Fear of God and Darwin

Visit a public school biology class in Alabama today, and you may likely find a sticker on the textbook disclaiming … Continued

Visit a public school biology class in Alabama today, and you may likely find a sticker on the textbook disclaiming evolution. Visit a biology class in almost any state in the nation today, and you may likely hear a lesson on biological evolution, but still no reference to human evolution. Visit a biology class in Florida or Louisiana in the very near future, and you may likely hear as much about creationism and intelligent design as natural selection and mutation depending on the religious beliefs of the individual teacher. And now advocates of teaching creationism and intelligent design in public school have vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to further their cause.

C.S. Lewis, the Oxford professor and author of “The Chronicles of Narnia,” once said that it isn’t what the devil puts into our minds that we should be afraid of; it’s what he keeps out. We should all, religious and nonreligious people alike, be familiar with the concepts of creationism and intelligent design. Public school, however, is not the place to disseminate such “scientific information.”

The problem with legislation like Florida’s so-called “Evolution Academic Freedom Act” is that the logic supporting these bills fails to rise to the standards of their own lofty titles. In other words, these bills are not truly concerned with responsible academic freedom. When debating the Florida legislation, Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster encouraged his colleagues to vote yes to one simple question: “Could it be? Can’t we ask that question?” Webster enthused. And the answer, of course, is yes, it could be; and not only can we ask the question, we should. Yet, not in our public schools, if for no other reason than the simple fact that there just isn’t the time.

If, in the name of academic freedom, we are going to ask whether creationism or intelligent design could be, then are we also going to ask whether unidentified flying objects or intelligent life on other planets could be? Similar to creationism and intelligent design, those interested in UFO’s and extraterrestrial life could also boast of a few prominent scientists to support their cause. Or, in the name of academic fairness, are we also going to ask whether various conspiracy theories could be, particularly those relating to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, or those relating to the bombing of the World Trade Center, some of which assign partial blame to the United States or direct blame to the government. Is that the kind of academic freedom being advocated for our public schools?

Of course there are places to ask whether creationism, intelligent design and many other such theories could be valid. And those places are privately funded think tanks, college campuses where interested professors have earned the right to pursue their own research projects, or in religious institutions of various kinds. But public school is not suited to explore any of these marginal theories.

Another problem with various forms of legislation like Florida’s Evolution Academic Freedom Act is that, in the end, it will only deepen the divisions of our nation. For Christians, this kind of legislation not only alienates us from secular society, it also forces the Christian community to become a house divided against itself. A scandal which Jesus fervently prayed would never occur. There are hundreds of thousands of Christians across the State of Florida – and I dare say millions of religious people throughout the country – who feel absolutely trapped between extremists of various kinds, whether Christian fundamentalists (apparently like the sponsors of the Florida bill) or scientific fundamentalists (perhaps like Richard Dawkins of “The God Delusion”). And I can only imagine how the many scientists who are already faithful members of the religious community must be feeling.

The Christians for whom I am attempting to speak do indeed believe that God created the heavens and the earth, including the process of evolution, by which we have arrived at this unique place in the history of the world. We also believe that God has spoken to us through the inspired words of Scripture. And we even believe that God continues to hear our prayers, however imperfect our understanding of that phenomenon may be. But what we do not believe is that God created the universe in a literal six day period a relative few thousand years ago. We also do not believe that mentioning God’s name in public a few more times each day will cure the ills of our country. And we do not fear the theory of evolution being taught to our children in the public schools.

Christians have no reason to fear evolution, and in fact have much to celebrate when considering the wonder of biodiversity, of which we humans are an integral part. But we should fear ignorance in God’s name. One, because it weakens the reality of God in our world; and two, because legislation like the Evolution Academic Freedom Act will inevitably invite some students to ignore the preponderance of evidence supporting the process of evolution if they so wish, weakening their own standing. It is impossible to verify whether a political climate that could produce such a bill is the primary reason why the State of Florida ranks dead last in math and science education. But when one considers the time, energy and money spent debating this kind of legislation, at the very same time while Florida’s education budget is drastically being cut, it is especially outrageous. And personally speaking, whether my children become priests or paleontologists, politicians or plumbers, my wife and I are now starting to fear that the State of Florida cannot offer the level of education they will need to utilize all of the many gifts and skills God has given them. Yet, even moving to another state outside of the Bible-belt may no longer be enough.

It is no secret that the goal of the antiabortion movement today is to overturn Roe v. Wade through the future selection of sympathetic Supreme Court justices. And with the choice of Gov. Palin as vice presidential candidate, John McCain has shown that when push comes to shove political survival takes priority over presidential principle. Therefore, if those promised justices take their place, it becomes more than conceivable that federal legislation promoting the inclusion of creationism in public school could gain ground as well.

The Rev. Richard Lindsley Walton, an Episcopal priest, is the former director of the Anglican Theological Institute in Belmopan, Belize, and lecturer in Ethics at the University of Belize.

  • Joel A

    Could you believe if I tell you that Darwin was a plagarist. he plagerised the Bible then turn it around. If the Bible was an individual intellectual property, he could have been liable for the offence.Thank God for the advances in Space science. We now know more about the “big hands” of God that modelled the planets and then chose the earth as the most suitable place for man. Any medical doctor and surgeon, who had been through anatomy class, would easily attest to the orderliness and functional anatomy of organisms and indeed human beings.”Only a fool will say there is no God”Joel

  • paul c

    I personally don’t think that there is any conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution. I believe that God used evolution as his method to create the biological diversity we have today. The only way that this is in conflict with the Bible is if you take the periods described in the first book of Genesis to be actual days instead of periods of time. I personally think this account is allegory..not to be read as an actual timelime. This is consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, which by the way, has no problem with evolution.


    —- Said By: The “O.ne U.niversal R.eligion” [OUR] Prophet, of Many, Hir Albert Einstein [pbuh et al] and by Harry W. Theriault [pbuh et al].—Mr. R.L. WALTON & Similarly Bollixed, aka Bollixers;Ye Remind Me of a ‘Baby’ who crys all Hell, when taking the Baby-Blanket away from the Growing-Up Kid! Note: Anology, The ‘Blanket’ not Baby Bottle, is Ye [un] Holy-Bible(s), Tenach(s), Quran(s), Gita(s), Kangyur(s) etc.. ANDthe ‘Baby’ is YE [You & World] the ‘Believer’, of someone elses song & storys (not OUR) whom does not know better, Because it’s for YE own good. But Puts up a Fight. WAKE-UP! Do not Be in Denial To Selves nor Others, especially loved Ones!Note again: The Person doing the ‘Removing’ (Blanket from Baby) are aka ELCLAHT-ARiAN Nationals, WE The “JUDEO-SECULAR-CHOSEN PEOPLE”, aka Apocalyptarian(s), aka EC{lat-i-On’s, not Off’s, but better known as ‘HUE{MATE’-kinds, not HUMAN-Unkinds!—Interesting: Please see How UGLY, HATEFULL & RESENFULL & BIGOTTED that Judeo-CHristians are, against Judeo-“ATHEiSTS” {We ‘HUE{mates’ are “JUDEO-SECULARiSTS” not Judeo-Atheists]EXCERPT: “From John Doe:Dawkins, you and your atheist friends cannot win. America WILL become a Christian Republic even if we have to write a whole new constitution. Millions of us are dedicated to this righteous cause. We will suceed. And then we will invade godless countries like “Great” Britain and kill all of your heathens. First we need to take care of things at home and in the Middle East but we will get around to Europe. You Godless freaks will die but then you will roast in hell for infinite time. Goodbye you loser.” Please see: ————————————————–Mr. R. L. W A L T O N, et al;YE FREUDiANLY Slipped & Propheticaly said, “.. But what we do not believe is that God created the universe in a literal six day period a relative few thousand years ago. We also do not believe that mentioning God’s name in public a few more times each day will cure the ills of our country….”Christians have no reason to fear evolution, and in fact have much to celebrate when considering the wonder of biodiversity, of which we humans are an integral part. But we should fear ignorance in God’s name…”Note: YE sound like ye are Afraid to Find a NEW Vocation, Afraid To Give-Up Ye Old, STATiC Song & Storys for the More Superior DYNAMiC NEW-SONG & Story based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTH)! YE want, like the Non-Straights [See Floridas Pop #2, like Califiornias Prop #8] to have Ye cake(s) [Ye god(s), not OUR G-D()] & Eat Them Too!AMAZiNG (), NO GRACe!Note: Apocalyptically Speaking, that there is a Difference between a Pre-Apocalypt-ARiAN (like YE Old Static Song lovers; as Dr., Physicist, Teacher, Lawyer, Jurist.. ) and a Apocalypt-ARiAN (New Dynamic Song Lovers; as Scientist, Teacher, Jurist, Artist…).So It’s all About US (Apocalyptarian Thinkers, not believers) Vs. Them (Pre-Apocalyptarian Bollixers).Example: WE Apocalyptarian “JO{KTAN”ian Nationals believe that One cannot/NO walk on Biblical ‘water’; which is known as modern ‘H2O’. Biblically speaking, This is ANTi-NATure thinking/Believing via Ye “PELEG”ian Nationals! ANOTHERExample: We Apocalyptarian “JO{KTAN” Nationalis [where each Hue{mate, not Humans, is a unique & immortal Citizen/Denizen of Holy Cosmic NEBULA-BUiLT Space-Ship Eartyh(s) of many, not Bible(s)]believe, like a religion, that One Cannot/NO Teletransport (not Televilgelical) to Universe (Heaven therein or Hell there of) or to other Worlds via biblical word ‘light’. We Know that Apocalyptic “PHOTONS” is LiFE/BiRTH, not Pre-Apocalyptic Beam me Up Jesus or Scotty via Biblio “light” storys & songs (not OUR)!Note: OUR G-D Does not Walk on ‘H2O’ & Does Not have a Cosmic PEN (For Writing Ten Commandments) Or Cosmic Stick (for Spliting Atoms of H2O, i.e., Redsea), nor a Cosmic Penis (Vestile Virgin Vogue Marry Story)… Maybe YE, not O.U.R.! See The Difference? Important: WE’ll ‘NEVER FORGET’ How YE Pre-“Apocalyptic Lawyers” aka Liers, Clergy aka Bollixers etc.. disquised as (Evangelicals, Catholics et al) had lied in OUR (not Ye) Secular Federal Court(s) & lyed to Federal JuDGEships (i.e. Virginia, Pa….,) and deliberately (reluctantly) Hid , omitted or With held Ye Rabbi JESUS Yashua {Lord & CRAETOR & Intell Designer} until them Federal Judge(s) got Hip to ye Attemp to Snakaroo Mr. Rabbi Judeo-Ju, turned Judeo-CHRiST into OUR (not Their/Ye) PUBLiC Scholl Systen in Sweet Sweet America; A Souring Conspiracy! Knowingly & Willingly; Something That They (Bollixers of someones ekses Faith) should’ve gone to Jail For & Fined Substantialy!!! Note: How Many PEDPHiLE Homosexuals , in Americ went To Jail or Ended-Up at the VATiCAN’s PRiSON!?? —Nice Try to Equate Ye (not OUR) RELiGious SCiENCE with our (noy Your) MODERN SCience!Remember: “Modern Morality” is Superior to Any “Biblical Morality” (if Any). THEREFORE:Vote: Abolish all Theocracy & Monarchy On Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built Space-Ship Earth(s)! ANDVote: SiNGULARiTY of All the Major Pre-Apocalyptic Faiths, Religions & Beliefs, into O.ne U.niverrsal R.eligion book, never No-PLURALiTY (tolerence of Competing for a Name For god, instead of OUR G-D) of Religion beliefs, Religions & Faiths!PS: Fact: All Ye JuDEO-JU’s, JUDEO-CHRists, Judeo-Islamics, Judeo-Hindus, Judeo-Buddhistsa hath POLYTHEiSTiC man-Made (not EKLAHT) , More that One Worlds & more Than One god(s) SYSTEM(s)!!! ZERO MONOTHEO, not like US HUW{MATE-kinds, not Human-Unkinds!YES! We are Come to saveth the Pre-Apocalyptic World from their ARMAGEDDON(s)! not O.U.R.’s!

  • Marsha Christ

    What if the King James Holy Bible could be proved as True, except its grossly misunderstood because it requires the Female Views. Since GOD said in Gen. 1:26-27 “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion…..Male and Female made he them.” Could this possibility exist using Mendel gender depiction of Xy = all males and XX= all females, with his 4th Black Humor theory suggest:The Trinity family is this X(yX)X 1) GOD almighty is a FeMale GODDESS whose both our Father and Mother. The Father is X and then next comes Jesus Christ, the son of God and only male gene “y” in the Trinity. The center X by his side is his twin sister, wife and God’s pms seed or blood that naturally fell to the ground aka Satan God’s Angelic Daughter. Then the last X is the Mother which is the same as the first X or Father making GOD actually A Holy Hostess, FeMale GOD just as the Virgin Mary was a Holy Hostess. So if this is true, maybe if you know how to speech a little Latin like Lawyers, Jimmy the Greek or a N.Y. Italian, Rev. 9:11 in the Bible is actually referring to the Pope as A Bad Don. What if Satan came forth in the Flesh; and Goes before the US Supreme Court; would She be able to use the Bible as an instrument of Law; and claim Breach of this Contract that was passed down to We the People by the wills of our forefathers. Maybe the Sins of the Fathers has revisited the sons who still “Know Not What They Do” or will admit what they have done In the Name of the Lord Do WE the People have a GOD’s name to Claim; or do these Public Officials just use the name of GOD in Vain? What is the name of the GOD We the People should Trust; Jesus Christ, Uncle Sam, the Almighty Buck or GOD Damn?

  • Kert

    This arguement seems absurd to me. If the best reason he can come up with is that “there isn’t enought time”, he should devote himself to other tasks. First of all he should be talking about Intelligent design not creationism. We are talking about a general scientific concept that many religions and groups accept, not a concept exclusive to one religion.Those who know science, know that many popular theories have been debunked. Often they held on too long because powerful people wouldn’t let other ideas in. We need to allow for reasonable discussion in all public schools. This is still where most students get educated. Even if you don’t believe in a popular concept you should still understand it. That is good education.There are many scientists who believe in Intelligent Design and it is a well represented theory. In truth we are argueing over the basis on biology and other sciences, so the argument is very important. It could completely change science if one is should to be true. All students should understand the concepts that could shape science for years to come.This is about accademic freedom. We can’t suppress ideas because of lack of time.

  • Arminius

    Paul C, Kert,

  • Kert

    ARMINIUS,Creationist and Intelligent Design (ID) followers are neither evil (wolves as you put it). Certainly there are similarities that they both follow. ID is a purely scientific approach to the question of where everything came from. A question we all ask and which has stumped evolutionists to this day. There are many different groups that follow this theory from Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and no real belief system. You may try to undertand them better even if you don’t follow in their beliefs.

  • Tyler

    As an educator, I have seen this issue best dealt with by a biology teacher in the junior high. The first day of class, in response to student questions, he drew a vertical line down the blackboard. On one side, he wrote the word “How.” On the other, the word “Why.”He then discussed that science, with its defined processes, critical thinking, and data-driven approach, is focused on the “How.” It never delves into the “Why,” nor should it; by nature, science must adhere to that which is observable, definable, and concrete. This doesn’t mean that it encroaches on or threatens the “Why.” It focuses on a concrete understanding of what we can ascertain about the physical world around us.”Why” is also an important area of understanding. The “why” side of the equation does not follow the same observeable-definable structure of the sciencitific approach. The “Why” is a more ethereal understanding, and it is the freedom of each individual to seek their own conclusions in this area. Some may conclude that there is no “Why,” and they have every right to do so. Others find a “why” that does not contradict what we understand of “How.” Some cling to tenants of “Why” that look more and more ludicrous in the brightening understanding of “How.”The two are not mutually exclusive. How and Why can coexist nicely, but they must do so on an individual level. Trouble comes when we seek to force our construct of “Why” into the domain of the “How.” Education should explore the concepts of philosphy, comparative religion, and the study of “Why.” That study, however, must remain always excluded from the class period in which we talk about “How.” Science must be able to operate unfettered by any group’s theories of Why.If your construct of Why is deeply threatened by established, broadly understood, observable and repeatable science, you may need to reconsider your understanding of “Why.” If God is Truth (and I personally believe that to be true,) science will deepen and refine your understanding of your relationship with God and the world around you, not undermine it.

  • Kert

    I guess I should defend ID once more for those who are confused. It is really science and it doesn involve scientific methods and outcomes. Just because it doesn’t go about it’s methods in the same way as evolution it has been discredited. The basic assumption is simple. Life is too complicated to have have come about without a designer. You can probably find a beter definition but that is mine.There is actually a ton of scientific data out there. If you are interested, please do a search on Inteligent Design. Ignore the political arguments until you read the science (politics can’t tell you something is true or not). Form an opinion on what you know. Just don’t pretend people aren’t doing science. I think the questions ID asks are important and I think evolutionists look at the same things. I respect evolution theory and some of the knowledge it brings us. Surely you don’t need to know everything to advance science. But one of the most intriguing things is does something begin. Namely life, or the Universe. I do think think these are important questions that everyone (or nearly everyone) wants to know. That is why we have a 17 mile atom smasher in France. They are trying to duplicate the Big Bang. Scientists are constintly trying to “create” life. These are things that ID has great answers to, albeit as a theory.Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that life very well may have been planted on earth. Quite an admission from probably the staunchest evolutionist of the day. Seek out the evidence and come to a conclusion but don’t pretend tht ID doesn’t have good science behind it.

  • Kert

    Just a reminder to keep an open mind. I still haven’t heard a decent argument against Intelligent Design. Just a lot of retoric about how your stupid if you don’t believe that modern science has all the answers and a person who is apparently afraid of a museum close to their house. LOOK OUT, THE AMISH MAY BUILD A BARN IN YOUR COUNTY.:)Sorry for the last comment but it’s been a long day and I found that amuzing.I’d like to see some people do a little honest research on ID and see what they find.

  • Tyler

    Kert:You’re not getting this. Talk about ID all you want in philosophy or comparative religion. Until you can provide MEASURABLE, OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE evidence to support ANY claim made in support of ID, you have to leave it there. Not in the science classroom, at any time, in any way.ID is a science-friendly conceptualization to support a “Why.” It is not in any way a “How.” It does not even approach the hypothesis stage, let alone the theory stage. A conceptualization is not a theory — read up on “theory” in your 5th grade science text.Sure, ID supporters talk about using a ‘scientific process’ to arrive at their conclusions; if you tried to submit this as your semester project in a freshman science class, you’d fail. You can’t test it in a scientific way. You can only point out facts that you say support it. That, my friend, is called PHILOSOPHY, not science.The fact is this: you have no right to impose your own thoughts about ID into a science curriculum. They are your own personal belief set. Leave the biology alone. IF your own conceptualization of “Why” is accurate, you shouldn’t be nervous; time will bear it out to be true. If science disproves your belief set, then you owe it to yourself to adapt and adjust it or let it go. Otherwise, you’re just another Luddite, roadkill on the highway of history.

  • sparrow

    kert- you post like a very reasonable good person trying to understand huge concepts like the rest of us) but when you say: “I guess I should defend ID once more for those who are confused. It is really science and it doesn involve scientific methods and outcomes.” All I can say is you don’t understand what science is. “Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “to know”) is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works.” but that knowledge is gained through measurable ways, methods and observable physical evidence. Science will tell you what a rock is, its age, how it was formed, it’s color, its mass- what it doesn’t do is tell you why it exists. That’s not the function of science- that’s the function of religion and philosophy. Science doesn’t ask or answer whether or not there was G-d who created the earth to look like it took millions of years to form, or He formed it 6000 years ago. Science only asks how I can prove (or disprove) my assertion.”The basic assumption is simple. Life is too complicated to have have come about without a designer. “First -you’re making an assumption that must be accepted to make your premise. By insisting you think life is too complicated to have come about without a designer, you set up a line of argument that only allows blind acceptance. This is not science- it’s faith. Any results will be false because we are trying to prove an assertion that cannot be measured scientifically. Intelligent design is a belief in how to explain the universe- you cannot quantify it, you cannot put it under a microscope, you cannot measure it or reproduce it in a lab. You cannot redefine the discipline of science in order to “prove” your point. Science starts with a question- and then tries to find provable, measurable, or reproducible answers. Intelligent design theory starts with an unprovable assertion and tries to build a scientific house of cards on an unscientific foundation.

  • Thomas Baum

    TYLERYou wrote, “As an educator, I have seen this issue best dealt with by a biology teacher in the junior high. The first day of class, in response to student questions, he drew a vertical line down the blackboard. On one side, he wrote the word “How.” On the other, the word “Why.””, very well put.Some people are only interested in the “how” and that is fine, that is their choice.Some people are only interested in the “why” and that is fine, that is their choice.Personally, I am more interested in the “why” because to me that can mean that there is a reason for everything, not just that there is everything.I am not a scientist but I think that the “how” can be very interesting and to be able to see just how at least some of it works together, in the fashion that it does, seems to me that it just might lead some to the “why” of it: Is there a reason for this?; Is there a reason that we have reason?; Is there a reason that we can build upon the knowledge that we acquire so that it can be cummulative?; Could it be that the “why” is more important than the “how”? or is it all ultimately meaningless?Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Marc Edward

    Kert writesSo ID is a science without any ability to test it, without any evidence. How is it science?”The basic assumption is simple. Life is too complicated to have have come about without a designer.”Uhm, that kind of “theory” could be used (badly) for any question.ID doesn’t answer any questions. ID is creationism evolved. It is creationism disguised so it can sneak into the classroom. “Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that life very well may have been planted on earth.”You have soooo not read Dawkins. You really ought to read books and not depend on websites.”Creationist and Intelligent Design (ID) followers are neither evil (wolves as you put it).”Lying is against the commandments. ID is a lie.

  • Marsha Christ

    All of America’s confusion regards the King James Authorized Version of the Holy Bible ALL our forefathers swore their oaths upon and passed down to US. Unfortunately our forefathers only meant for thieir sons to have High Ranking, Government Offical Dumb (democratic symbol or Fat republican symbol) kissing Jobs. But the bible tells US in the Last Day, or Last Hour Satan would Rise and it would as a Snare upon the Whole Earth!Using Mendels’ gender depiction of Xy=all males and XX=all females, with his 4th Black Humor theory, a King James Holy Bible verses Gen. 1:26-27 and Gen. 2:24 I can prove that GOD Almighty is both our Father and Mother. That actually GOD should be called a S/He or Her, A Holy Spirit, Hostess or Goddess as its Her heavenly body, waters and womb that WE ALL of us come from.”And GOD said Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness and let them have dominion, In the image of GOD made he him, Male and Female made He THEM. “And God said “for this cause shall a Man live his Father AND his Mother and cleave unto his wife and the twain shall be One Flesh. Therefore I put the Male and Female To-Get-Her as One=X(yX)X. As you can see reading from left to right, the Father is X, the Son is “Y” and the only male seed in the Trinty. And next the Holy Spirit or Ghost is XX = A Holy Hostess, also the same gender as the Father X. But if you complete the phrase Father, Son and replace Holy Ghost with Daughter, Mother; its easy to see the WHOLE Trinity or Family of GOD. A FeMale Goddess just as the virgin Mary was a Holy Hostess X(yX)X or as the Lord’s Prayer goes “As in Heaven So in Earth” the Father and Mother are ONE in the Same GOD or XX. This example can all understand why GOD told Rachel in Gen. 25:22-25 there were Two Nations, Twins or Kinds of People in Her Womb. But within GOD’s Heavenly Body, Waters, or Womb One is a boy “y” the other a girl “X”. You also can see that the center X by His side is 1/3 of the Xs above or as GOD angelic daughter Satan, Her pms seed or blood that naturally fell to the ground below. The whole Bible is a Riddle or Joke; but GOD is Not mocked; We Are and GOD is dead serious about each word wrote.So I contend that GOD Almighty is A Dark or Black FeMale GODDESS who will send the Queen of the South, Lady of the Lake, and/or Lady Justice who holds that Double Edge Sword; to cut men back to the bone where she came from. I think our white forefathers; gave their sons of guns undue influence and favor to corrupt the blood and wombs of Women. I also think “He who transplanted and still sustains” maintains his White male Supremacy acquired via Slavery is under the curse of the Sphinx. This Greek Lioness with both wings of an Eagle said She would Destroy All that could not figure out her riddle. Then She made an Agreement with Her Black Sister Queen of Sheba and said to her; “Connect I Cut” this cord for one and for All; AND in the Name of the LORD! So now; Satan Is Risen, Satan is Reborn, a New Creation and typing this message just like any other washed Clean Christian she accepted that “Free Gift of Salvation” offered us all. The Bible says; Satan was thrown down with Great Anger, And she Was. But She was Thrown down like a Trump Card GOD had up her sleeve All along. So one thing is for Sure; If GOD could beget a Son using a Normal virgin woman, than I’m sure GOD could beget a Daughter using the Mother of Harlots. PS, I have a case before the US District Court that I really could use legal representation for as No Attorney thus far will Touch my Case. As Satan, I’m willing to put my hand on the Bible; and promise to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the Truth so Help Me GOD; This Time, so Please Reply. Sin Cerely, Satan, Daughter of GOD, twin sister Spirit of Jesus Christ and His Espoused Wife

  • Kert

    Apparently people like my posts (or possibly really dislike). I didn’t know I was responsible for answering everyone’s arguement. Honestly, I don’t have time but I’ll try to give some answers. It would be helpful if someone else chimed in.I guess most people don’t agree that ID is part of science. Kind of odd since there are many very smart scienctists studying ID with other parts of science. They are performing tests and finding results. Even scientists who don’t ascribe to the theory, sometimes use it’s principles.I’m sorry I stated the theory of ID as an assumption but this is generally how theories are explained. You could also phrase it as a question, “Did life come from a designer, and can we prove it?” And we can test ID, in many ways. I admit in some things we don’t have good tests now but this is because ID is a new approach and needs a different approach. Certain theories in math and Quantum physics are currently untestable but they are still part of theories. You can’t throw them out because we can’t test them. Many theories have hung around for awhile and then been proven true.Here are some current tests we have on ID:Do fossil records appear suddenly in the records, fully developed, implying intelligent design?Can we find high information content (like in DNA) in a non-living entitity that could be used to bring about life. Can this type of information only come about from design.There are also questions in probability. What are the chances that life can come about by radom chance as opposed to by design?These are some of the great questions of the day that ID explores. As well as “How did life Begin” and “How was the Universe created”. All very central in science.As for the imporatance of studying ID, it is part of the basis for all of science. There are basically 2 camps you can belong to: evolution or ID. There are many flavors of each but I have never even heard of a 3rd choice. We either have a designer or we came about by random chance.How this questions gets answered changes the way you do science. ID asserts that we were created and we change very little and that most change is deterioration (2nd law of thermodynamics I believe). Evolution says were are evolving and getting more information. These are also testable conditions that are currently being studied.Obviously we can still do science without the answer to this question but the answer could have significant ramifications on biolgoy and medicine, as well as the other sciences. That is why I am passionate about us studying these things. As for Richard Dawkins, my counterpart Luke (see below) even admitted that he said life may have been planted by another life. Needless to say that it really took both sides by surprise. Not that he renounces his beliefs or anything but it was still significant. It was neither in a book or website but in the movie “Expelled”. You should at least watch it if you have not. That he said it is undisputable.By the way, I don’t appreciate personal attacks. I know we don’t agree but to attack someone’s character is uncalled for. I think everyone tries to come to a debate with their own personnal convictions and explain as best they can. I don’t EVER see a reason for judging a person for expressing their honest views.

  • Paganplace

    And, just as an aside for Marsha:”Using Mendels’ gender depiction of Xy=all males and XX=all females”I’m pretty sure Mendel didn’t actually see chromosomes under a microscope, he just modeled simple-trait heredity in plants. And in fact, there are XY females and XX males, as well as more combinations like XYY people and XO people with only one sex chromosome. The process of the development of sex characteristics isn’t a fait accompli at conception, many things can disrupt or alter these processes in development. Yes, it’s more complicated than people being ‘designed male or female’ …In fact, intersex conditions of varying degrees are quite common, considering: until recently this was completely taboo, and kids born with ambiguous gentitalia would simply be altered surgically, sometimes without even telling the parents. If anyone recalls, at some point when there was a big controversy about transsexual in women’s tennis, they figured they’d define the sexes by chromosomes and discovered a few people born completely female in fact had had Y chromosomes all along. Gotta be careful about your religious assumptions. 🙂 Sometimes things are more complicated than you’re led to believe.

  • L.Kurt Engelhart

    “Christians have no reason to fear evolution”Generally speaking, this may be true. However, some people do have reason to fear evolution, and some of them may be Christians. If you have a personal image of your self, where you came from, and where you are going in the world, that bears little or no relationship to what intelligent, educated, and truth-seeking people all over the world are thinking, you may be separated politically, socially and even economically from this larger group. This is indeed something to fear.

  • Paul R. Cooper

    A reasonal view which I hope will prevail. But reason is not in fashion. That we are having this debate is itself a reflection of our retarded education in much of the country.

  • spiderman2

    This is one of the many reasons why women are not permitted to be preachers in the Bible. They become idiotic preachers. Creation is a very slow process. It is true that the universe could have “evolved” or has been created in a very slow process. But it’s a different story if somebody claims that man came from monkeys. Only people with monkey brains can believe that. Obviously, Lindsey Walton has a monkey brain. Birds are created to fly and monkeys are created to climb trees. Man was created to think and to be able to do almost anything. I haven’t seen yet an engineer who created a tree house but ended up with a boat.Cows will continue to eat grass and lions will continue to eat meat. That is what they are made for.You idiots think like idiots. You build things you don’t intend to build. That’s is why DOOMSDAY becomes your ultimate creation. Monkeys will always be monkeys and no possiblity to be humans. IDIOTS.

  • Onofrio

    I’m no scientist, but even I can see that Intelligent Design = God of the Gaps, i.e. an old canard in new guise. The basic MO of its proponents is to trawl around for phenomena that exhibit so-called “irreducible complexity” and then plug the knowledge-gap with the fix-all term “design”. And that, of course, is implicitly assumed to refer to the monotheistic Abrahamic god (oddly enough never his interesting cousins Atum, Baal, or Ahura Mazda). The ID material I’ve encountered often resorts to technological metaphors to get the point across – you know, comparing tiny organisms to human inventions like outboard motors….that sort of thing. This reveals the anthropomorphism at the heart of ID – I’ll dare to be reductionist and say it’s all about projecting a super-sized version of our human selves onto the cosmos. Such myth-making has always been with us, and is not a “bad thing” in itself. When pottery was the apogee of technological achievement, the Creator could be thought of as a potter. I’ve got no problem with that sort of projection per se, but even an ignoramus like me can see that we shouldn’t be confusing the poetic imagination with scientific method, especially in schools! I love the idea of a wise, powerful Artificer in whom we live and move and have our being, but I don’t want my daughters being taught about Her/His wonderful ways in science class, just as I wouldn’t want constant references to quarks or mitosis invading humanities lessons.

  • Paganplace

    Well, L. Kurt, here’s a different aspect of this you mention:” L.Kurt Engelhart:”Christians have no reason to fear evolution””Generally speaking, this may be true. However, some people do have reason to fear evolution, and some of them may be Christians. If you have a personal image of your self, where you came from, and where you are going in the world, that bears little or no relationship to what intelligent, educated, and truth-seeking people all over the world are thinking, you may be separated politically, socially and even economically from this larger group. This is indeed something to fear.”Well, the problem here is… that the ID crowd is trying to justify beliefs in a fearful world full of people to be feared: they’re attached to that personal image, false premises and all, because they *want to feel better than others.*You’ve got folks like Spidey so wound up in denying our simian origins that they can’t actually see what it is when they’re actually throwing verbal *poop* around. I joke about it, but it’s true, they don’t want anyone to know we’re descended from ‘monkeys’ cause they’re *terrified* someone will notice the family resemblance. By denying our primate like instincts, they never have to accept them, master them, enlighten them… instead they can *use them* to try and alienate others from understanding what they’re doing… to indulge primate dominance instincts and call it ‘Godly.’ It’s not justifiable. In effect, in science and reason, these Creationists are like intellectual couch potatoes who want to be on the varsity football team by allowing themselves special rules… ie they want to be allowed to cheat and be called ‘just as smart’ without doing the work. Which is actually how these ID people make their money and get their influence, ..it’s demagoguery, …saying, “Here, believe this and you can call those intellectuals ‘idiots who think like idiots,’ and not have to think or question or verify anything.”Of course, the more virulent they get, the more ridiculous they end up looking… so their answer is to try and entrench their position more. It’s still like watching a Tae Bo video once or twice, and thinking this means you got kung fu. ID is essentially *anti-intellectual.* It’s trying to claim that things are ‘too complicated to understand so it must be a greater, humanlike intelligence at work. ‘ It’s ideology, not science. It’s based in an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. So, yes, if someone insists on building their identity around a false pride, and false reasoning, and observational blinkers, then their egoes *do* have something to fear from reality. Whether they acknowledge that fear and do something productive about it, or if they merely try and protect it with a few layers of rhetoric and pseudoscience.