While I respect your opinion, I disagree that all the the evidence points to all three of your summations:
Common ancestor (no problem)
Man descended from primates (where is the proof?)
All life is linked through genetic transformations (again, where is the proof)?
What we disagree on is the validity or sufficiency of the proof. And as far as the Bible is concern, where is the proof that the Bible is not factual?
I refer to a very good site that provides evidence that the Bible is very factual. It's http://answersingenesis.org/
You asked why the Kansas BOE will not allow science and religion to be taught separately. I think that the answer is that they cannot be separated (at least when it comes to evolution). For example, although evolution per se does not eliminate God entirely, the way that it is taught makes a strong claim that God does not exist. It is usually something like this: (1) evolution (along with some theories about the beginning of life on Earth) provides an entire explanation for how life orginated and evolved (2) We cannot accurately study the beginnings of the universe, so it will be left unsaid as to how the universe began. So, we now have a scientific explanation for the origin and evolution of life on Earth.
Therefore, there is no need for God. And since the theories are "proven" (and anyone who disagress is obviously an iditot), then we can conclude that God is just an invention by weak-willed people to make their live's a little more bearable (just read the posts attacking Kansas). That is the logical conclusion that students receive in "science" class. That is what they learn when they see the comments about backwoods fundamentalists making Kansas a laughingstock.
Now, if the non-existence of God can be proved, then so be it. Truth is truth, no matter how painful. But, until that day happens, it seems reaonsable to provide an oppposing non-Atheistic view in science class.
I guess this article, which needs more context to see what the official actually said, will be proof that "fundamentalists" are these wacky nuts who are not even aligned with "mainstream Chrisitans" such as the Catholic Church. While it would be tempting, but wrong, to attack the Church's stance on the Heliocentric view of the universe (i.e., when the Church stated that the Earth and not the Sun, was the center of the universe), the real point is what it always should be: evidence.
Unless one believes that the Church can speak with infallibility, then their pronouncement does not mean anything regarding whether evolution is true. The more we move the debate to the realm of evidence, the more we will progress on this issue. And having said the word "evidence," I'm sure I will trigger some comments about the the overwhelming evidence for evolution and those stupid fundamentalists. Oh well....
I am not sure what being a "Jesuit" is. Nor do I understand why the issue focuses on me being able to set up a meeting with God. As the Bible clearly demonstrates, face to face "meetings" are rare occurences and not necessarily pleasant.
The quote about Darwin was an attempt to show that the actions of some individuals (whether Christians or evolutionists) does not invalidate the ideals which they are proposing. Your focus seems to be on the fact that some Christian organizations commit sins, therefore, God must not exist. I was just pointing out that the reasoning behind that argument can apply to many situations (such as Darwin's racial views) and would be unfair in all cases.
How do you know that it is not possible? What proof do you have that God does not exist? That is the question that started me investigating the foundations of Christianity. As for you other comments about the "skimming"... While I am not sure what instances you are specifically talking about, I believe that you have to separate the actions of people (who are sinful, fallible, etc.) from the issue of whether God exists.
As you well know, Darwin was what we would call "racist" today. The subtitle of his book, Origin of the Species, was "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." And in the book he stated that the white race would eventually eliminate darker races (I would have to look up the specific quote). Although some people find the above idea repugnant, it does in no way invalidate his theory (by itself). All of that to say that the actions of money-hungry "Christians" does not to invalidate the existence of God.
You may have been joking, but just in case... Of course, I do not pretend to have God's appointment book, so I cannot arrange a meeting, but I can tell you that He arranged a "meeting" with me when I asked Him. I was an atheist/agnostic and determined to stay that way. But something kept gnawing at me. I kept thinking, what if Christianity is true? That "What if" was by invitation to God (without me knowing it). He answered by introducing people in my life who pointed me to the facts behind the birth/death/and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, if you want that talk...
I almost hate to do this, but I'll try. After reading through many of the posts, I see the same idea running through many of them. The basic idea is that Christians are against science because (somehow) science invalidates God/the Bible/everything we believe in. I could point to my technical background in computer science, 20 years or industry experience, blah blah blah, to point out that I believe in scientific principles. That is, I do not pray that a bug will fix itself, I used my mind to try to figure out what it wrong (however, I often pray for strength not to hurt the manager who says, "So, can we shrink that 3 month project to 1 week?") But, I digress...
The main idea for (some/most/many) Chrisitians is that science is a process by which we study God's world. We study it to understand it and to be amazed/awed/inspired by the wonders of it. And this is the historical rational behind why many people of science also happened to be Christians. If you look at the biographies of people like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Keppler (there may be more, but I have personally read the ones just mentioned), you would see that their faith (i.e., Christianity) led them to pursue science.
And, I do not think that I am incorrect in stating that their faith actually helped improve their science. Permit me to mention a few stories:
Pasteur: as I understand it, one of the prevailing theories at the time was spontaneous generation. That is, the idea that life just "appeared." This was not an evolution issue, but was related to the question of why bacteria/maggots/other small animals "magically" appeared in certain uncovered substances (e.g., rotting flesh). According to the biography I read, Pasteur believed, because of his religious background, that God was the sole creator of all life and that these small animals could not just appear out of nowhere. So, he created a series of interesting experiments (involving curved neck beakers, etc.) to demonstrate that this was the case. And his work led to the whole notion of germ theory or at least provided the evidence(I think that last sentence is correct, but I would have to reread the biography).
Keppler: According to the biography, Kepler was dissatisfied with Ptolemy's model of the solar system and planetary orbits. Kepler was convinced that God would not have designed such an overcomplicated (and inaccurate) model as Ptolemy had (I think that Ptolemy used a complex combination of circles to predict planetary orbits). In one of his first steps, he decided to use Copernicus' model which posited that the sun was the center of the universe instead of the earth.
At this point, let the flaming begin about how those Christians (more specifically, the Roman Catholic Church at this time) made it dogma that the Earth wa the center of universe, not the sun. But this just points out a basic belief of Christians: men are fallible, but God is not. There are many sordid examples of Christians using the Bible to support their own preferences, but that is the nature of sin. Not to excuse, but similar things have happened in the name of science (e.g., Hitler's use of the prinicple of positive eugenics). As we see with Kepler (and with Christian-backed slavery), some Chrisitans will adhere to God's word and the truth will win out. Anyway...
Kepler pursued his theory and eventually created a mathetical model which he published in a book, The Comsic Mystery. In the book, he wrote the following song of praise:
Thus God himself Was too kind to remain idle. And began to play the game of signatures, Signing his likeness into the world.
To make a long story short, he had a difficult time getting it publish because of the Copernicus issue (as you would expect, but God never said life was easy), but eventually did. It was still an inaccurate model because it was based on faulty observational data (which Keppler knew). Later, he was given much more accurate data by Tyco Brahe and later went on to write The New Astronony, and Harm
Slashdot Mirror
While I respect your opinion, I disagree that all the the evidence points to all three of your summations: Common ancestor (no problem) Man descended from primates (where is the proof?) All life is linked through genetic transformations (again, where is the proof)? What we disagree on is the validity or sufficiency of the proof. And as far as the Bible is concern, where is the proof that the Bible is not factual? I refer to a very good site that provides evidence that the Bible is very factual. It's http://answersingenesis.org/
You asked why the Kansas BOE will not allow science and religion to be taught separately. I think that the answer is that they cannot be separated (at least when it comes to evolution). For example, although evolution per se does not eliminate God entirely, the way that it is taught makes a strong claim that God does not exist. It is usually something like this: (1) evolution (along with some theories about the beginning of life on Earth) provides an entire explanation for how life orginated and evolved (2) We cannot accurately study the beginnings of the universe, so it will be left unsaid as to how the universe began. So, we now have a scientific explanation for the origin and evolution of life on Earth.
Therefore, there is no need for God. And since the theories are "proven" (and anyone who disagress is obviously an iditot), then we can conclude that God is just an invention by weak-willed people to make their live's a little more bearable (just read the posts attacking Kansas). That is the logical conclusion that students receive in "science" class. That is what they learn when they see the comments about backwoods fundamentalists making Kansas a laughingstock.
Now, if the non-existence of God can be proved, then so be it. Truth is truth, no matter how painful. But, until that day happens, it seems reaonsable to provide an oppposing non-Atheistic view in science class.
I guess this article, which needs more context to see what the official actually said, will be proof that "fundamentalists" are these wacky nuts who are not even aligned with "mainstream Chrisitans" such as the Catholic Church. While it would be tempting, but wrong, to attack the Church's stance on the Heliocentric view of the universe (i.e., when the Church stated that the Earth and not the Sun, was the center of the universe), the real point is what it always should be: evidence.
....
Unless one believes that the Church can speak with infallibility, then their pronouncement does not mean anything regarding whether evolution is true. The more we move the debate to the realm of evidence, the more we will progress on this issue. And having said the word "evidence," I'm sure I will trigger some comments about the the overwhelming evidence for evolution and those stupid fundamentalists. Oh well
I am not sure what being a "Jesuit" is. Nor do I understand why the issue focuses on me being able to set up a meeting with God. As the Bible clearly demonstrates, face to face "meetings" are rare occurences and not necessarily pleasant.
The quote about Darwin was an attempt to show that the actions of some individuals (whether Christians or evolutionists) does not invalidate the ideals which they are proposing. Your focus seems to be on the fact that some Christian organizations commit sins, therefore, God must not exist. I was just pointing out that the reasoning behind that argument can apply to many situations (such as Darwin's racial views) and would be unfair in all cases.
How do you know that it is not possible? What proof do you have that God does not exist? That is the question that started me investigating the foundations of Christianity. As for you other comments about the "skimming" ... While I am not sure what instances you are specifically talking about, I believe that you have to separate the actions of people (who are sinful, fallible, etc.) from the issue of whether God exists.
As you well know, Darwin was what we would call "racist" today. The subtitle of his book, Origin of the Species, was "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." And in the book he stated that the white race would eventually eliminate darker races (I would have to look up the specific quote). Although some people find the above idea repugnant, it does in no way invalidate his theory (by itself). All of that to say that the actions of money-hungry "Christians" does not to invalidate the existence of God.
Cannuck,
... Of course, I do not pretend to have God's appointment book, so I cannot arrange a meeting, but I can tell you that He arranged a "meeting" with me when I asked Him. I was an atheist/agnostic and determined to stay that way. But something kept gnawing at me. I kept thinking, what if Christianity is true? That "What if" was by invitation to God (without me knowing it). He answered by introducing people in my life who pointed me to the facts behind the birth/death/and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, if you want that talk ...
You may have been joking, but just in case
I almost hate to do this, but I'll try. After reading through many of the posts, I see the same idea running through many of them. The basic idea is that Christians are against science because (somehow) science invalidates God/the Bible/everything we believe in. I could point to my technical background in computer science, 20 years or industry experience, blah blah blah, to point out that I believe in scientific principles. That is, I do not pray that a bug will fix itself, I used my mind to try to figure out what it wrong (however, I often pray for strength not to hurt the manager who says, "So, can we shrink that 3 month project to 1 week?") But, I digress...
The main idea for (some/most/many) Chrisitians is that science is a process by which we study God's world. We study it to understand it and to be amazed/awed/inspired by the wonders of it. And this is the historical rational behind why many people of science also happened to be Christians. If you look at the biographies of people like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Keppler (there may be more, but I have personally read the ones just mentioned), you would see that their faith (i.e., Christianity) led them to pursue science.
And, I do not think that I am incorrect in stating that their faith actually helped improve their science. Permit me to mention a few stories:
Pasteur: as I understand it, one of the prevailing theories at the time was spontaneous generation. That is, the idea that life just "appeared." This was not an evolution issue, but was related to the question of why bacteria/maggots/other small animals "magically" appeared in certain uncovered substances (e.g., rotting flesh). According to the biography I read, Pasteur believed, because of his religious background, that God was the sole creator of all life and that these small animals could not just appear out of nowhere. So, he created a series of interesting experiments (involving curved neck beakers, etc.) to demonstrate that this was the case. And his work led to the whole notion of germ theory or at least provided the evidence(I think that last sentence is correct, but I would have to reread the biography).
Keppler: According to the biography, Kepler was dissatisfied with Ptolemy's model of the solar system and planetary orbits. Kepler was convinced that God would not have designed such an overcomplicated (and inaccurate) model as Ptolemy had (I think that Ptolemy used a complex combination of circles to predict planetary orbits). In one of his first steps, he decided to use Copernicus' model which posited that the sun was the center of the universe instead of the earth.
At this point, let the flaming begin about how those Christians (more specifically, the Roman Catholic Church at this time) made it dogma that the Earth wa the center of universe, not the sun. But this just points out a basic belief of Christians: men are fallible, but God is not. There are many sordid examples of Christians using the Bible to support their own preferences, but that is the nature of sin. Not to excuse, but similar things have happened in the name of science (e.g., Hitler's use of the prinicple of positive eugenics). As we see with Kepler (and with Christian-backed slavery), some Chrisitans will adhere to God's word and the truth will win out. Anyway...
Kepler pursued his theory and eventually created a mathetical model which he published in a book, The Comsic Mystery. In the book, he wrote the following song of praise:
Thus God himself
Was too kind to remain idle.
And began to play the game of signatures,
Signing his likeness into the world.
To make a long story short, he had a difficult time getting it publish because of the Copernicus issue (as you would expect, but God never said life was easy), but eventually did. It was still an inaccurate model because it was based on faulty observational data (which Keppler knew). Later, he was given much more accurate data by Tyco Brahe and later went on to write The New Astronony, and Harm