Bill Nye the Science Guy: Parents--don't teach your kids "Creationism"

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
I'll always accept prayer. Don't get what I said confused though. There is a difference between having faith in God and absolute faith that a book you read is a true and complete representation of the word of God. My gaurd is always up. There have been many edits to the book we have modern day and I believe you must be guided by the Lord moving in your spirit and use the gift of discernment, which we have received through his grace. Now that's that for me. God bless!

This isn't meant as an attack TracyNicole, but if the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, then why believe anything the Bible says? If you can't trust what the Bible teaches us about creation, then why trust what it says about Christ? Or good and evil? Or the resurrection and eternal life?
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
Creationism is great when it's taught in Sunday school or parochial school where it belongs. The problem is people trying to crowbar Creationism into science curriculums in secular schools. Creationism is not science, it's religion. These two fields of discipline have no reason to cross streams.

What ? ? ?




What about public schools crowbaring evolution into the minds of children who are unable to defend themselves. These schools are actually telling the children that their parents are lying regarding Creation... which is wrong! :nono:

See, I know what's going on. :nono: The devil is bent on separating this generation from God.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
Creationism is great when it's taught in Sunday school or parochial school where it belongs. The problem is people trying to crowbar Creationism into science curriculums in secular schools. Creationism is not science, it's religion. These two fields of discipline have no reason to cross streams.

I think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, because much in this world and in the universe are intelligently designed, in addition to organisms with irreducible complexity (which cannot be biochemically explained by natural selection/macroevolution).
 

aribell

formerly nicola.kirwan
Galadriel said:
I think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, because much in this world and in the universe are intelligently designed, in addition to organisms with irreducible complexity (which cannot be biochemically explained by natural selection/macroevolution).

Ita. ID is based on the anthropoc principle, which is 100% based on scientific fact. ID is often assumed to be reading from Genesi and it is not. William Dembski has written a lot about this. William Lane Craig is another source who writes of the logical fallacies in the reasoning often used to discount intelligent design.

The problem with science as it is often taught today is that students are taught to assume that anything other tgan the mainstream thought is not credible. Many people defend scientific schools of thought that they honestly could not explain tye first principles of with accuracy. Not that we all need to be a science wiz to be informed; but I think it's both interesting and concerning that people defend so strongly what they can't really verify/test themselves, which just seems like conditioning. Macro evolution is defended and ID mocked not because most have drawn that conclusion themselves but because they have been continuously taught that such is what reasonable people believe.

So much thought control in this society.

Eta: sorry for all the phone typos!
 

TracyNicole

Well-Known Member
That God is the First Cause, the Intelligent Designer and Creator is a fundamental belief of Christianity. So to tell someone not to teach their child that God is Creator, is to tell that person not to teach about God.

As for your comment regarding religious belief and ignorance, this is exactly the type of bigoted mentality that I disagree with. Many scientists throughout history have been deeply religious, and some of them were priests or clerics.

Because God created a stable, natural world endowed with goodness, we believe in studying, examining, and understanding it.

Excuse you! My statements were not bigoted at all. You know I was going to type out this long response but it's just not worth it. You are entitled to your opinion. You have no facts to support your position and are unwilling to have intelligent discussion so I'll leave it at have a nice day.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
Ita. ID is based on the anthropoc principle, which is 100% based on scientific fact. ID is often assumed to be reading from Genesi and it is not. William Dembski has written a lot about this. William Lane Craig is another source who writes of the logical fallacies in the reasoning often used to discount intelligent design.

The problem with science as it is often taught today is that students are taught to assume that anything other tgan the mainstream thought is not credible. Many people defend scientific schools of thought that they honestly could not explain tye first principles of with accuracy. Not that we all need to be a science wiz to be informed; but I think it's both interesting and concerning that people defend so strongly what they can't really verify/test themselves, which just seems like conditioning. Macro evolution is defended and ID mocked not because most have drawn that conclusion themselves but because they have been continuously taught that such is what reasonable people believe.

So much thought control in this society.

Eta: sorry for all the phone typos!

:yep: Sure is. The mind is the 'soil' where the thoughts are planted and cultivated. The fertilizer is hell's dung, and the water is polluted it's raw sewage. :nono:
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
What ? ? ?

Step away from confused Sam Jackson and embrace focused Sam Jackson. Here he go.


What about public schools crowbaring evolution into the minds of children who are unable to defend themselves.

1. The average underfunded, overcrowded, public school sysem in this country can barely crowbar reading, writing and arithmetic into children.

2. There is no crowbarring scientific theory into science. Evolution is part of science, to take it out is like drawing a face without eyes and trying to pass it off as complete.

These schools are actually telling the children that their parents are lying regarding Creation... which is wrong! :nono:

A teacher who said that to a child would be fired. What I know of the first court case challenging evolution is that the child was taught about Darwins theory and the parents demanded that the school include Creationism. That's a big difference from a teacher calling parents a lie.

See, I know what's going on. :nono: The devil is bent on separating this generation from God.

In 1610, Galileo Galilei used a a telescope he built to observe the solar system, and deduced that the planets orbit the sun, not the earth.

This contradicted Church teachings, and some of the clergy accused and convicted Galileo of heresy.

It took 300 years after his years spent in house arrest and eventual death for the Church to acknowledge that Galileo was right.

I bet these folks thought the devil was bent on separating their generation from G-d as well.

Just sayin
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
I think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, because much in this world and in the universe are intelligently designed, in addition to organisms with irreducible complexity (which cannot be biochemically explained by natural selection/macroevolution).

Philosophy and organic chemistry have these subjects covered.

Intelligent Design or Creationism or all the other euphemisms for Theology should be taught in church or through parochial education.
 

DDTexlaxed

TRANSITION OVER! 11-22-14
Evolution teaches how we came from apes and everything supposedly started from organisms in the water. If that is so, why is there so many "natural" laws? Why is it there still monkeys on the earth, if we came from them and replaced them as the dominant species? Scientists can't explain why or how come animals we supposedly came from can't talk or recognize their reflection in the mirror. They have recognized that the tonsils, a body part they once thought was of minor value, is the first defense against colds. In fact, they still can't explain why our brain is able to store more information than a super computer or why most use very small percentage of it. It is amazing on how they go to great extents to disprove the existence of God, yet claim how evolution somehow through blind chance made things come about. It is too much order in the world for blind chance to make things just right.:rolleyes:
 

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
Crackers Phinn said:
Philosophy and organic chemistry have these subjects covered.

Intelligent Design or Creationism or all the other euphemisms for Theology should be taught in church or through parochial education.

Neither good scientist nor a good science class would discount an extremely credible theory because of personal bias. People are against intelligent design because it would lead to religion of some sort and (in America at least ) we have an obsession with keeping religion in its respective temples. Intelligent design is only feared/blackballed because proving the existence of the creator would also lead to morality and the accompanying implications.
Basically what I am saying is that the absence is not an objective decision. No other explanations have so much evidence and yet have been so disregarded as a viable respected theory.
 
Last edited:

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
Step away from confused Sam Jackson and embrace focused Sam Jackson. Here he go.




1. The average underfunded, overcrowded, public school sysem in this country can barely crowbar reading, writing and arithmetic into children.

2. There is no crowbarring scientific theory into science. Evolution is part of science, to take it out is like drawing a face without eyes and trying to pass it off as complete.



A teacher who said that to a child would be fired. What I know of the first court case challenging evolution is that the child was taught about Darwins theory and the parents demanded that the school include Creationism. That's a big difference from a teacher calling parents a lie.





I bet these folks thought the devil was bent on separating their generation from G-d as well.

Just sayin

You're speaking from the heart of an 'unbeliever'.

Those who know and love God do not deny His presence nor existance in any aspect of life. In the beginning was God and He Still is and He will always be, and He will always love, even those who choose to exclude Him.
 

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
Crackers Phinn said:
Physical evidence derived from fossil research supports Evolutionary Theory. What physical evidence is there for Intelligent Design?

The exact and perfect measurements, proportions, and intricate workings of a simple cell. The building blocks of life are waaaaaay more complex than our most advanced super computer and works in such harmony with the world around it that it points way more toward a designer than millions of random mutations. Also the fact that mutations cannot explain purpose. Everything we have has a purpose. In evolution everything (all these separate living organisms and ecosystems) are lead by random chance (or if you wanna go there then a desire to survive which would still leave the question of where that desire came from but anyways..
). From that standpoint evolution is simply illogical when weighing the probability of millions of factors coming together to form us and the world we live in...by chance. We would never apply this kind of "logic " to anything else. When I see a car I know that it is waaaaaay to complex to have randomly made itself or rather evolved from a pile of steel etc. Even if I found a wagon, a carriage, a model T Ford and a Hummer I would never assume that it had morphed itself into something purposeful. I would look for its creator.
 

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
Crackers Phinn said:
Well, if a persons heart condition needs to have a certain status to embrace Creationism or Intelligent Design, then it's best left to be taught in church.

I know this wasnt addressed to me but it kinda speaks to what I was saying before that many who are not believers will out of hand reject intelligent design without having done any research into whether it is a credible theory or not. They reject a religion rather than intelligent design.
Also there are tons of Sciences believers and non believers who to believe in intelligent design. But this is always left out of any discussion in school and society for reasons that I stated above.
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
I know this wasnt addressed to me but it kinda speaks to what I was saying before that many who are not believers will out of hand reject intelligent design without having done any research into whether it is a credible theory or not. They reject a religion rather than intelligent design.
Also there are tons of Sciences believers and non believers who to believe in intelligent design. But this is always left out of any discussion in school and society for reasons that I stated above.

I am a practicing Jew. I belive in G-d and I also believe in science.

I reject Creationism or Intelligent Design because it is Theology marketed as science. I have read Sean McDonald's "Understanding Creative Design" and "Intelligent Design" by William Dembski along with countless articles on the subject. So I did not pull my assertion out of the air.

I take what goes into the public school curriculum very seriously. If we are going to teach children about science then teach them science. Trying to sneak religion into science does a disservice to the children and does not make the 'sneakers' smell so fresh either.
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
The exact and perfect measurements, proportions, and intricate workings of a simple cell. The building blocks of life are waaaaaay more complex than our most advanced super computer and works in such harmony with the world around it that it points way more toward a designer than millions of random mutations. Also the fact that mutations cannot explain purpose. Everything we have has a purpose. In evolution everything (all these separate living organisms and ecosystems) are lead by random chance (or if you wanna go there then a desire to survive which would still leave the question of where that desire came from but anyways..
). From that standpoint evolution is simply illogical when weighing the probability of millions of factors coming together to form us and the world we live in...by chance. We would never apply this kind of "logic " to anything else. When I see a car I know that it is waaaaaay to complex to have randomly made itself or rather evolved from a pile of steel etc. Even if I found a wagon, a carriage, a model T Ford and a Hummer I would never assume that it had morphed itself into something purposeful. I would look for its creator.

What you have described is philosophy which is exactly the curriculum that Theology falls into not Science.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
I am a practicing Jew. I belive in G-d and I also believe in science.

I reject Creationism or Intelligent Design because it is Theology marketed as science. I have read Sean McDonald's "Understanding Creative Design" and "Intelligent Design" by William Dembski along with countless articles on the subject. So I did not pull my assertion out of the air.

I take what goes into the public school curriculum very seriously. If we are going to teach children about science then teach them science. Trying to sneak religion into science does a disservice to the children and does not make the 'sneakers' smell so fresh either.

sneaking religion? It's actually the other way around. Evolution is used to 'sneak' atheism into the minds of innocent children. If anything it should not be taught at all, simply because it's all based upon a lie, in an attempt to exclude God who is indeed real. In truth evolution is where the sneakers exist...and the smell is indeed polluted.

In the presence of God and respect for Him is the sweet fragrance which this entire world needs. It's the absence of God that is the cause for so much evil that is in our schools. The children and teachers have no hope; evolution is unable to give hope or life. People are dying because the true life has been shut out and kept away from them.

It's sad that we live in a world where the ONE solution to the ills of this world is so widely rejected and refused and instead of being called 'God', He's called a sneak. God doesn't deserve that... He doesn't. What has He done to deserve it? Nothing, except encournter the hardness of people's hearts who will use any reason / excuse not to accept Him, but to reject all that He is.

Phinn, sooner or later none of us can continue to "Practice" God, we have to drop the falacies of rejection and either accept all that God is or leave Him alone all together. However there is no middle ground, for anyone. The raffle ticket for blaming others for not accepting Christ, has no winners, the event has expired, there was never a prize; only a path into darkness, losing one's soul.

This 'thing' evolution is a lost cause. What has it done to benefit the children? What has it done to reduce school crimes, chilren killing children; teachers with so many odds against them that they've been rendered incapable of being effective and a positive influence upon their students.

With God, these children would be safer and their needs would be met; the teachers would have the walls of resistance changed into walls of protection.

God was never meant to be eliminated from any school, public or private. :nono:
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
G-d is in all things, including evolution.

Prove me wrong.

Phinn, there's nothing to prove. Without God there would be no Heaven and Earth and all of creation; it's the scientists who are leaving God out, and calling evolution 'god', not giving God credit for all that exists.

What non-believers, the this government and the school system has done was remove God from the 'equation' and making it seem as if all of creation simply 'evolved' without any existance of God.

It ironic, because they speak of this 'force' which caused things to evolve, which indeed proves that God does exist. Yet these folks do all they can to dismiss His existance. It's messed up and the 'mess' is spreading more and more causing more mess in our schools and in society. It's a mess and only God can fix it, however He's been pushed out.
 

Nice & Wavy

Well-Known Member
Just thought I'd interject...a little:yep:

````````````````
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html#.UE1mx1Q3zEM

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
by Rich Deem


Introduction

Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Here is what they say:

The quotes


Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16)

Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
 

Nice & Wavy

Well-Known Member
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
Just thought I'd interject...a little:yep:

````````````````
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html#.UE1mx1Q3zEM

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
by Rich Deem


Introduction

Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Here is what they say:

The quotes


Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16)

Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

The smile on God's face...soft and rejoicing to have won the hearts of men who once did not believe.

"The Beauty of the Cross"

Thank you, N&W ... for making God's heart smile. :love3:
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
Phinn, there's nothing to prove.


Actually, the statement as I expressed it is a tenant that proponents of Intelligent Design use to support their arguement. Quite frankly someone with more than superficial knowledge of the subject would have identified it as support for I.D.

Yet, you dismissed it outright.

Do you even know what it is that you are supporting?
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
Actually, the statement as I expressed it is a tenant that proponents of Intelligent Design use to support their arguement. Quite frankly someone with more than superficial knowledge of the subject would have identified it as support for I.D.

Yet, you dismissed it outright.

Do you even know what it is that you are supporting?

You've been contradicting yourself up post, so the question actually applies to you.

I'm solid on my support, God's Word, nothing about Him should be eliminated in any aspect of life and pertaining to the topic of this thread, God should not eliminated from public schools.

If you haven't figured that out by now... :look:



You disagree with it, which is what you've never failed to convey.
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
So your answer is that you don't know anything about Intelligent Design, but this topic that you don't know anything about should be inserted into the school system?

Got it.
 

aribell

formerly nicola.kirwan
I think an important question is what the purpose of education is in the first place. It is impossible to speak of isolated scientific facts without drawing together a broader interpretation of their significance, which is exactly why so many believe that science has "disproven" faith...because the interpretation of facts that was presented to them was hostile to a religious p.o.v. or presented in such a way as to suggest that religious faith is either irrelevant or something only for individuals on a personal level, as if it has no bearing on the world in general.

Education is formation of the mind, will, and emotions (soul) to become a person who values certain things and has the knowledge to accomplish certain tasks. I do not believe that it is possible to sequester faith away from education overall, since one's worldview (religious or secular) will determine what the purpose of being educated is in the first place. Being considered "educated" is very much relative to the cultural milieu in which one lives.

Public schooling is not the ideal scenario to speak of. It's an imperfect solution to a need that can't be filled elsewhere at the moment, but the concept overall generates many issues. Many don't seem to bat an eye at the idea of the government deciding how children should be formed (or, as one parent shared, what their child can eat--parents were prohibited from packing their kids' lunches). The one doing the educating shapes pupils in ways they see fit and for their overall purposes.
 
Last edited:

Iwanthealthyhair67

Well-Known Member
Shimmie

I'm reminded of this

Colossians 1:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


Phinn, there's nothing to prove. Without God there would be no Heaven and Earth and all of creation; it's the scientists who are leaving God out, and calling evolution 'god', not giving God credit for all that exists.

What non-believers, the this government and the school system has done was remove God from the 'equation' and making it seem as if all of creation simply 'evolved' without any existance of God.

It ironic, because they speak of this 'force' which caused things to evolve, which indeed proves that God does exist. Yet these folks do all they can to dismiss His existance. It's messed up and the 'mess' is spreading more and more causing more mess in our schools and in society. It's a mess and only God can fix it, however He's been pushed out.
 

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
I am a practicing Jew. I belive in G-d and I also believe in science.

I reject Creationism or Intelligent Design because it is Theology marketed as science. I have read Sean McDonald's "Understanding Creative Design" and "Intelligent Design" by William Dembski along with countless articles on the subject. So I did not pull my assertion out of the air.

I take what goes into the public school curriculum very seriously. If we are going to teach children about science then teach them science. Trying to sneak religion into science does a disservice to the children and does not make the 'sneakers' smell so fresh either.

Crackers Phinn

Ok. Im a little confused.
Can you please answer the following questions so that I understand your viewpoint better:

1. How are you a practicing Jew but reject intelligent design? (FYI I am not trying to be facetious at all but am genuinely curious). Are you a theistic evolutionist?

2. Do you think that the way that evolution is taught in school is objective?

3. How do you reconcile natural selection with the Mosaic interpretation of the begining and purpose for life?

4. Do you believe that Evolution is a fact or a probable theory?

5. Do you believe that since the majority of peoples in the world (especially america) believes in some sort of diety that it would be fair to offer an alternative theory in a science class (along with whatever pros/cons, holes etc. exists-as long as they do the same for evolution)? I say science and not philosophy because if we went that route then natural selection should not be taught either due to the fact that it attaches motives that it can't really support.

Thank you in advance...
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
1. How are you a practicing Jew but reject intelligent design? (FYI I am not trying to be facetious at all but am genuinely curious). Are you a theistic evolutionist?

I reject Intelligent Design as Science. I accept it as Theology.

I will take a Doctor who has studied biology (i.e. science) over one that has studied Intelligent Design all day every day. I know there are people who believe in praying sickness away and they are free to do that. I'ma ride this Doctor thing out till the wheels fall off.


2. Do you think that the way that evolution is taught in school is objective?
Just as objectively as english, math, social studies, etc.

3. How do you reconcile natural selection with the Mosaic interpretation of the begining and purpose for life?

I don't understand the question specifically the bolded.

4. Do you believe that Evolution is a fact or a probable theory?

Probable based on physical evidence that supports most if not all of the theory.

5. Do you believe that since the majority of peoples in the world (especially america) believes in some sort of diety that it would be fair to offer an alternative theory in a science class (along with whatever pros/cons, holes etc. exists-as long as they do the same for evolution)? I say science and not philosophy because if we went that route then natural selection should not be taught either due to the fact that it attaches motives that it can't really support.

What you are saying is to put religion in the classroom wherever it can fit and if that just happens to be science, then oh well.

Trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole does not change the shape of the peg or the hole.

No. All things deity related is Theology and should be studied within the confines of parochial private education or Church study.
 
Top