The Bobcat Nation

An interesting non-AP article in the Billings Gazette about the Montana implications of the Kansas ID/creationism hubub.

http://billingsgazette.com/index.php?id ... lution.inc

Bay Area Cat wrote:An interesting non-AP article in the Billings Gazette about the Montana implications of the Kansas ID/creationism hubub.

http://billingsgazette.com/index.php?id ... lution.inc

BAC you sure know how to kill a forum…

This has to be one of the slowest days in this forum and BAC seems to have caused the slow down.

Or perhaps it is slow because of all of the people who have not posted today.

It has been a slow day, but I think we're well ahead of e.Griz- got bored so I went to the "dark side" for awhile to see what was up.

Bay Area Cat wrote:An interesting non-AP article in the Billings Gazette about the Montana implications of the Kansas ID/creationism hubub.

http://billingsgazette.com/index.php?id ... lution.inc

I don't think my thoughts about this issue are a secret.

I do especially like, however, evolution being challenged after decades of dominance (not sure of the years, but I like alliteration!) in public schools.

I really almost laughed at the sound bite from Shaun Harrington, the high school curriculum director: "We're talking about science classes, and this isn't science..." What's funny is evolution isn't a science, either--it can be seen as a theory for much the same reasons as creationism/intelligent design.

Are we going for a 4-page thread again?

If there is a GOD and if he in fact created mankind, he should have subcontracted the design. As a founder of a medical device design firm I can tell you that he screwed up the Joints big time, the immune system is weak and I think the Heart leaves something to be desired. The skin should be more durable (plenty of materials to pick from) but I do give him kudos on the brain. At least science has stepped up and began to correct many of these issues with artificial orgins and joints and breasts!
(oops, I mean we are trying our BEST).

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:An interesting non-AP article in the Billings Gazette about the Montana implications of the Kansas ID/creationism hubub.

http://billingsgazette.com/index.php?id ... lution.inc

I don't think my thoughts about this issue are a secret.

I do especially like, however, evolution being challenged after decades of dominance (not sure of the years, but I like alliteration!) in public schools.

I really almost laughed at the sound bite from Shaun Harrington, the high school curriculum director: "We're talking about science classes, and this isn't science..." What's funny is evolution isn't a science, either--it can be seen as a theory for much the same reasons as creationism/intelligent design.

Are we going for a 4-page thread again?

The inherent problem with creationism/ID is that they aren't scientific theories (while evolution is). They are assertions based on religion, which by definition cannot be proven or disproven. Mr. Harrington is exactly right in a scientific sense. One can assert that evolution is a flawed scientific theory and disregard it and can substitute their faith in creationism in its place. That doesn't place them on equal grounds in terms of the divide between science and faith, however.

Bay Area Cat wrote:The inherent problem with creationism/ID is that they aren't scientific theories (while evolution is).

I agree on the latter, disagree on the former part of that. Creationism is not just a "religious belief"--there have been more and more archeological finds that confirm creation. For instance, if man and dinosaur never coexisted, why then do we find sites where they are fossilized in the same area at the same depth? I can explain it with creation, but it can't be explained by evolution.

BAC wrote:One can assert that evolution is a flawed scientific theory and disregard it and can substitute their faith in creationism in its place.

There is mounting evidence that is being used to validate creation--after all, that's why schools are taking a second look at their curriculum.

But is it wrong to try to disprove something with which you disagree? You've tried to do that in the "Going to Hell" thread, and we're starting down that road in this one.

gtapp wrote:If there is a GOD and if he in fact created mankind, he should have subcontracted the design. As a founder of a medical device design firm I can tell you that he screwed up the Joints big time, the immune system is weak and I think the Heart leaves something to be desired. The skin should be more durable (plenty of materials to pick from) but I do give him kudos on the brain. At least science has stepped up and began to correct many of these issues with artificial orgins and joints and breasts!
(oops, I mean we are trying our BEST).

The body was created perfectly.

It is because of our disobeience to God that His perfect creation is no longer perfect.

[/quote]
The body was created perfectly.

It is because of our disobeience to God that His perfect creation is no longer perfect.[/quote]

If he would have called me originally I would have helped him for a nominal charge. He he wants help now he is going to pay a premium!!!!!!!!

To boil it all down, we can do away with science completely if we just adopt the ID approach of concluding that what is is because "God wanted it that way." This goes for the sky being blue or how people came to be.

It all just comes down to whether one wants to believe the vast store of available scientific data, or if one wants to replace that scientific knowledge with relgious belief.

To each his own on that one ... until people want to start teaching religion in science class, and then it gets complicated.

Everybody knows where I stand on that divide, so I won't bother elaborating any further.

gtapp wrote:If he would have called me originally I would have helped him for a nominal charge. He he wants help now he is going to pay a premium!!!!!!!!

Don't you mean we pay a premium?

BAC wrote:To boil it all down, we can do away with science completely if we just adopt the ID approach of concluding that what is is because "God wanted it that way."

As I said above, BAC, there is mounting evidence--scientific evidence--that creation is just as valid line of thought as evolution. I can track down some links, if you're interested.

BAC wrote:It all just comes down to whether one wants to believe the vast store of available scientific data...

See above.

BAC wrote:...until people want to start teaching religion in science class, and then it gets complicated.

I'm not about to claim religion ought to be taught in science class.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

gtapp wrote:If he would have called me originally I would have helped him for a nominal charge. He he wants help now he is going to pay a premium!!!!!!!!

Don't you mean we pay a premium?

I would never charge a "Bobcat" a premium! If you can prove that God is a Bobcat also then I guess he gets the discount also!

gtapp wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

gtapp wrote:If he would have called me originally I would have helped him for a nominal charge. He he wants help now he is going to pay a premium!!!!!!!!

Don't you mean we pay a premium?

I would never charge a "Bobcat" a premium! If you can prove that God is a Bobcat also then I guess he gets the discount also!

Great, I see another alias coming out this one to rival the great presidents.

Fanning the Controversy Over 'Intelligent Design'


By putting 'intelligent design' on a par with evolutionary theory, President Bush goes further than any president has since Ronald Reagan advocated teaching creationism
By MATTHEW COOPER/WASHINGTON
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHORKrauthammer: No More Monkey Trials


Posted Wednesday, Aug. 03, 2005
A light-hearted White House conversation with representatives of Texas newspapers may have opened a new controversy for President George W. Bush. The President laughed when Knight-Ridder’s Ron Hutcheson asked for Mr. Bush’s "personal views" about the theory of "intelligent design", which religious activists advocate should be taught in U.S. schools as an alternative to theories of evolution. After joking that the reporter was "doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past," to his days as governor of Texas, Bush said: "Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught...”

“Both sides ought to be properly taught?” asked Hutcheson.

“Yes,” Bush answered, “so people can understand what the debate is about."

Hutcheson followed up: "So the answer accepts the validity of ‘intelligent design' as an alternative to evolution?" Bush replied, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Hutcheson tried one more time: “So we've got to give these groups—” But the president cut him off: “Very interesting question, Hutch,” which provoked laughter.

Despite the jocular tone of the exchange, Bush’s comments could have immense fallout. The president has gone farther in questioning the widely-taught theories of evolution and natural selection than any president since Ronald Reagan, who advocated teaching creationism in public schools along side evolution. “Intelligent design” is not pure creationism. Its proponents tend not to believe, for instance, the Biblical claim that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. But they do suggest that the complex array of species on Earth could not have evolved on the basis of natural selection, and instead suggest the it reflects the hand of a hidden designer, most likely God — although some have suggested maybe aliens are a possibility.

Either way, they've found a powerful champion in the President of the United States who has gone beyond advocating local control to say that school children "ought to be exposed" to a theory that critics describe as being tantamount to religion.

H-cat: so your saying that god is punishing us for our faults?(sin,disobedience,etc...)

hokeyfine wrote:H-cat: so your saying that [G]od is punishing us for our faults?(sin,disobedience,etc...)

On one hand, we suffer the consequences of Adam's disobedience and have inherited a sinful nature from him. In chapter 5, verse 13 of his Letter to the Romans,

the Apostle Paul wrote:...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

Adam sinned. We didn’t. He was in the Garden of Eden. We were not. When we face God on the day of judgment, the Lord won’t say to us, "Adam sinned, so you are going to pay for it." We are responsible for our own sins, not the sins of others.

On the other hand, we are affected by Adam’s sin. Genesis 1:31 tells us that before the introduction of sin into the world (refered to as "the Fall"), Adam was sinless, perfect, and good. After the fall, he became a sinner. Since we descend from his lineage, we inherit his sinful nature. In this sense, we suffer for what Adam did; that is, he caused his descendants to have sinful natures and all of us suffer because of it. It means that we have inherited a sinful nature and that all of what we are as individuals (mind, body, soul, spirit, emotions, and thought) is touched by sin.

All descended from Adam ... we sure are an inbred species, aren't we? It's odd that we don't all have genetic diseases.

Bay Area Cat wrote:It's odd that we don't all have genetic diseases.

We all have genetic flaws of some sort or another. Some wear glasses, some are hard of hearing, some have weak hearts, etc, etc.