Colo. Amendment to Give Rights to Unborn

Shrdlu42 »

Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

[False] Prophet on June 05, 2008 @ 4:33 pm: “I would have to say that abortion is much like the Nazi extermination of the Jews.”

Re-read my post on June 04, 2008 @ 7:59 pm, and tell me where or how Planned Parenthood (and women seeking abortion) come even close to the sadism and cruelty of the Nazis I described. The latter enjoyed their killing, and got their jolliest from it. Is there anyone who truly believes (let alone can prove) that Planned Parenthood enjoys providing abortions, that women enjoy undergoing them, that abortions are performed merely for the “pleasure” of “murdering a child”?

Here’s another example (one I tried to avoid). Another little game of the Nazis was raping Jewish women in the camps in order to get them pregnant. Oh, they’d allow the pregnancy to continue to term - that was the whole point. Then, when the woman commenced labor, she was stripped naked, tied to a metal table, and had her ankles, knees, and thighs bound together with heavy leather straps. The result of course is that mother and child died in hideous agony, the baby’s body crushed against the mother’s by the labor contractions. A process to produce life perverted into an instrument of death. And the Nazis who did this? They were watching, on comfortable couches and chairs, eating popcorn, relishing the screams, and jacking off!

Enough with the comparisons to the Holocaust. They are a vile and evil lie, and anyone who makes them is evil!

Colo. Amendment to Give Rights to Unborn

Shrdlu42 »

Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Quecat on June 05, 2008 @ 1:41 pm, asked: "Don't you just love it how the pro-abortion folks trot out all these rare occurrences - ‘life of the mother’, etc. as justification for the continuation of abortion on demand?"

And don't you just love how the anti-choice folks trot out First Trimester cases and scream "abortion on demand" to justify their extremist position?

Quecat, re-read the article we are posting about. It would ban ALL abortions, not just First Trimester ones, not just "abortions on a whim". Had the proposed amendment included an exception for the life and health of the mother, if it weighed the life and life expectancy of the "baby" against the harm caused to the mother by carrying the pregnancy to term, in short if it had any connection to reality (rather than the ideological blindness you demonstrate) I probably wouldn't have written at all.

But no, it imposes an absolute 100% ban, and that is arrogant and evil! (So is your deliberate attempt to raise red-herrings in reply.)

As for Dr. Tiller, I note that the "criminal charges" against him are all misdemeanors, the lowest level of a criminal charge, not exactly in the same category as first-degree murder. Moreover, the "crime" in question is based on a technicality (did he obtain a second opinion before performing abortions from a truly independent doctor, or from someone he had a financial relationship with), one that is disputable - at best. Indeed, this is apparently the second time these charges were brought, the first time they were thrown out. So, let’s wait till final judgment is rendered, shall we?

Why not look at the Doctor’s website and the circumstances under which late term abortions are performed. For example, the first listed is Anencepahly - a condition described by Merck’s Manual (p. 2222, 7th edition) as “incompatible with life”. In short, “babies” with this condition won’t survive. I see no reason to ban abortions in such cases (even “as close as one day before the mother's delivery date") if doing so would endanger the mother.

Colo. Amendment to Give Rights to Unborn

Shrdlu42 »

Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Quecat on Jun 03, 2008 @ 2:55 pm asked: concerning 7 month gestation “Now - what besides the desires of the mother, determines the difference between the child who lives and the child who died? - N O T H I N G.”


WRONG - the Supreme Court declared that after “viability” (when the fetus “presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”) the government may forbid abortion “except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother”. So women can’t abort a 7 month pregnancy just on mere whim.

In you own example the “premmie” obviously was viable. Noticeably absent from your tirade was any discussion of the danger to the mother from continuing the pregnancy. Both factors must be weighed in deciding this issue. It’s much more complicated than just screaming “no abortion from conception”.

What if the 7 month old fetus was severely deformed or damaged, and therefore could not survive (or, at best would live only hours)? What if carrying the pregnancy to term would kill the mother, or severely endanger her life? What if it would leave her permanently injured, in constant pain, infertile? Who are you, or the government, to declare she must take such a risk?

Such incredible, evil, arrogance!

Colo. Amendment to Give Rights to Unborn

Shrdlu42 »

Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

Patti on Jun 02, 2008 @ 12:07 pm, made the vile, evil, comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, proving her ignorance of both. In fact, it is the so-called ‘pro-life’ crowd who better resemble the Nazis - you want to use the power of government to impose your ideology on others, and make them suffer for it.

How you can compare imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing them, working them to the breaking point, gassing and then cremating them to allowing a woman to decide for herself what to do with her body, her life, and (yes) with the fetus or embryo in her body is beyond me.

Read “Night” by Elie Wiesel, read history books about the Holocaust to discover precisely what it was about, watch the almost unbearable documentary “Shoah” and realize how wrong you are.

Do you realize that gassing and cremating people was probably the most merciful thing the Nazis did? Did you know that when they were arresting Jews if they found a baby in a crib they would throw if out the window to use as target practice on the way down? Do you know how could describe cruelties and outrages that would make you vomit?

Fall on your knees and beg for forgiveness for uttering that monstrously immoral comparison. Stop worrying about the souls of those humble enough to not arrogate to themselves the power to make decision for others about this issue. Your own soul is in direst jeopardy!

Survey: Southern Baptists Differ Starkly with Public on Key Issues

Shrdlu42 »

Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Rekab, you must be kidding. The so-called "Constitution Party" is the most unconstitutional bunch around. Look at their website. They pay lip service to principles like the "no religious test" clause of Art. 6, Sec. 3, but then go on to say only Christians (by which they mean Fundamentalists) should be in government. They claim they want to return the government to its constitutional limits, and this country to the original intent and principles of its Founders, then they assert that Jesus is the Ruler of the United States. News Flash!: When the Constitution was drafted, debated, and ratified there were those who objected to the fact that neither Jesus nor Christianity appears in the document. There were proposals to add so-called “Christian Amendments” to the document, proclaiming Jesus sovereign and Lord, and requiring that only Christians could serve in government. Guess what: the proposals lost! So enough is enough!. The so-called "Constitution Party" wants to distort and lie about the law, history, and the Constitution and turn this great country into what it never was, and was never meant to be.

U.S. Evangelicals Shatter Christian Zionist Misconception

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jeb1969 said “Sometimes to me the current state of Israel acts toward the Palestinian Christians and Moslems like the Nazi's did to the Jews. The Nation of Israel persecutes the indigenous Christians.”

Oh, really? Israel is busy rounding up all the Palestinians and putting them in gas chambers? Israeli soldiers deliberately throw Palestinian babies out of windows and use them for target practice on the way down? Israelis rape Palestinian women and then, nine months later, strip them naked, bind ankles, thighs, and knees together so that mother and child die in hideous agony during birth - all the while being watched by soldiers who “jack-off” in glee?

And, of course, Israelis deliberately send bombs to blow up buses, kill wedding parties, explode airplanes - sorry, the Palestinians do that.

And just how does Israel persecute Christians (for being Christian, that is)?

As for modern Israel’s right to hold land - that came from a U.N. resolution last I checked (unless the heavens opened and we all missed it). In fact, there are some ultra-orthodox Jews who regard modern Israel is illegitimate (Biblically speaking) because it was not created by the Messiah. I obviously don’t agree with them anymore than I agree with anyone who insists on mixing religion with politics.

Any of you who believe Israel should not compromise with the Palestinians, because your faith says not to, should GO TO ISRAEL AND JOIN THE ARMY! Put your money, and your lives, where your mouths are. Frankly, there’s been quite enough history of Jews suffering and dying for what (some) Christians believe.

Israel should and will do what its people and government deem to be in its best interest (tempered, I hope, by the ethics of Judaism).

EU High Court Rules on Gay 'Marriage' Rights

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:47 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Star2 - I really don’t have the time to respond to all the nonsense you’ve posted on this topic, so I’ll limit myself to just one: “The male thinks differently than a woman. He makes decisions through facts and logic and not by his heart (emotions).”

Oh, really? Then I suppose Elliot Spitzer carefully weighed all the advantages and disadvantages before setting out to destroy his career. I guess Ted Bundy, the husbands who kill their wives, Romeo, Marc Anthony, Tristan, Captain Ahab, etc., were all models of rational thought. And, of course, Madame Curie was able to do her Nobel Prize winning scientific research by falling in love with radium! Give me a break!

Oh, and tgender, maybe your version of Christianity believes that “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it”, but Judaism rejects that piece of propaganda. It is enough that people try to live a moral life and, when they stumble, recognize their error, try to make amends, and do better in the future.

To declare that there is no difference between a “white lie” and serial killing is moral idiocy. And, yes you did equate being a Hindu with being a pedophile or serial killer - they’re all going to the same place according to your beliefs - and for me that’s the number one reason your beliefs are wrong!

Evangelical Leaders: Jews Need Jesus Christ

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:19 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

I wonder how Christians would react if during one of their important holidays (Purim was in March) the Jews took out full page ads explaining why their religion is false and contrary the Holy Scriptures (Old Testament to you). Would they ‘feel the love’? I doubt it.

Fortunately, that’s not going to happen. Unlike some versions of Christianity, which emphasize faith, Judaism emphases conduct. Ethics is the central concern of the religion, and our worth, our righteousness, is determined by how we treat each other, not by what doctrine we profess. Of course, Jews would prefer it if the world would acknowledge Adonai Elohenu, but we don’t require it. “The righteous of the earth have an equal share in the life to come” is a central tenet of Judaism, and it’s one of the reasons why (with all its faults) I prefer the faith of my Fathers (and Mothers).

By the way, DannyPoo, calling oneself a ‘Jew for Jesus’ makes about as much sense as my calling myself a ‘Christian without Christ’. Such doctrines as ‘Original Sin’, ‘Salvation through Grace’, and the Incarnation are a blasphemy to Judaism. And the Jewish concept of the Messiah is nothing like the Christian one.

Texas School District Settles Bible Class Suit

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

xristosnika, you are right in your analysis of the Constitution - as far as it goes, but you left out some important parts. Originally, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government, so the States were free to establish any religion they chose, and to ban all others! They were also free to jail people for criticizing the government, to take your property without any compensation, and to imprison you without trial or anything approaching “due process”. This was part of what is known as “State’s rights”.

It also included the right to allow slavery. Then along came a little fracas known as the Civil War. The South lost, and the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution. Under the doctrine of Incorporation, the 14th makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Thus, whatever the Federal government previously was forbidden to do, the States were now forbidden as well. (I’m oversimplifying, but 3,000 characters doesn’t leave room for a full course on Constitutional Law.)

By the way, Star2, I suggest you review the entire website you cited to. It belongs to the so-called “National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools” whose curriculum started the lawsuit to begin with (since it’s goal is clearly proselytization). If the new curriculum is anything like that, the lawsuit will simply start all over again.

Bill Allowing Teachers to Question Evolution Advances

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:46 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Returning to the question of the proposed law, I do hope everybody appreciates the sophistry of its declaration that “it does not "promote any religious position." That’s like saying a course that teaches Nazi theories doesn’t promote racism or anti-Semitism. Of course the purpose is to promote biblical literalism, as many of the commentaries posted here prove.

As to that: “Rashi, the greatest Jewish commentator of all times, taught that purpose of Scripture was not to give a strict chronology of Creation; while no less an authority than Maimonides declared: ‘The account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, . . . , intended to be in all parts literal.’”

Or as the late Chief Rabbi of Great Britain (Dr. J. H. Hertz) put it, “Let anyone disturbed by the fact that Scripture does not include the latest scientific doctrine, try to imagine such information provided in a Biblical chapter”: Monera begat Amoeba, Amoeba begat Synamoeba, . . . , Tailed Apes begat Man-like Apes, Man-like Apes begat Ape-like Men, Ape-like Men begat Men. - Hardly inspiring or even comprehensible to the Israelites fleeing Egypt.

Or, as Gallileo put it: the Bible was written to tell us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.

Buy hey, what do I know, my people merely wrote the book!

Texas Edu Board Approves Broad Bible Course Guidelines

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:17 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

First of all, pburwell, evolution is not a religious doctrine but a scientific principle. Thus it can be taught in schools. The fact that atheists or Secular Humanists may believe in it does not make it religious anymore than the fact that religious people believe in democracy makes studying our Constitution a religious act. (Besides, plenty of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., accept evolution - does that make it part of their religion?)

Second, the issue is not ‘keeping the Christian world view’ out. Government is free to teach about religion, but it is not free to teach what people should believe. The problem with the proposed curriculum is that it was a thinly disguised attempt at proselytization, which is forbidden. (Which is why the curriculum Star2 references probably won’t be used. It’s proposed use was what started the lawsuit in the first place, and if an attempt is made to ‘sneak it back in’, the plaintiffs will simply go back to court.)

Lawsuit Against Teacher's Anti-Christian Remarks Goes to Trial

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Finally, the “year of our Lord” reference in the Constitution is only to be found at the end, where the date is given. That is not part of the legal provisions of the document, it establishes nothing about the role of government. (If it did, then it would be proof that this was supposed to be a Catholic nation, since the date is given according to the Gregorian calendar!)

More significant is the fact that there is no reference to any deity in any of the Articles of the Constitution (the part with legal force). Oh, there have been attempts to put a reference in. There were proposals to have the Preamble expressly state that Jesus was the sovereign of the nation, the Bible binding law, and that all our rights came from Christianity. This was the first of what is now known as “Christian Amendments” that have been proposed from time to time. You will notice they all failed! The Constitution is, as it has always been, literally god-less. That’s because the Founders believed religion was a matter for each person’s conscience, and should be left to the “private sector”.

P.S. - all that aside, I agree the teacher went too far. There are ways of making the historical point he wanted without ridiculing or insulting another’s religion. Whether it should rise to the level of a “Federal case” is another matter.

Lawsuit Against Teacher's Anti-Christian Remarks Goes to Trial

Shrdlu42 »

Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I have neither the time or the interest in replying to all of jar1961’s tirades, but there are a few points I will make.

First, the Constitution does not say either "freedom of....” nor “..freedom from...". None of those words appear in the text. What it does say (in the First Amendment) is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” Note that the word religion only appears in the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause merely refers back to it (“thereof”). Thus the meaning and scope of that word must be the same for both clauses - whatever you don’t want the government to prohibit, it also can’t establish. Furthermore, “free exercise” means exactly that, free from fear of or favor from the government. So, freedom of religion includes freedom from government mandated religion - which is why prayer cannot be required in school.

Second, don’t be too quick to invoke the beliefs of the Founders. You might not like what you get. At the end of his life Franklin declared that he doubted Jesus was divine, and also declared God didn’t care if people believed this, or not. Jefferson, famously, rejected the divinity of Jesus, along with such doctrines as immaculate conception, the resurrection, transubstantiation, the Trinity, and original sin. As for Washington, he declared that "In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." A pretty strong statement that people of all faiths are to be treated equally, and that no faith holds a “privileged” position over the others.

I suggest you study the debates on the “no religious test” clause of the Constitution (Art. 6, section 3). You’ll find that its supporters recognized and fully intended that adherents of all religions (including Islam) would have equal standing in the law.

Third, don’t give me a laundry list of the crimes of (some members of) Islam, unless you’re also willing to discuss the almost 2,000 year history of (some) Christians who preached peace, love, and brotherhood while practicing the exact opposite, and committed every sin and crime in the book against the Jews! Every religion has things to be ashamed of, the trick is knowing how to separate “the wheat from the chaff” - and the first step is to realize this has to be done.

Spiritual Leaders Answer Life's Most Complex Questions

Shrdlu42 »

Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris 333:

You are correct, I haven't seen the film (yet), so I can only judge by the article we are commenting on, and by that standard I stand by my statement.

As for "the real problem", I would submit it is the fact that religion is too often used to divide people, and as an excuse for every sin and crime in the book. Seeking common ground with people of different faiths does not mean you have to accept their theology. You can politely agree to disagree, and work together on the issues you agree on.

After all, conservative Catholics and Protestants have no trouble doing so in this country, despite the profound doctrinal differences between them; differences (thank God) they no longer try to kill each other over.

Spiritual Leaders Answer Life's Most Complex Questions

Shrdlu42 »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

I think you are all missing the point, perhaps because of a poor choice of words on Gedeon Naudet’s part (who, please remember, is a film maker, not a theologian). Obviously he is not saying all the world’s religions are identical, or that their doctrines are even similar – that would be ridiculous, and is factually false.

Rather, I think he was talking about the moral and, if you will, ethical philosophies of these faiths. Whatever their starting point (faith in Jesus, Buddha, Brahma, Allah, etc.), they reach similar conclusions. It’s been noted before that almost all of the world’s religions have some version of the “Golden Rule”, and just about all of them urge their followers to practice justice, mercy, charity, etc.

If I was drowning, and someone offered to save me, I wouldn’t stop to inquire if they were following the Book of Acts, or the Talmud – I’d just be thankfull they were there to help. (And, of course, sadly, the opposite is true, if someone were persecuting me, or trying to kill me, it wouldn’t matter much if they did so in the name of Jesus, or Zeus!)

By all means, honor your faith, but do not be so quick to sow division in its name. For myself, I prefer to follow the words of the prophet:

“It hath been told the, O man, what is good, And what the Lord doth require of the: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” - Micah 5:11

Good advice, whomever ‘thy god’ may be.

Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth?

Shrdlu42 »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Replying to The Watch (Tue Dec 18, 2007 starting @ 12:34 pm):

PART 3:

4: Your comment about the child-rearing advice in Isaiah 7:15 is interesting, but as I originally said, this was just a parenthetical remark and I don’t want to belabor it. Let’s let the theologians and metaphysics philosophers argue the question of whether Jesus knew good from evil at birth.

5: The “double prophecy” argument really is nothing more than ‘special pleading’, and not convincing at all. Again, Isaiah is clearly sent to give a “pep talk” that first predicts the two kings will be defeated within 65 years, in 7:8 (sorry, originally got the count wrong, a score = 20), and then says (essentially) it will happen in less time (7:16). Arguing that in the middle of all this he inserts a completely unrelated prediction about an event that won’t happen for centuries, without giving any indication that he’s doing it, is sheer gibberish.

That’s taking Isaiah’s words and twisting them to suit a different purpose (and we have to take them out of context, mangle the text, and ignore what the entire chapter actually says to do it)! That’s an appalling way to treat “the inspired words of God”. All it does, as I said above, is cast doubt on the validity of your claims. Better to jettison a bad argument than to stubbornly cling to it by means of further argument that only “digs the hole deeper”.
Let me repeat: none of this disproves the doctrine of the virgin birth. That is a matter of faith and, absent a trip in a time machine, can neither be proven or disproven.

Merry Christmas!

(end)

Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth?

Shrdlu42 »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Replying to The Watch (Tue Dec 18, 2007 starting @ 12:34 pm):

PART 2:

2: Thanks for the linguistic discussion concerning Immanuel vs. Emmanuel. You may be correct on the Latin vs. Hebrew distinction. On the other hand, I’ve seen translations where Matthew’s text uses the “I” instead of the “E”. The two are so similar that I won’t quibble about it.

However, I can’t agree with your argument “[T]hat it can be interpreted that the mother wasn't naming the child Immanuel, but more specifically designating Immanuel as a title or state of being.” The text in Isaiah is quite specific: “. . . a virgin shall conceive, . . . , and shall call his name Immanuel.” The virgin shall name the child Immanuel, not ‘give him the title or state of being’. Similarly, Matthew says the anonymous “they shall call his name Emmanuel”. A clear statement of the name the child is to be given.

Of greater importance, to me, is the discrepancy between Isaiah’s stating the mother will use that name versus Matthew’s ‘they’. Again, the point is what word was spoken by Isaiah? The answer is, the mother and not an anonymous ‘they’.

By the way, I was rather surprised while doing a text search using a computerized version of the Bible to discover that the only places the name Immanuel (or Emmanuel) even appears is in Isaiah 7:13 and Matthew 1:23! Note: I am ignoring your citation of Isaiah 9:6-7 because the question here is whether the earlier verse refers to Jesus’ virgin birth, not to his claim of messiahship. Besides, the latter verse has translation problems of its own, which I really don’t want to go into. This is partly because I don’t want to ‘spam’ this site or monopolize it with long postings (and my last was long enough), and partly because the site’s policy of counting characters instead of words for its size limit (and including spaces in the count!) is a real pain. (That’s why we’re at part 2.)

3: Sorry, but as I previously demonstrated, the nine words omitted by Matthew are critically important, and are not negated by the words you quote. It’s an ingenious argument only so long as you do what Matthew does: ignore the linguistic significance of the word “Therefore”, and take the rest of the verse out of context from Isaiah.

If you were writing a legal brief and misquoted a precedent or statute that way, trust me, I could tear your argument to shreds, and you’d lose all credibility with the court (and possibly face sanctions for improper conduct). And that’s the real point of my post. Matthew’s mis-quoting of Isaiah actually doesn’t strengthen the claim for the virgin birth, it weakens it; as in, ‘if you’ve got good evidence, why waste time with something that’s clearly wrong’. Remember, I am not arguing against the virgin birth, only against citing Isaiah 7:13 as ‘proof text’ for it.

(continued)

Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth?

Shrdlu42 »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Replying to The Watch (Tue Dec 18, 2007 starting @ 12:34 pm):

PART 1:

First, thank you for the courtesy of a dignified reply. All too often bloggers and commentators act as if vituperation is a substitute for sound opinion. It is a pleasure to have a dialogue with someone who still believes in civil discourse. As to your points:

1: It is my understanding that the Greek of the time only had one word for both virgin and young woman (parthenos), and therefore there was really no choice in the matter. Even if I am mistaken in this, and you are correct that a choice existed, this is not “evidence that ‘virgin’ is a possible meaning of the term”, as you wrote. All it means is that the mistranslation goes back one step, from the Greek to Aramaic translation, to the Hebrew to Greek translation instead.

The problem is (as pointed out in my first post) Matthew 1:22 – 23 claims that the word “spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,” was the word “virgin”, when clearly it was not. Whatever the Greek text or the Aramaic text may say, the Hebrew text clearly says “young woman”, so Matthew is wrong.

Again, as I pointed out in my prior post, if I say that Pierre Trudeau (former Canadian Prime Minister) is a North American, that’s not the same as saying he is an American (meaning a citizen of the U.S.). The fact that linguistically North American can equal U.S. citizen does not mean the terms are the same. And if someone were to misquote the first sentence of this paragraph as stating “Pierre Trudeau is a U.S. citizen”, they would not only be factually wrong, they would be mis-stating what I wrote. That’s what Matthew did (I am assuming it wasn’t deliberate on his part, but rather the fault of prior translators).

(continued)

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Shrdlu42 »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Sorry about that, left out my response, the entire post should read as follows:

Ingoditrust Sun Dec 23, 2007 @ 12:17 pm wrote:

"People, Darwinism in no way cancels out ID."

It does as far as science is concerned, and that's the real point. I have no trouble with what you wrote next ("God, being all powerful, can make genetic blueprints for anything and make anything evolve into something else."), but it is not science.

There's nothing wrong with teaching what could be called "theistic evolution" - namely that God employed the process of evolution to develop life, just as he used physics to develop the solar system and the earth, etc. However, it is a philosophical or a theological theory, not a scientific one. Science is based on the study of the material world, and consists of what we can reasonably deduce from the evidence gained by that study. God, being beyond the material world, is beyond the power of science to discuss.

It's a little like asking whose the greater composer, Mozart or Beethoven. There may be an answer, but there is no scientific answer.

So, teach ID in a social studies class, or a history class, or a philosophy class, or a theology class. But it has no business being taught in a science class!

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Shrdlu42 »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

God, being all powerful, can make genetic blueprints for anything and make anything evolve into something else.