wrong" exists, lays out clear directions for what is right, and directs its followers to do so.

Living in a free country as Australia, I have no problem with Christians/church groups contributing as much to the political sphere as any other group of Australians. Where they teach some things are right and some are wrong, these must be weighed up across the balance of the collective thoughts of other Australians to see how much of it is implemented by law.

What I'm saying is that the CR having influence in Australia is not evil; the CR abusing that influence is wrong.

Another thing that really drives me crazy "ID and creation science are not science, as recently judged by US courts, they are religious dogma."

First of all, I don't have too much faith [no pun intended] in what lawyers have to say about biology or theology; its not their area of expertise. One of the two anti-evolutionist scientists presented in that case was NOT a Creationist (Micheal Behe) so I'm not quite sure how it was religious dogma. Secondly, I thought we were trying to decrease the amount of influence Americans had in Australia, not increase :).
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Friday, 30 December 2005 3:56:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally I reject that ALL tenets of evolution are science. There are the observable forms of science- microevolution, natural selection, mutations, etc.

Then there's the unproven, perhaps not falsifiable belief that all of these processes combined to push evolution in the opposite direction to which we currently observe it. We currently observe "evolution" making organisms MORE specific, losing the genetic information for whatever seemed "unnecessary" (e.g. dogs with long hair being breeded for cold climates). However this actually prevents against future evolution if those "unnecessary" parts become necessary (e.g. the climate becomes warmer due to global warming, etc.)

Also in many cases inbetween species are hard to even imagine (a breathing bird without a fully formed avarian lung?) let alone find evidence for.

I'm not saying macroevolution is impossible- it's possible, but there isn't enough evidence yet to make it fact or science. Its just a very incomplete theory that many put their hope on as the explanation of life. Until I see some pretty convincing proof akin to the proof atheists seek for God, I find no reason to accept it.

What I believe:

(1) Study the elements of science we can observe.
(2) Make inferences of science based on our understanding (e.g. breeding is possible therefore macroevoling is possible; organisms are complex and it is difficult to even imagine an inbetween species that could exist, let alone find evidence for one, therefore God created the Earth, etc.)
(3) Treat (1) as science and (2) as philosophy until something from (2) can be proven.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Friday, 30 December 2005 3:56:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The very large, wealthy evangelical "American" style Churches with their wealth and health 'gospel?'are not Christian. Instead they are man's religion.
There is a difference, Christianity is the way of life espoused by Christ and the early Apostles.
Religion is from the evangelicals the health and wealth gospel and large churches.
From the mainstream churches it's the bells and smells and traditions with the pretty coloured frocks for the preachers and their funny hats. numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 30 December 2005 4:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prof. Michael Behe. His own university and his wedge document.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, an organization that works to promote a Neo-Creationist religious agenda centering around Intelligent design, and is the hub of the Intelligent design movement. The strategy is a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "affirm the reality of God".

The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention by a leaked fund raising tool, informally known as the Wedge Document, used by the Discovery Institute to raise money for its subsidiary charged with promoting its science and education agenda, the Center for Science and Culture, at the time called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). As stated in the Wedge Document, the strategy is designed to defeat "Darwinism" and to promote an idea of science "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The ultimate goal of the wedge strategy is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values.

Michael Behe's own words "Who needs science when you have faith"
Religious Dogma to me !!
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 30 December 2005 4:58:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 26
  9. 27
  10. 28
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy