Updated 08:19 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Education|Tue, Oct. 13 2009 10:23 PM EDT

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

Atheist author Richard Dawkins has made it loud and clear that he believes faith has no place in science and that a public debate between him and a creationist – of any type – is out of the question.

“The objection to having debates with people like that (creationists) is that it gives them a kind of respectability,” Dawkins said during a recent appearance on the Michael Medved show.

“If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned,” he told Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman, whose organization is best known for its advocacy of Intelligent Design.

Following that same logic, Dawkins insisted in another media appearance that only “evidence” can lay the groundwork for science, not “superstition, authority, holy books or revelation.”

Therefore “alternatives” to science have no place in a public school classroom, not even to discuss, the British biologist suggested.

“You may think that God oversaw evolution, and that's a point of view that you could probably defend, but leave it out of the science class,” he told Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor.

Dawkins is currently promoting his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, which was released last month.

In the book, Dawkins expounds the evidence for biological evolution, insisting that evolution theory is not a theory, but in actuality a fact, as much as it’s a fact that the earth is round.

“This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the 'theory' of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science,” Dawkins writes.

The release of The Greatest Show on Earth coincides with the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the landmark publication of the 19th century naturalist’s On the Origin of Species, which introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection and presented evidence suggesting that the diversity of life arose through a branching pattern of evolution and common descent.

The book’s release also comes as 44 percent of Americans say they believe God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years and half of Britons are either strongly opposed to the theory of evolution or confused about it.

Among those Americans who do believe in evolution, 36 percent say they believe God guided the process, and among Britons, 12 percent say the prefer the idea of intelligent design, which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

In his appearance on the Michael Medved show last week, Dawkins criticized Intelligent Design as just another version of creationism and an idea unworthy of discussion.

“I will have a discussion with somebody who has a genuinely different scientific point of view,” he said when asked why he won’t have a debate with Intelligent Design proponent Stephen Meyer.

“[But] I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put,” Dawkins added.

To date, the British biologist has written ten books, a number of which focus on evolution, including The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. Though it was The Selfish Gene that drew Dawkins into prominence in the late 1970s, he is best known for his 2006 bestseller, The God Delusion, in which he contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that such beliefs, based on faith rather than on evidence, qualify as a delusion.

Since the publication of The God Delusion, several books have been written in response. Such works include The Dawkins Delusion?, Darwin’s Angel, and most recently  Atheist Delusions, published this past April.

Dawkins has referred to such responses as “fleas” – topical parasites that leech off of the fame and controversy of his book.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "... isnt it telling thou that I cant tell the difference between what you espouse and what the atheists espouse here..."

    Mental illness?

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    rhi, no point, just wanted to hear more specifically about your salvation experience and I appreciate your willingness to share it!

  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:14 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    Good for Dawkins, Intelligent Design is a very silly thing and certainly there is no value in debating it.

    1. You believe/practice pre-marital sex and see nothing wrong with it.

    Yup, what is wrong with it exactly? What is it about marriage that somehow changes the act of sex? If someone is married does that mean they have to have sex? Why is sex axiomatically bad? Why are theists and your gods so obsessed with it?

    2. You believe/practice homosexual and other non-heterosexual forms of sexual union are O.K.

    I believe there is nothing wrong with other people being gay; I myself find the idea of two men having sex to be completely disgusting. However I think two women having sex is quite hot; it’s a hypocrisy that I am comfortable with.

    3. You find nothing wrong with a woman choosing an abortion.

    Not exactly, I don’t like abortion and I wish women wouldn’t do it but what alas we live in the real world where women, like men by law can do as they please with their own bodies. All I can say is I would never have an abortion anymore than I would tell someone else what they can and cannot do with themselves. Hey you know what stops abortion? Birth control! You should encourage its use if abortion bothers you so.

    4. There is no moral value to a woman deciding to have an abortion.

    There is but I’ve never been able to do the math to calculate it. The problem is it's really none of my business.

    5. Divorce is OK if 2 people dont get along

    Of course. Tell me what if the husband beats the wife? Would you say to here “Hey, you made a promise! Better or worse! Suck it up buttercup and take your lumps, that’s the way Jesus would want you to go.”

    6.Marriage is an arhane practice and its OK to live together without getting married.

    I’ll assume you meant arcane and I’ll say no, it’s no more arcane than any other contract law and not only is it okay to live together before marriage it’s a must. A couple who does that knows what they’re getting into before they take the big plunge.

  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    7. There is nothing wrong with looking at pornography

    Most definitely not, what do you think built the Internet?

    8. There is nothing wrong in encouraging my partner to view pornography

    Hmmm well depends on the relationship, I’ve had some girlfriends who dug porn just as much as I do and others who disliked it for various reasons ranging from they felt it degrades women to it didn’t do anything for them.

    9. Non-married couples can use pornography to promote a more robust sex life.

    Sure! Why not? Um 8 and 9 are sorta the same.

    10. Its OK to get drunk once and awhile

    I think so, I’ve grown out of that, haven’t been drunk since last spring but it was a special night and it was really expensive tequila that unspeakably rich people were buying for me because I made them laugh. The hangover lasted three days.

    11. There is nothing wrong with fantasizing about bringing other people into our bedroom with each other.

    There’s nothing wrong with fantasizing about anything, it’s what fantasizing is for.

    12. Its OK for a woman to support a man

    Not only is it okay but laaddiees I’m single and really would love a larger TV.

    13. SOme laws are stupid and its to "wink" at them

    Hmm, I’d need more specifics on this one.

    14. Its OK to look at another woman other than the womnan I say I love and lust in my mind....

    Ok or not it’s what men (and women) do without any real say in the matter, our minds are often like cats, we only think we have complete control, when it wants to go its own way it does. So if happily married man see hot 20 year old chick and thinks “Wow, I’d love to bounce a quarter off of that just to see it shake!” and then doesn’t actually do anything other than thinking he hasn’t done anything wrong.

    I know what Jesus said and it’s one of those statements that make it quite clear he wasn’t divine as he obviously had zero understanding of the human psyche and the power of a libido that has for some 3.5 billion years been rather insistent that life do nothing but procreate.

  • Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:39 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    to believer, yes, I was 16 and attending a sawdust tent revival in Gruver, Texas (home of the groovy Gruver greyhounds). The Rev. Dr. Edmund W. Robb Jr. was preaching. It was July 10, 1969. What is your point? In the intervening 40 years, I've studied, experienced life, met in person and by reading some of the great minds of our time and of the past , reflected upon all of the above and moved forward.

  • Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    rhi, let me be more specific, was there a time in your life when you realized you were a sinner and your sin separated you from God and that God desired to have a personal relationship with you through His Son, Jesus Christ and He allowed His Son to die on the Cross so you could have that relationship by repenting from your sin and turning to God by putting your complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone?

  • Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:43 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Yes I think this line of comment has run its course. I do think there is a difference between acommodating various views and imposing a view. All of us live in a world where other peoples rights come into conflict with ours. We have a possible attempted honor killing in the Phoenix area. We do not extend that view equal footing because it directly harms another. But we must allow for the maximum amount of freedom under law or we create the situation our founders so hated.

  • GMG »
    Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:42 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    Rhi,

    Thank you for answering. It helps to know what someone believes.

    I think I know a little of where you're coming from, but of course you would know that I don't agree with your beliefs. Though I do have strong beliefs, I do not insist that everyone follow them. Nor do I expect non-christians to see things as I do, as our worldviews would be very different. So I do not try to choose for everyone, but I am willing to discuss why I believe what I do, and I take seriously all opportunities to have a vote in whatever policies I am able.

    You know, I do think it's interesting that those non-christians who post on this christian site have quite a tendency to accuse christians of trying to choose for everyone else. I wonder how that is different from their attempts to choose for us? And how do they explain those non-christians that don't agree with them?

    Ah well, it's been nice chatting with you.

  • Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:33 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 9

    18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
    Colossians 2

  • Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:09 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 4

    Well GMG, living faith in the world is laudable except in the obvious things I have addressed. But you do not get to choose for everyone else.
    Do I believe in the Deity of Christ? The Hebrew Scriptures say we are all created in God's image. That doesn't mean you have God's mouth and I have God's chin. The spark of the divine blazed in Jesus. I do not believe that a person born 1,000 years ago also participated consciously in creating the universe. This may sound convoluted, but I do believe that through the collective unconscious we all carry the imago Dei. Most of us do so unconsciously bound by the complexes that drive our existence. Jesus was connected to God in a unique way no doubt. But as the term is used by the average evangelical, no, I do not. On the other hand I would affirm that you and I and all those gay people some here are worried about are created in God's image. Like God, we can create. We have imagination. We can change the direction of our lives and connect with a deeper source to do so. Religion can help or hinder that process.

    Inerrancy is a doctrine based upon the need of religious organizations to claim authority when their own actions and teachings fail to demonstrate the love of God breaking into the world. It is amazing so many people with an inerrant Bible are incapable of doing the right thing. They are just about as messed up as the rest of us. It is up to us to grow spiritually. I do not think inerrancy contributes at all.

    Instead it blocks us from finding the word of God in the writings of many profoundly spiritual persons including Moses Maimonides, Carl Jung, Gandhi, and other imperfect people who walked in the way and illuminated a bit more of the path.

    Am I a Christian? Thank God Jesus wasn't a Christian. I go to a church where I meet a lot of folk who are Christian and a lot of folk trying to follow the path of Jesus. They are often but not always the same persons. I attempt to follow the path of Jesus. But I do not have much concern for adhering to the doctrines and legalism that have weighed down the Christian religion(s) and driven many away from God. So, I'll let you decide if you think I am a Christian. The label doesn't mean much to me.

  • GMG »
    Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    By the way, I posted a note to you on California Conservatives Disappointed.....and I asked you a question that is appropriate here, given the discussion is about living out your beliefs about God.

    "So, you don't believe in Christ's deity, nor do you believe the Bible is inerrant. Do you consider yourself a Christian?"

  • GMG »
    Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    Rhi,

    Buried in all that info and instruction, you do have a few points. However, the points can be made for both sides.

    >>>I do think it might be a start if Christians approached things with the attitude, this is what I believe but since I (or those who share my beliefs) have been wrong in the past, I will not use my beliefs as a weapon to attack others or to attempt to keep them from attaining civil rights under secular law<<<

    That’s an awfully long sentence with which to preface a stated belief! It is true that sometimes beliefs are used as a cudgel, by BOTH sides. The problem here is, what are civil rights. There are plenty of non-christians who believe homosexual marriage does not fall under this category, and some Christians that think it does. Each of us face issues through our worldview, and whether that view is first strained through God’s Word or not, we all have the equal right to hold our own view, and stand up for that view. So you can certainly live out your belief that all discussions need to be open and civil, and encourage others to do so also. That would be commendable. But remember that tolerance does not include having to agree with someone’s stance, only recognizing their right to that stance.

    Your next points have been discussed ad-nauseum: many atrocities have been committed by the “other” side too. It seems you separate the world into two general groups; the f&e Christians, and everyone else. Is that what you mean by “religious absolutists”? Well, “everyone else” are a potential danger to the rights if not well being of those they see as embodying evil, also.

    Come on Rhi, the people of a nation are made up of diverse personalities and beliefs, and all of those people are imperfect. It sounds like what you are really saying is that “religion”, for those who insist upon it, shouldn’t be lived out in the public arena where beliefs are concerned, but that they should let everyone else make all the rules this nation goes by and just make religion noises in church. There are nations ruled totally by religion, and nations ruled totally without religion. Our nation recognizes people’s right to both; would you have that changed?

    I wish for much calmer, common sense discussion also, without personal attacks and snide remarks. But I’m sorry, if in stating your beliefs you are called hateful, bigoted, and accused of being a liar, sooner or later someone is going to get mad. And to come onto a Christian site and expect acceptance and warm fuzzies for something that is considered against the Word is totally unreasonable

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:24 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    In response to Jar(who of course is not responding to me) on military service, I will point out that for the first three centuries there was debate as to whether a follower of Jesus could serve in the army. That ended when the Roman Empire made Christianity the official religion.
    Since Augustine, both Catholics and Protestants have used a Just War Theory to support Christians participating in the military. Both theories are similar and are equally ignored (The Pope said no to the Iraq war - did Catholics refuse service?)
    I imagine that you never heard a military chaplain explain the circumstances that require a Christian to refuse to participate in an unjust war. We simply Baptize and bless whatever war we enter and assume that is what the NT teaches.

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:18 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    GMG Pardon me for not going far enough back to see your post.
    I do think it might be a start if Christians approached things with the attitude, this is what I believe but since I (or those who share my beliefs) have been wrong in the past, I will not use my beliefs as a weapon to attack others or to attempt to keep them from attaining civil rights under secular law.
    I would say you have not understood the quote regarding scapegoats.
    I would say that the posts on this site indicate that tolerance is not a major virtue to those upholding the traditional orthodoxy of their denomination.
    The people in the Hebrew Scriptures thought they were following God's way when they slaughtered women and children.
    The people in the medieval times thought they were following God's way when they tortured and slaughtered Christians with different theologies (not to mention different religions).
    The southern Christians who took us to fratricidal war over slavery and states rights were following God. (Lee and Stonewall Jackson were devout men).
    I will not go on. I just think that all religious absolutists are a potential danger to the rights if not well being of those they see as embodying evil.
    Use the word of God to make your life a shining example of what your faith stands for. Do not use it to attack others who are not following the same path.

  • GMG »
    Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    Rhi, at the time/date below I posted in answer to one of yours to me, but I guess you have decided not to answer.

    Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:28 pm : 2 : 2 Flag Rhi

    At least Jar answered that he's not answering.

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:53 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Well Jar, It is interesting to see someone who will not "engage" with me, post to met three times in a row to tell me so. I am not angry. I find you amusing and a bit sad.

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

    Anytime I see that a Christian, who has quoted scriptures or agrees with the Holy Word of Yahweh, has more thumbs down and a wicked person has more thumbs up, Proverbs 29:16 allows me to know that the wicked are multiplied and transgression has increased; however, the righteous have hope.

    Proverbs 29:16 "When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth: but the righteous shall see their fall."

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    Its once again amazing 5 posters in the room and 2x as many votes... wonder who is clearing their caches?

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    pepper,

    you could use some lessons in civility as well. Your anger and pride cause you to engage in character assassination when you arguments breakdown, which is usually the case.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:55 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

    johnzon giving advice about civility....lol lol lol

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:25 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    jar, You need some lessons in civility, cut back on the religion thing, you have overdosed. Too much religion is a bad thing, you are testament to that. Your religion has driven you to self-righteous fanaticism...

    Oh, and the all CAP thing, not effective..

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:28 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    jar: I'll pray for you. I wish you the best and hope that somehow you find happiness. What happened in your life that caused such sadness and anger?

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 8

    Sad.... you rely on your own knowledge instead of the Word of God... that is why you are not recognized among those in Christ....

    This generation is truly lost....

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:20 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    jar: Clearly you have no idea how you come across here. I do know how I come across here and it isn't always positive. I reflect on why that is and deal with it from there. Please take a look in your own heart, please.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:19 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    jar: I hate the perverting of Christ's love too - I'll pray for you buddy.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    Hate... Jesus said..I HATE the Nicolotians... you know why IFEEL? Because the Nicolotians perverted the truth of Gods word as presented to Paul. They took the liberty of grace and defined it to mean they were free to do anything they wanted.

    I hate no one person here...I hate the things which lie about the things and Truth of God. I hate the perverting of Gods love....

    You have no idea how you coem across.... if you are a Christian... I wouldnt be able to tell the way you communicate here... and if you dont hear the love I have for Gods word and his gift at the crosss is because you are turning a deaf ear to it...

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:51 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

    gem, my spiritual problem was totally resolved at the Cross of Calvary!! And took effect in my life on May 24th, 1971!!

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:49 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    ifeelfine, plus other than you I have read no other posts that say anything about evolution being responsible for natural disasters!

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:47 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    ifeelfine, take a chill pill and read this very slowly, I told rhi that I did not know or hear of anyone who blamed the belief or teaching of evolution for all the recent natural disasters we were experiencing in our country such as Hurricane Katrina. That's all we were discussing! The possible or alledged causes for the recent natural disasters in the United States of America.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:13 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    jar1961: It's not concerning at all to me. It's funny you should say that though as I would have said the exact same thing about you. I've read enough of your posts to not let anything you would think bother me. Truth be told, I have a hard time following you, I'm trying to understand but it just feels like there is so much hate coming from you and not very much Christian love.

    believer: You're splitting hairs. You were talking about natural disasters and blaming evolution on it - I didn't realize that the US was an important part of that. So if evolution can be blamed for disasters in other parts of the world then its ok and your point was still valid? I don't get that.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:05 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    One down and more to go. I know Ardi is going to fall down as well.

    "NEW YORK – Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

    In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

    He and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

    Ida is a skeleton of a 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, "The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor."

    Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like."

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:00 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "... if we can't tell the differences between an atheists views and a person who professes to be a Christian's views, it's not a mental problem but more than likely a spiritual problem ..."

    Your spiritual problem?

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:46 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    gem, no, if we can't tell the differences between an atheists views and a person who professes to be a Christian's views, it's not a mental problem but more than likely a spiritual problem in the life of that Christian!!

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:42 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "... isnt it telling thou that I cant tell the difference between what you espouse and what the atheists espouse here..." Mental illness. hide

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:05 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    IFEELFINE: "I am a Christian".. Well if you are I apologize for lumping you in with the others... isnt it telling thou that I cant tell the difference between what you espouse and what the atheists espouse here... That should concern you..

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    jar
    FOR JOHNZTON:

    << FOR THE ATHEISTS HERE...I HAVE A WAGER...

    I WAGER THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE: >>


    I would say the same is true of Christians



    WOW JOHNZ... YOU REALLY REVEALED A PART OF YOURSELF... SO LET ME REFUTE YOU.. YOU WOULD BE WRONG....MEN DEVOUTED TO THE FAITH DO NOT ADHERE TO THESE BELIEFS I CHALLANGED YOU TO... BUT YOU NEED TO BELIEVE THAT DONT YOU IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY YOUR OWN BELIEFS AND BEHAVIOURS..

    YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE WRONG.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:22 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    ifeelfine, what is self-relection your new word for the day. Continue to discount the truth all you want, but it doesn't change real truth whatsoever.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:19 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 6

    ifeelfine, do ever read a post completely, rhi and I were speaking to recent natural disasters in our nation, the United States of America. And all of a sudden you start going off on Adolph Hitler and Nazism which to the best of my knowledge happened in Germany. And if you would do a little research on both Nazism and Margaret Sanger and their views of White Supremacy you would indeed see the link between their views as the ideas of Darwinism with regards to the survival of the fittest and the idea that evolution leads to progress and/or improvement on the former model.

  • MGT2 »
    Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:04 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine72 says:

    "Actually genetic differences between humans and lower primates is minimal."

    But enough to be different.

    Rhi Bran adds:

    "Also, human DNA is only fractionally different from Chimps (Bonobos, Pan paniscus, in particular). A completely different creation would argue for no similarity I would think."

    The genetic makeup of all living things are vastly the same because all are product of the earth (made from the earth). It is therefore, no surprise that from one living thing to another the genetic differences are minimal.

    The Bible is unequivocal in stating that MAN was made from the earth. Therefore, being a completely different creation is not in conflict with sharing the basic genetic makeup of all living things, with minimal genetic differences.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:52 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    jar: I'm a Christian. I'll be awaiting your apology but somehow I doubt it will come. Just out of curiousity, what church do you currently pastor?

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:37 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    jar

    << FOR THE ATHEISTS HERE...I HAVE A WAGER...

    I WAGER THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE: >>


    I would say the same is true of Christians

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:35 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    jar

    << Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism >>

    I noticed you didn't mention Martin Luther's antisemitic writings as a tool of the Nazi's nor the centuries (predate Darwin )of Christian antisemitism that made the Holocaust possible.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:27 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

    :"Thank you Ipepperw. If I had said those things about the anti-science people in love with their own uninformed position, it would have been seen as vindictive."

    rhi bran, the man behind the curtain. Yesterday you were super humanitarian,
    now you are super scientist, who knows all and sees all.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    Subsequently, one of the protestors, a Catholic priest, had a major impact on the local Catholic Bishop who came out publicly against the plant and offered to help employees find more life affirming work. He made the cover of "Life" magazine and a book,"In the Belly of the Beast," was written. That area of the UMC includes Sandia Labs, an airbase housing airborne nukes, Los Alamos,the birth place of the bomb, Trinity site etc. Some people were bit upset. Imagine, I did it on my days off.


    SCRIPTURE SAYS: DO all things as unto the LOrd.
    What profit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul... for the world loves its own and if the world loves you you do not belong to me...

    I guess making LIFE Magazine is a more impressive achievment than to know your name is written in the book of life... at least for some... and what about those who are impressed by it too...

    RHI your lost.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:50 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 8

    RHI..there is a reason I dont engage you.... you are more without hope than an atheist... you once knew Christ and now you dont.... and please dont tell me you do... because the craziest thing the Bible teaches is that a guy got up from the dead.. so if you believe the Bible is not Gods Word you cant possibly believe that...

    and if you can believe that... then to say you reject the rest is not rational or reasonable...unless you are say8ing some of the things written come from God and the rest man... like to know h9ow you do it...

    This is the last time I will respond directly to you...
    I pray for men like you every day.... and will contiune

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:46 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 6

    Well RHI.. I feel sorry for you... your anger will consume you... Social Justice in the form of activism is not what Christ taught... The Tree of Faith is built on the blood of the martyrs.... Jesus said to submit to ALL authority..... not challange it. TO render unto Cesaers what is Cesaers.....for all is Gods anyway....

    The only time we are too challange authoirty is when they ask us to renounce or deny our faith.

    Obviously the lessons of the foundational church and the sacrifices made by the martyrs have slipped past your education.

    The greatness of the Christian faith rests not in protest but in submission unto death.... For Christ said..not to fear those who can destroy the body but fdear the One that can destroy the body and send y9our soul to hell.

    Im not impressed with your efforts... If you would have said.. We came..we held a prayer vigil....

    Christ never condemend the military or warfare.... or the right of a free people to defend themselves....

    Maybe you should go to Iran and Libya and Syria and Russia and start protesting over there first....

    I was in the military 14 yrs.... and I believe the power of the Word if God is mightier than any sword.....

    YOu are a humanist thru and thru....youwill never be victorious with your mindset.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:12 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 2

    As to your other questions, Jar, I don't think you have been paying attention. I do not think the Bible is inerrant and it certainly is not a science or medical textbook. It is the word of God because it has life changing impact on countless people, mostly good but some use it for evil. A lot of different people wrote the individual books of the Bible. Some parts contain history, some are instructions for worship and sacrifice, some are letters to groups or individual, some are written in Apocalyptic style, etc.
    By the way at the time I was nudged out of the church, everyone admitted that my preaching was Biblical. At the time I subscribed to conservative evangelical principles as taught by my conservative evangelical seminary.
    Faith alone means, I don't need to worry about your judgments and legalism. God and I have a relationship. I don't need your permission.

  • Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:04 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 2

    Well Jar, since you have overcome your desire to ignore me, I will tell you. I along with three others filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Energy because the old World War II era plant were all nuclear weapons were assembled had never filed an environmental impact statement. They were conducting open air testing of plutonium triggers and employees with health problems feared to tell their doctors what chemicals they worked with for fear they would violate their security oaths, some employees died from contact machining the explosives used to begin the nuclear reaction. Special convoys of trucks and the "white" train transported the nukes accross the nation secretly. The Govt. capitulated without going to court. I was also involved in nonviolent protests at the plant and gave a place for other protestors to stay.

    Subsequently, one of the protestors, a Catholic priest, had a major impact on the local Catholic Bishop who came out publicly against the plant and offered to help employees find more life affirming work. He made the cover of "Life" magazine and a book,"In the Belly of the Beast," was written. That area of the UMC includes Sandia Labs, an airbase housing airborne nukes, Los Alamos,the birth place of the bomb, Trinity site etc. Some people were bit upset. Imagine, I did it on my days off.

    Now that I have satisfied your curiosity, someone will undoubtedly announce that I am being self righteous. No, I just stood up for what I believe in. I try to keep on doing that.

  • Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:25 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

    THE TENEBAUMS are noted historical figures whos names will live on in the history books because of their courage and bravery in standing up to the Nazis....

    Here is the opinion of those on the ground in Germany during the Holocaust:


    Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism, the Zeitgeist of both science and educated society of the time.10 This can be evaluated by an examination of extant documents, writings, and artefacts produced by Germany’s twentieth century Nazi movement and its many scientist supporters. Keith concluded the Nazi treatment of Jews and other ‘races’, then believed ‘inferior’, was largely a result of their belief that Darwinism provided profound insight that could be used to significantly improve humankind.14 Tenenbaum noted that the political philosophy of Germany was built on the belief that critical for evolutionary progress were:

    ‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’ 14

  • Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:21 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    The Leaders of Atheism... the COrnerstone of Eugenics:

    H.G. Wells himself:
    "What provides the possibility for such freedom is eugenics. Wells has no use for the iron laws of Marxism, but he replaces them with the iron laws of Malthus and Darwin. "From the view of human comfort and happiness, the increase of population that occurs at each advance in human security is the greatest evil of life," he writes. "The extravagant swarm of new births" that created the masses was "the essential disaster of the 19th century." Man's propensity to reproduce will always outstrip his productive capacity, even in an age of machinery. Worse, the "base and servile types," who are little more than the "leaping, glittering confusion of shoaling mackerel on a sunlit afternoon," are the most fecund.

    In Anticipations, Wells had already argued horrifyingly that the "nation that most resolutely picks over, educates, sterilizes, or poisons its People of the Abyss" would be ascendant. For the base and servile types, death would mean merely "the end of the bitterness of failure." It was "their portion to die out and disappear." The New Republicans would have "little pity and less benevolence" for the untermenschen, "born of unrestrained lusts . . . and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity....In Germany, of course, the eugenics and central planning that Wells touted soon led in directions that the futurist didn't anticipate. Wells attempted to explain away Hitler as "the screaming little defective in Germany"--an explanation for which George Orwell had only contempt. But Orwell nonetheless recognized Wells's extraordinary impact. "I doubt whether anyone who was writing books between 1900 and 1920, at any rate in the English language, influenced the young so much," Orwell wrote. "The minds of all of us . . . would be perceptibly different if Wells had never existed."

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links