Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Frank Pastore :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Leftist Declaration of DE-pendence
by Frank Pastore
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Despite a 45-year monopoly on public education, the Left has been unable to persuade most Americans to abandon their belief in God and creation and replace it with a belief in atheism and evolution.

According to the latest Newsweek poll, 9 out of 10 Americans still believe in God, and half still do not believe in evolution. Especially discouraging the Leftist Academy are the 34% of college graduates who still accept the Biblical account of creation. And, when you consider 90% of all K-12 students attend their public schools, it becomes even more evident that the Left’s program of public indoctrination is not yielding the anticipated results.

This attempt to bring about the death of Christian America in order to bring about the birth of a secular-socialist uto-pia has been resisted primarily because of the fundamental Judeo-Christian values buried deep within our hearts and our national soul, best expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happi-ness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Bible is the foundation, the Declaration is the “why,” and the Constitution is the “how” of this wonderful experi-ment in liberty and self-government known as the United States of America.

From the Bible, we learn man was created in the image of God, that each man is of equal moral value before God, and our equality prevents one man from claiming the divine right to rule over another. Because each man is equally re-sponsible before God, he is to be free, and each man is responsible for the use of that freedom in governing himself. The principle of self-government roots in our equality before God.

It took 18 centuries of Christian thought to produce the Declaration. Many things needed to be worked out, among them the separation of church and state, the divine right of kings, primogeniture, and a theory of natural law and natural right. Once these were established, the institution of slavery needed to be set on a course toward ultimate extinction, which the Founders accomplished in the drafting of the Declaration. We are still overcoming the residue of that deplor-able curse. Yet, the foundation had been laid in “all men are created equal.”

If no God, then no Creator, no natural rights, and no equality. If no Creator, then evolution. If evolution, then all rights are positive rights, expressions of power rather than authority. And, if evolution, then no equality since the differ-ent races evolved separately, and no human exceptionalism – man is but an animal. Meaning, if man were to consider himself on a higher moral plane than the brutes, he would be guilty of the highest form of racism: speciesism.

Ultimately, rights come from either God or Government. If rights come from God, then government is under God, since it is the role of government to secure those rights. But, if government is the source of rights, then what is granted can be withdrawn. Rights would be alienable, only temporary. Similarly, laws are either divine or positive. All positive laws are expressions of power, while all divine laws are claims of authority. The Founders understood these things better than anyone before or since – they are the greatest political philosophers in history.

Consider slavery. Lincoln argued slavery was immoral though legal. Douglas argued it was both moral and legal. Both men accepted the divine origin of rights. But, if rights were mere positive rights, as the Left contends, then that which is legal is that which is moral. This is why to the Left, nothing is higher than the law, not even morality. Which is why there could be no leftist moral argument against slavery, they would be limited to merely a legal appeal. If so, Dred Scott would still stand. It does not because we believe the Declaration, that the moral trumps the legal, that the legal at-tempts to codify the moral. Our Founders believed this. It is the American way.

Consider an Atheist’s Declaration of Dependence:

We claim these opinions to be our relative truth, that most men are to be considered equally evolved, that they are granted certain temporary rights by government, that among them are generally life, lib-erty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to create, define, and enforce these rights, governments are insti-tuted to rule over men, deriving their powers from the ruling elites, that whenever any form of govern-ment is threatened, it is never the right of the people to alter and abolish it, for they are to never insti-tute new government. For it is the power and authority of government to create and destroy all rights, and to always determine what is in the best interests of the people. For the people are forever depend-ent upon government for all things.

The Newsweek poll is good news. It is a high, noble and an especially American thing to do to reject secularism, atheism, evolution, and other ideologies of the Left – for such thinking could never have drafted the Declaration of Inde-pendence.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Pastore's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
No One Left?

It seems that that ther are no posters here to challenge my views.

I believe in science. The problem is that science presents questions that the Evolutionists choose to ignore. That tells me alot about the stand of the Evolutionists.

I have been accused of having a closed mind. Maybe that is so. Or perhaps my mind is open to opinions that differ from the closed mindedness of the Evolutionists.

It seems to me that anything that questions a point of view must be examined; and if the results of that examination point to a different conclusion than first held, a change in viewpoint must be made.

It is the Evolutionists that have closed their minds to examination of the facts.


Gen 1:14-18

Do not take this the wrong way, I am being serious.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

I don’t see anything here stating the earth is flat or that everything revolves around it.

Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

I don’t see anything here stating the earth is flat or that everything revolves around it.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

I don’t see anything here stating the earth is flat or that everything revolves around it.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

I don’t see anything here stating the earth is flat or that everything revolves around it. Perhaps you think this says something more than it does. Does the fact that the lights in heaven give light upon the earth prevent the heavens from giving light on the moon or Jupiter or on another heavenly body for that matter? Is it your understanding that their light is given exclusively to earth?

Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

When I read verses 14-18 as a whole I don’t see anything here stating the earth is flat or that everything revolves around it. Maybe I am dense or maybe you are reading something into the Scriptures that is not there.

Now the link you provide gives one man’s (Marshall Hall’s) opinion that the Copernican Model is a counterfeit, does that mean everybody in Christianity must believe him? To be honest I thought you were pulling my leg – you know, tongue-in-cheek sorta and I did not even read any of it. Is that how you see this debate? Because Marshall Hall (who is he BTW?) believes this hogwash you can put me in HIS camp and think you’ve won some points by kicking the supports out of HIS argument?

In case you did not receive the word, the Roman Catholic Church is not the final word on God or Scripture. They, in that institution, may think so but I happen to disagree with them. So please don’t use their position for a straw man argument here.

Well, that's all for now. It has been enjoyable. Have a Good Night.

Regarding my ‘Church Teaching’

>>>
First, to put it in *YOUR* words, "You are making an assumption here. You assume that the [age of 6,000 years] is truth. After all, you have been fed this dating from day one in your [church]."
>>>

Actually, I was an evolutionist throughout my youth. I remember when theory measured earth time in 100 millions and then billions. It wasn’t until I was grown, married, and a father that I started to question why the ages kept changing. I felt that if evolution was true I should be able to hang my hat on it and it would stay in place. What I give you here is what I have found through my own research not through any Bible study where I was spoon fed. In truth I was spoon fed the same evolutionary slant in school just like you. And the churches I later attended as an adult were already corrupted from what the Bible teaches and they just went along with extreme age.

I believe that if everybody were really honest we would question some of the statements made by these ‘scientists’ more.

The two theories stand opposed!

Evolution was put forth as an explanation of beginnings without God. That is directly opposed to the Creation with God as the Cause.

Here are the words of an evolutionist:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin
http://www.creationists.org/quote001.html

Did you notice Dr. Lewontin stated that the evolutionist has A PRIOR (a priori reasoning) commitment to materialism. His mind is already made up and facts just get in the way. That is what you call ‘science’? “in spite of the patent absurdity?” “in spite of its failure?” “Materialism is an absolute?” (BTW where is Anti-Partisan-Righty anyhow?) “We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” That entire statement by Lewontin means that in every deed and in every thought evolution is directly opposed to a creation by God or even anything remotely divine.

I believe Richard Lewontin is opposed to Creation. I further believe that all Evolutionists agree with him.

More on the decaying magnetic field.

The earth’s magnetic field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years. The intensity of the field decreases by half every 1400 years. This means that as time goes on we have less protection from cosmic radiation and the solar wind.

Because we know the half-life of the decay we should be able to project that field’s strength into the past. In 6th century A.D. the field was twice as strong as it is now. In the time of David's kingdom it was four times as strong. In Noah's time it was eight times as strong. [(begin italics) That would mean that at the time of Creation it would be approx. 16 times greater than today. – my opinion. (end italics)] If we assume that the field has been decaying at the same rate for 10,000 years, the field would have been more intense than that of a magnetic star. The heat and electrical extremes from such conditions would have made life on earth impossible. And conditions simply get impossibly worse the farther into the past we project.
(http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/magnetic_fld/magnetic_fld.html)

If we assume that the rate of decay is over-estimated run the figures using twice the half-life – i.e. use 3000 years instead of 1400, we find that 12,000 years ago the field would have been at the 16x mark. And 20,000 years ago the field would have been more intense than that of a magnetic star. Do you still have problems with the decay rate? Let’s theoretically double that half-life to 6000 years. Now the 16x mark is 24,000 years ago and 40,000 years ago the field would have been more intense than that of a magnetic star. To match a proposed age of 4+billion years, we would need a half-life of 667 million years to achieve the same ratios. The only problem with these theoretical half-lives is that they DO NOT MATCH scientific observations.

The fact of a shrinking magnetic field along with a known rate of decay means the earth could not be 4.6 billion years old. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says it is impossible. Things run down. Things wear out. Things die. And this world will run down, wear out, and die too. But more importantly, if this is true then this world had a beginning much more recently than 4+ billion years ago. To date there is no method known to rejuvenate the magnetic field. What is lost is lost.

This is why I believe that an age of 4+ billion years is impossible.

What is a day?

As promised... I'm back.

To the best of my knowledge, the book of Genesis was written by Moses at the inspiration of God. Since God is speaking His words to His Creation (us mere mortal men) through Moses I think He would use simple terms to which we can understand and relate. Otherwise, what is the sense in communicating if half to team can’t understand the message?

In the New Testament, Jesus teaches about heaven by speaking in parables we understand, and to which we can relate in our daily lives. Although Jesus compares Heaven to a pearl and a field, we know that Heaven is not in actuality a pearl nor is it a field but we get the message of something more that these and of great value. When speaking in parable Jesus used the words ‘like’ and ‘as’. If God wanted to speak in parables about the Creation, He would have done that, but instead, He spoke plainly.

If God really wanted us to think in terms of 24 hour day periods, then He would have plainly spoken of a ‘day’ to Moses who in turn would have plainly written a ‘day’. We understand that each day has one evening and one morning in each complete cycle. And so God re-emphasized the idea of a 24 hour cycle by including the terms ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ in His description. I also believe that in fact there was a period of darkness (evening) and a period of light (morning).

If God had intended for us to understand many years were needed, then He would have plainly told Moses while writing the book that He took years for the creation. After all Moses understood that concept of years and wrote that Adam lived 930 years and died. But God used the term days to tell of His work. I think He wanted us to understand that it took 6 days for Creation.

Now, I am not saying that God could not have existed for tens-or-millions of years His time in a time frame equivalent to one day our time. But there is nothing in the Scriptures to point to this scenario. Conversely, God could have packed tens-of-millions of years our time into one day His time, but there is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest this either. The only source for the suggestion of great time needed for the Creation is from man who seeks to supplant God.

Here is another point for consideration. A year is one complete revolution of the earth around the sun. A lunar month is a complete revolution of the moon around the earth (just short of our month as we know it today). A day is one complete rotation of the earth on its axis. Where does the concept of a week come from? There is nothing in the natural world that has a complete cycle of 7 days. A 7 day week is an artificial measurement. But it fits perfectly in the Creation for on the 7th day God rested. That concept of a 7 day week is carried through to the Ten Commandments. According to Scripture, we are to remember the Sabbath and set it apart from the other days.

This is why I believe that a day in Genesis is a 24 hour period.

Liberty First - Sorry I missed the post

How could I have NOT posted this concerning earth age of 4.55 billion years?

Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field

“Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field can be used as a limiting chronometer. Dr. Thomas Barnes has calculated the present strength of the earth's magnetic field and extrapolated (calculated) backwards. He has concluded that the strength of the magnetic field a million years ago would have been so great that it would have torn the earth apart. This information limits what the age of the earth could be. He estimates that it took thousands of years, rather than billions of years, for the earth's magnet to have decayed to its present strength.”
(http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0719_Age_of_the_Earth.html )

The earth's magnetic field is decaying with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old. (http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ )

No one denies that this decay is taking place. What the rebuttals focus on is the rate of decay. Simple measurements over time should the data necessary to form a pattern. And scientists do have 150 years of measurements to work with. And so projecting backwards, they arrive at the general conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Naturally the Evolutionists need lots of time for their theory to work and oppose this opinion.

Curiously Creationists do not need the time since as you have pointed out the Creation could have taken the same amount of time with God's direction.

One point of interest I see is that as the magnetic field lessens, the solar rays can penetrate deeper into the earth’s atmosphere. To my way of thinking, that would expose all humans to higher risk of cancers. And isn’t that what we see?

Another point of interest I see is that as this field is projected backwards into time the field should be getting stronger. Would gravity increase? If so, then we would expect to see fossil evidence of bigger boned men and animals and we do see this in the fossil records from ‘Neanderthal’ men to giant bison and rhinoceros… perhaps even big boned dinosaurs. I have not found these last two points in any article; they are strictly my own thoughts so I cannot give a reference.

The general feeling is that 4+ billion years is just way too long for an earth age. That is where I came from when I said it was impossible.

I will be back tomorrow with further posts on the rest of your response.

Have a Good Night

Liberty First
Thank you.

I find faith in science. I found faith in my scientific beliefs through council with the priest that confirmed and married me. I found that faith was what should be most important, not the denial of what is presented (ie morally attained scientific discoveries).

The flesh is weak. Physical laws that we are able to decipher bring us closer to Him. These laws are not flesh they are the blueprint of why/how we are here.

I heard Dennis Prager say something to the effect of: "Scientists try to prove creation through science. They climb the mountain of knowledge and when they get to the summit there is a group of theologians that have been there all along."

Whether scientists want to believe it or not, they are working toward the same goal. I see the denial of these scientific discoveries as denying both science and Him.

Thank you

re: birdman
birdman wrote:

"... Please show me exactly where Genesis describes the earth as the center of the universe where 'the heavenly bodies rotate around the Earth.' Please show me where Genesis describes the earth as flat. I use your own Bible verses..."

=====

I did, chapter and verse. In fact, you reproduced them in your response.

Genesis 1:14 - 18 is the foundation for the Fixed Earth model (ie: the link I included).

Go ahead, review the material at: http://www.fixedearth.com/

The sun and the other heavenly bodies were created later, on the fourth day. Verses 14 and 15 show that they are peripheral, and their purpose is that of serving the earth. These statements fit in very naturally with the concept that the earth is central and stationary. On the other hand there is a problem for the popular idea that the earth actually orbits the sun - a body created after the earth was already in place.


See also:
http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/geocentricity.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/index.html
http://www.geocentricity.com/


The fixed-Earth was, for quite some time, the common understanding, teaching, and even doctrine of the Church. Genesis 1:14 - 18 describes a process whereby the stars, Sun, and Moon in the firmament which is described like a dome upon which things are projected or set (ala: a planetarium).

The reading of that suggest[ed] as much -- that the firmament is the dome of the sky that we see and that the celestial bodies were placed to move across that dome, just like the light show at a planetarium.


Of course, Psalms and Chronicles also support this reading:

Psalms 93:1: "... the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

Psalms 96:10: "... the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved..."

1 Chronicles 16:30: "... the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

-------------------

"... Of course I 'accept the mountains of scientific evidence that demonstrate that the Earth orbits the Sun and spins on it's (sic) own axis.' Does that somehow contradict the Genesis account? If so, show me where and how..."

=====

See above. Also...

Galileo was tried for heresy because of his "discoveries" and ordered to rescind his notions of the Earth orbiting around the sun declare them to be, "at least erroneous in faith".

Galileo wasn't "vindicated" by the Church until 1992 when Pope John Paul II made the statement:

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture..."
– Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4th November,1992

-------------------


"... I get the feeling that you are purposely attempting to find fault with the Scriptures; or at the very least with my interpretation of the Scriptures..."

=====


Read the last sentence of Pope John Paul's statement again: "The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture..."


If that is the case, can the same *not* be said of the duration of Creation and the age of the Earth?


I am not attempting to address fault in the scriptures. I am attempting to address fault in [literalist] interpretations.

You declared that creation must be taken literally. However, with some exceptions, it is widely accepted that the fixed-Earth literal translation is wrong. Therefore, it cannot be taken literally.

If you are willing to accept that, then to remain intellectually consistent (and intellectually honest) you must also accept the possibility that *you* cannot, necessarily, take the *rest* of Genesis literally.

re: birdman
birdman wrote:

"First, you never acknowledged my answer to your challenge of a day possibly meaning millions of years. Can I take your silence to mean agreement on your part that a day in Genesis is clearly a 24 hour period? If not, I really would like to hear your explanation of how a period of a day equals a period of many millions of years..."

=====

No, actually. I adopted a different tack because it was obvious, from your answer, that you are unwilling to think outside of your sphere of experience and instruction.

However, since you have pressed it, I shall answer. It's called "relativity" (no, not like Einstein's theory of Relativity).


A "day" is the length of time it takes for a planet to make a complete rotation on it's axis. On Earth, that is approximately 24 hours. Venus, however, takes approximately 234 Earth-days to make a complete rotation on it's access. Thus, on Venus a "day" is the equivalent of approximately 5,616 Earth-hours.


Thus, the length of a "day" is *relative* to the speaker. A (hypothetical) Venutian reading the term "day", without any additional qualification or definition, will *understand* that to mean a period of time that is substantially longer than an Earthling's understanding and experience.


By the same token, a being that is *outside* of our realm/universe/reality/dimension/whatever -- a being that is eternal and timeless, for whom a thousand human lifetimes are but a blink of an eye -- relative to *His* experience, the passage of a "day" could conceivably be many millions of years by *our* comprehension.


Now, with the exception of mentioning the passage of morning and evening, Genesis never defines what a "day' is. It never expressly mentions that a "day" of creation was one 24-hour Earth-day. Thus, such a reading (a 24-hour day) is an inference by the reader and *not* necessarily the same measure of "time" expressed by the narrator.

-----------------

"... and your description of what millions of years of evening (darkness) or morning (light) would look like. How would plants grow during millions of years of evening (darkness)?..."

=====

How can I describe what no living person has ever experienced? *IF* the "day" referenced in Genesis is a "day" of God's experience, as opposed to a "day" of Earth's experience, then *his* experience of "morning" and "evening" are completely different from ours. Quite simply, what God experiences in His plane of existence is utterly inconceivable to us mere mortals.

-----------------

"... Second, you never acknowledged my answer to your challenge of the age of the earth being dated at 4.55 billion years old. Can I take your silence as agreement on your part that a long earth age is impossible?..."

=====

Nope. You never offerend any proof that a long Earth age is impossible. *ALL* you did was offer anecdotal evidence that there are flaws in dating methods with no cited or linked corroboration.

I will accept that there are flaws and inconsistencies. HOWEVER, that does *not* mean an old-Earth age is *impossible*. It *only* calls into question the accuracy of *certain* dating methods.

Neverminding the fact that a variety of methods have been used to guesstimate the age of the Earth and your "cite" *only* calls one type of method into question, all that inaccuracies demonstrate is that it could go either way. *Either* they are over-inflated or under-inflated. Regardless, there is no telling by how much.

It might only be over-inflated by 2 billion years, in which case, the Earth is still 2.55 billion years old (give or take a million) and still *far* older than the scriptural dating suggests.

So no, I do not concede any such *im*possibility.

-----------------

"... Third, you never acknowledged my answer to your question to the effect that they can 'both be true'. Can I take your silence as agreement on your part that it is impossible for both to be true since their premises (starting points, hypotheses) are directly opposite one another?..."

=====

Oh heavens no, because your response was just plain silly -- particularly in light of your opening "rebuttal" to the 4.55 billion-year age (You said: "You are making an assumption here. You assume that the date 4.55 billion is truth. After all, you have been fed this dating from day one in your school.")


In your response to both being true, you said, "Either the 6,000 years is correct or the Evolutionists have won the debate with you because you surrendered the field." Which is simply vacuous.

First, to put it in *YOUR* words, "You are making an assumption here. You assume that the [age of 6,000 years] is truth. After all, you have been fed this dating from day one in your [church]."

Second, it only takes into account the geneologies and, again, assumes -- based upon the narrow experience of a "day" here on Earth -- that the six days of creation were "Earth-days" and *NOT* "God-days".


Thinking in terms of the relativity of a "day", *AND* taking into account that Genesis is very vague -- it does not express the *specific* mechanics by which God created the heavens and the Earth

it is conceivable that creation took many millions or billions of years -- as measured *here* by *our* comprehension --

By the way Liberty First

The Bible, though not a science textbook, demonstrates scientific truth:

Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

It wasn't until America went into space that force of that verse rang true. How did Job know that the earth was suspended over nothing? Only 2 ways I can figure. 1) He stood from a distant vantage point and saw the sight of earth floating through space. But that seems unlikely to me; does it to you? 2) Someone who knew, told him about it. Who could have known?

, or someone who knew

Paul taught Creation

Paul understood the Creation to be history:

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. …

45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

1 Timothy 2
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Think about this for a moment. First man was formed then woman. If a day in Creation was equivalent to 10 millions of years as Liberal First proposed, then one hour was equivalent to 416,666 years and one minute was equivalent to 6,944 years. How did the human race survive that first minute (6,944 years) without a woman? This is another consideration for a day of Creation being a normal 24 hour day.

The real point is that in the Scriptures, the Creation is considered historical and factual. There is no reason for us (men) to adjust Scriptures to suit our fancies. We either believe the Word of God as it is written or we don’t. If we don’t then what parts DO we believe? Where do we draw the line? Are the Scriptures just a smorgasbord from which individuals can pick and choose their own personal favorite beliefs?

Jesus taught Creation

Jesus understood the Creation was history and gave no evidence that it involved evolution:

Mark 10
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

If we are truly Christians (i.e. followers of Christ) should not we also teach as He taught?

You’re curious, Liberty First

Frankly, I’m curious too. I am not sure what you are driving at. Please show me exactly where Genesis describes the earth as the center of the universe where “the heavenly bodies rotate around the Earth.” Please show me where Genesis describes the earth as flat. I use your own Bible verses:

Genesis 1
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Of course I “accept the mountains of scientific evidence that demonstrate that the Earth orbits the Sun and spins on it's (sic) own axis.” Does that somehow contradict the Genesis account? If so, show me where and how.

I get the feeling that you are purposely attempting to find fault with the Scriptures; or at the very least with my interpretation of the Scriptures. If you know of a fault, don’t beat around the bush… spell it out clearly for the world to see. Make your case and present your facts. I’m a big boy; I can take the heat.

Hello again, Liberty First

First, you never acknowledged my answer to your challenge of a day possibly meaning millions of years. Can I take your silence to mean agreement on your part that a day in Genesis is clearly a 24 hour period? If not, I really would like to hear your explanation of how a period of a day equals a period of many millions of years and your description of what millions of years of evening (darkness) or morning (light) would look like. How would plants grow during millions of years of evening (darkness)?

Second, you never acknowledged my answer to your challenge of the age of the earth being dated at 4.55 billion years old. Can I take your silence as agreement on your part that a long earth age is impossible?

Third, you never acknowledged my answer to your question to the effect that they can “both be true”. Can I take your silence as agreement on your part that it is impossible for both to be true since their premises (starting points, hypotheses) are directly opposite one another?

All you do is ask another question. Indeed, curious.

Re: Birdman
I'm just curious. According to a literal reading of Genesis 1:14-18, God created the Earth *and then* placed the stars, sun, and moon in the sky to mark day, night, seasons, days, and years. Do you accept the literal reading that indicates that the heavenly bodies rotate around the Earth ala http://www.fixedearth.com/ ?


1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


Or do you accept the mountains of scientific evidence that demonstrate that the Earth orbits the Sun and spins on it's own axis?


If not, then you have accepted that, at least part of Genesis, is *either* *NOT* literal *OR* "the Bible has flaws and errors". If you have accepted that part of Genesis is *NOT* literal, then you must accept the possibility that *ALL* of Genesis is *NOT* literal.


Of course, a *literal* reading of Genesis 1:14 - 18 *also*, clearly, suggests a flat Earth with a domed sky (like a planetarium)...

Why evolution is not acceptable...
...in the framework of Christian creation:

God created ALL THINGS in the first six days of creation. That means from beginning to end - everything that has been or will be has already been created, the things that WILL BE have not come into view yet.

It also means that things cannot 'evolve' because they are already created. We just do not see them yet.

Birdman
In the 1980's there was a public debate at a college in New Orleans (Loyola, I think) between an evolutionist and a creationist. I talked an unbelieving friend of mine into attending with me. My friend said: "Look, if this guy gets up and has horns on his head (index fingers up to indicate a devil's presumed horns) then I'll believe you."

When the announcer approached the podium, he was a particularly sinister looking fellow. He then announced in a deep, haunting voice, not at all intending to be funny: "Good evening, my name is Mr. Evil."

Now I doubt if his name was really spelled that way--more likely it was something else and it just sounded like the word evil. But when my friend looked at me his eyes were like saucers, and I expect that the hair was standing up on the back of his neck. Did my friend then believe? No, of course not, but it still was an interesting experience and a reasonably good debate as I recall.

God, Evolution, Creation
I was Christened as a Catholic shortly after birth, educated as a Catholic, and matured as a Catholic and thinking individual. I offer the following:

I was taught in grammar school by nuns, and I never came across the stereotypical wrist-slapping maniac described in so much comic literature. I was taught history and facts, influenced to the good in my personal life, taught to think for myself, and welcomed to human life by a fine group of women who recognized the worth of the individual.

I learned the ideas of the Catholic books of the Bible and the fact that the words were Divinely inspired. We were not taught to believe them word for word, but to recognize what their words really meant. And that takes some thought, doesn't it?

We learned that the theory of Evolution does not necessarily contradict what the Bible says about Creation. We certainly can't restrict God to human understanding of the nature of things. He knows everything. We do not.

What's the matter? Didn't you ever learn to think? Do you believe there are only two choices: evolution or intelligent design? We're here! It's obvious that creation occurred. How it occurred is open to discussion---but don't deny creation because you'll never be able to refute the hand of God. Try to explain it yes, but don't deny it. If you try, you're doomed to failure.

God exists, whether you say so or not. And His created universe is partially understandable with intelligence, logic and lots of hard work---no modern Liberalism welcome because you have disdain for much of known truth.

Evolution, Creation and Intelligent Design theories are not antagonistic to one another. But you can't count too much on arguments requiring unassailable proof. Details of proof are usually provided by men, and they'll never completely satisfy you or anyone else. Definition of terms in the Bible are not given, leaving Faith an important adjunct. Interpretation of these data are presented by men---of decidedly imperfect creation.

Be creative [oops!] Think and come up with possible scenarios. None of them will change the truth. How God created us is not as important as Why he made us. And, yes, I do speak in generalities because there aren't too many generally accepted and proven facts in this discussion.

So, argue on. It can be quite interesting at times.

AliveInHim

I imagine Adam to have been created in his prime. My prime was about 18 so he was probably comparable to that age. How about you - how do you picture him?

I still think miracles are still happening. But scientists at the wedding would have tested the wine and dated the jugs before declaring the whole affair a magicians trick.

In my own life, the day I became a believer, I asked God for a sign to guarantee He was present and He gave me my sign exactly as I asked immediately. Miracle or coincidence? I took it as a miracle because my request was not ordinary but something special to me. I didn't know it at the time but this was in the same vein as Gideon laying out the fleece. I've never asked for a sign since.

Birdman
I'm enjoying your posts.

One other point worth mentioning is that if the belief that God can create a whole cosmos having the appearance of maturity (how old do you suppose Adam looked?) is false, then we have to ask if the all of the miracles of Christ were also false. It can't be both ways, skeptics!

The water-into-wine miracle is one that illustrates the possibility of an instantly created cosmos very well. That wine was obviously of a superior vintage; it had both the substance (taste) and appearance of maturity. Everyone was astounded that such good wine would still be served at that point, given that the wedding guests were tipsy enough not to care what was in their goblets. Yet it took no more time to transform that well water into a beverage fit for a king than it took for Him to order the servants to draw the water in the first place.

How do you read, those who really think that miracles are not possible?


Liberty First
>>>
Why can't *both* be True?
>>>

I do not believe that both can be true. First of all, Evolution was devised to tell a story about origins without (sans) God. Evolutionists cannot allow a divine foot in the door. So you attempt to modify the Evolutionists is nothing more than denying God His due.

Second, The two version contradict one another just in terms of age. You said that the earth was 4.55 years old. That was Evolutionary date you cited. Following the geneologies in Scripture shows the Biblical age to be around 6,000 years old. Either the 6,000 years is correct or the Evolutionists have won the debate with you because you surrendered the field.

Liberty First

>>>
Scientists have been able to estimate the age of the Earth at approximately 4.55 billion years old.
>>>

You are making an assumption here. You assume that the date 4.55 billion is truth. After all, you have been fed this dating from day one in your school. In fact there is no valid method to arrive at this date other than consensus of opinion among Evolutionists. Do you realize that the current lava dome on Mt St. Helens volcano has been date tested at 1.9 million years old? Now this mountain blew its top in 1980 so the dome is less than 25 year old today. Do a little research concerning the problems with dating systems. They are not nearly as reliable as you might suppose.

Now stop and think for a moment. If God created the trees on the third day, do you suppose that those trees had tree rings as if they had been growing for 50+ years at that very moment? Or do you think He just planted the seed so that Adam and Eve had to wait 50 years to sample the fruit? It is my understanding that God created a mature earth in every meaning of the word full of mature plants and animals.

Faith is defined as: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If you do not look for God you will not find Him. If you look for Him you will find Him everywhere. If He said He created the universe in 6 days look at it with the eyes of faith. My faith is foolishness in the eyes of the perishing. But I will not trade my faith in God for your faith in Evolution. With God there is hope. With Evolution there is no hope.

Liberty First
>>>
How long is one of God's "days"? Are his "days" 24 hours, like *ours*, or does God measure "days" in terms *we* would understand better in terms of "tens-of-millions of years"?
>>>

I don’t know how you interpret it but the language as written in Genesis speaks of a 24 hour day.
Gen 1:5 And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Gen 1:8 And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.
Gen 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
Gen 1:31 And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

If you can please explain to me how you can interpret the evening of tens-of-millions of years and morning of tens-of-millions of years for day one. To me, this makes absolutely no sense. Evening and morning speak of one 24 hour day. You try to put God into a convenient little box that you can control. Good luck in your endeavors.

re: birdman
birdman wrote:

"... If the true story of Creation happened via millions of years, I would expect God to be truthful enough to tell us that 'In the beginning it took millions of years.' But the actual Creation happened in 6 days..."

=======

How long is one of God's "days"? Are his "days" 24 hours, like *ours*, or does God measure "days" in terms *we* would understand better in terms of "tens-of-millions of years"?

After all, God is timeless... eternal... right?

--------------------

"... Now, I wasn't there 'in the beginning' so I can't give an eyewitness account to the Bible version..."

=======

Scientists have been able to estimate the age of the Earth at approximately 4.55 billion years old.

Yet, according to strict, scriptural analysis, the Earth is only supposed to be about 6,000 years old.

On the other hand, archeologists have discovered evidence of "modern man" dating back beyond 30,000 years (5 times older than the Earth is supposed to be according to scriptural analysis).



In order for the scriptural estimate to be correct, one would have to surmise that God *intentionally* modeled the Earth with contradictory evidence (re: fossils, rocks that defy dating to register as millions of years old, the geological stratas, etcetear). Well, "[you] would expect God to be truthful enough to tell us that 'In the beginning it took millions of years'."

Wouldn't you also expect God to be truthful enough *NOT* to lace our environment with contradictory evidence? Or do you suppose that God intentionally *falsified* the evidence in order to test our faith in Him and His story of creation?



Why can't *both* be True? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that, maybe, just maybe, God used astrophysics and the "Big Bang" as the vehicle for the Creation of the Universe *and* that God combined various inorganic compounds to create Life and evolution to "mold" it into the form(s) He desired?

ValiantForTruth

You ask, "...why do scientists search for the cause and effect laws of physics apart from a Christian worldview?"

I believe that Richard Lewontin stated that "we (i.e. evolutionists) cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." It is all about a story without God. It doesn't even have to make sense. All it has to do is confuse people about God.


To birdman...

Thanks for the lessons in real science rather than imaginary science.

A more fundamental question to ask is why do scientists search for the cause and effect laws of physics apart from a Christian worldview? Why does the naturalist expect such law to exist?

crackdaddy
>>>
I don't understand why it is impossible to be a devout christian and believe that god created man in a way that is mysterious to us all. After all, we can never know god, nor his ways.
>>>

Perhaps I can explain. There are some people who want all people to believe that the beginings happened sans God. As a matter of fact, they don't want God anywhere in their vicinity. I don't doubt that God in all of His power could have done it over billions of years. But that theistic version of evolution compromises the Scriptures and just plays into their hands. For once we accept their version or teach theistic evolution as a compromise then the Bible has flaws and errors and we can never again trust the Word of God. That is why they attack the foundation of our belief. A house stands on a strong foundation or it falls. That is why we have to study and defend the Creation with good science and the scientic method. If Evolution fails our scientic tests then it cannot be true and we musts says so.

If the true story of Creation happened via millions of years, I would expect God to be truthful enough to tell us that "In the beginning it took millions of years." But the actual Creation happened in 6 days. If God in all of His power could do the Creation over 6 eons, why could not that same all-powerful God do it over 6 days? For an all-powerful God time is irrelevant because He is outside of time's constraints.

Now, I wasn't there 'in the beginning' so I can't give an eyewitness account to the Bible version. But then no one was there for the Evolutionists version of the creation either. The Evolutionists have put forth a story of how things happened. If their version is true I should not be able to find any flaws and I would have to state the Scriptures are imperfect. If their story fails examination the public should be made aware of that failure.

Guess what? So far the Scriptures are in one piece. It is the Evolutionary story that is in shambles. Evolution is contrary to the laws of science and outside the realm of possibility. I am secure in the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and salvation is possible.

Devout Christians either take the Scriptures as they are written or they concede the field to their new god. If they concede to a new god, how devout are they?

re: cat trapper:
James Madison: ”Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” and "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

+ The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

>>

Thomas Jefferson: "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Thomas Jefferson: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

Thomas Jefferson: ”The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

Thomas Jefferson: "I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives...But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities."

+ From: Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and

+ Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

>>

John Adams: "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

John Adams: "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."

>>

Ben Franklin: "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

Ben Franklin: "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

Benjamin Franklin: ”As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."

+ From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.

>>

Thomas Paine, a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence: ”I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

+ The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)


==================


While most founders were, in one manner or another, quite pious, nearly *all* believed that religion, and by extension the *source* of "morality", is a *private* matter between an Individual and his God. They believed it was *not* a matter to be dictated by government fiat. Indeed, it was Jefferson that authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which helped lead to *disestablishing* the Anglican Church in Virginia *and* was used as the framework for the First Amendment.

Their private thoughts put religion and morality in pivotal roles in the success of a Free Republic of Self-Governing Individuals. They *ALSO* believed in the sanctity of individual Conscience -- that each is free to believe and worship according to his own convictions -- and, consequently, politically established a secular Federal government based upon *pagan* (not Christian) models of Republicanism.

re: Christian Founding
The author wrote:

"... It took 18 centuries of Christian thought to produce the Declaration..."

=======

The author needs to pull his head out of his agenda and revisit history.

The primary, motivating principles leading to the Revolution and, by extension, the Declaration of Independence were Individual Freedom and Liberty. These were hardly the products of "Christian thought". Indeed, centuries of "Christian thought" *imposed* theocratic, rule of the Church and/or "Divine Monarchs" who were said to be chosen and ordained by God to be Kings.

The origins of the concepts of Individual Freedom and Liberty date back to the pagan philosophers of Ancient (pre-Christian) Greece. In fact, the Founders looked towards Natural Law (with origins in Greek philosophy) and Common Law (established by pagans in England long *before* Christianity arrived) for their inspiration as much, if not more than, Divine Law.


The author suggests that the Declaration of Independence is the culmination of "18 centuries of Christian thought" leading to a Christian founding of America. Assuming that were the case, then one would expect to see a variety of references to "God", "the Father", "the Creator", etcetera in the Founding Documents.

Let's review those documents, shall we...

Here is are links to those documents:

The Declaration of Independence:
+ http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The Articles of Confederation (our first constitution):
+ http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm

The Constitution:
+ http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Bill of Rights:
+ http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Also, here's a link to the remaining amendments:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

A quick text search at all five of those links will reveal *only* ONE occurance, *EACH*, of the words God and Creator, and those are *only* in the Declaration of Independence. Religion is mentioned once each in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution (no religious test), and the Bill of Rights (First Amendment). It is not mentioned at all in the remaining Amendments.

No other references to Christian "thought" or piety are made either.

The glaring *LACK* of such references denies any such "Christian" foundation propsed by the author, but...

Additionally, here is Benjamin Franklin's suggested Articles of Confederation:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/contcong/07-21-75.htm

Nope. No such references.

... and John Dickinson's draft:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/contcong/07-12-76.htm.

"God" and "Creatod" do not occur at all and the word "Religion" occurs in the same context as in the ratified Articles of Confederation.

Just for completeness, however, here is a link to the Federalist Papers:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm

"God" (capitalized) is used only once (in Federalist 43). "God", without caps occurs once in Federalist 18. "Creator" does not occur at all. Again, hardly "frequent" or "reoccurring". Any additional referfences to religion or Christianity are vague and/or non-secular. That's hardly indicative of a pious Founding of a Christian nation.

Still, just for completeness, here are links to James Madison's notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, Rufus King's notes, and Alexander Hamilton's notes respectively:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/king.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/const05.htm

The words "God" and "Creator" are noted twice and once, respectively, by Madison and not at all by either King or Hamilton. Again, hardly "frequent" or "reoccurring"


Indeed, there are far *TOO* few occassions where those words and other religious references are used in our Founding documents, drafts, debates, and pamphlets to support a NON-secular founding as you suggest.


If our Founding was *so* rooted in Christian principles, how is it that, in *ALL* these documents, so many different individuals simply *FORGOT* to mention it!?




Additionally, refer to the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. It was unimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, June 10, 1797.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

Article 11:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


This Treaty was *UNANIMOUSLY* approved by the Senate a mere 21 years after the "Founding" of this Nation. This treaty absolutely *denied* founding America "on the Christian Religion". That absolutely contradicts the author's premise *and* cat trapper's evidence. Yet, there was no hue and cry in the Senate.

After the Treaty was approved it was reprinted, in full, by a great many newspapers. Yet... there was no hue and cry in the public square.

How could there be *NO* outrage in Congress or in the Street *IF* the author's premise is correct?


The answer is simple. The author is wrong. There was no outrage *because*, though *many* Founders were pious (though it is hardly clear that a *majority* were "Christian"), our founding was based on secular principles of Individual Liberty and Freedom.

The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, spoke the truth and the public knew it. Thus, there was acceptance, and even approval, of the Treaty, *NOT* outrage.

P.S. to Phil:
I'm not Catholic so don't track the Vatican on this issue. Hope that clears it up. I'm Lutheran.

Wonder where Black Cherokee is these days?

Pasadena Phil
Please don't misunderstand. Nobody argues the validity of micro-evolution, that is, change within a species. If the genetic capability is there, that kind of change can happen, but only if the potential is there in the first place. What is in contention is the idea that any organism can be radically changed into another organism, in other words, lizards into birds (impossible-the bone structures are completely different), hyrax into horses, or worse, four-legged creatures into whales. Punk-eek or gradualistic, this kind of thinking is fundamentally no different than the idea (once popular in the Middle Ages) that rats were borne from rags. It is no more scientific or less religious than believing that an omnipotent Intelligence wrought the whole of creation. I did say, and so do a lot of other people, scientist and layman alike, that there are a lot of flaws in the theory. It can hardly be "religious" to point them out. It's just good old-fashioned critical thinking! Having heard both sides and made the conscious decision to reject evolution as likely, it is nonetheless a fact that evolution is still a theory about earth's history.

I am not sure which of the points I brought up are specifically religious, other than that I believe that God said "Let there be..." etc. How is it religious to question as I and others have? Is it religious to understand and be able to prove that mutations are never beneficial, and are only neutral at best, when genetics backs the claim? Is it religious to ask if it is reasonable to suppose that order is a state that must be imposed rather than a condition that somehow arises on its own, a conclusion that is readily reached simply by using ordinary powers of observation and experience? Is it religious to insist that rather than make dogmatic assumptions about the existence of missing links, we should rather admit there are at this time no such organisms that can truly qualify for such a dubious distinction?

I wonder how many realize that 90% of the scientists who have ever lived were indeed people who accepted that Biblical framework of origins so many despise. Even Plato, who had no knowledge of Genesis that we know of, believed the cosmos to be a created thing. So the debate rages on, as it will until the End, but I'd rather we have our discussion as good friends. It isn't necessarily up to me to convince anyone; I'm just putting my two cents' out there for whatever anyone wants to get out of it.

Still friends, Phil? ;)

...and about those steers...
Calabash writes:
"In my ignorance, I didn't realize that steers were castrated male cattle. I guess it's hard to fathom the nuances of animal husbandry when you're stuck in Philadelphia."

I occasionally consider the 'nuance' that motivated that farmer to be the first one to go out and cut the nootz off a perfectly good bull...

"...in His own image..."
Self-ownership is the central tenet of liberty upon which our nation was founded.
There are only three choices:
1) I own myself and the product of my labor.
2) Someone else owns me and the product of my labor.
3) Everyone else owns me and the procuct of my labor.

Only #1 is the correct perspective upon which the Declaration and Constitution depend.

This is also the only perspective consistent with God's scriptural presentation of our existence. He did not create man to be automatons - directed to be here or there, told to do this or that, demanded to believe only one way - He created man 'in His own image'. That image includes the liberty of choice.

God does not 'need' man to worship him or obey His laws...Mark:2:27 "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." Liberty is endowed by grace. He GIVES us the choice to choose law over grace.

This is in stark contrast the what evolution, atheism, and 'law-centered' religion claim - that there is no CHOICE only LAW. It is also the reason that evolution, atheism and 'law-centered' religion are based on faith - the faith in science, circumstance, and law. The only consideration of property is #2 or #3 - someone or something else, or everyone and everything else, own me and the product of my labor.

It denies both ownership and responsibility. If you do not own yourself, you are not responsible for your actions and your ideas and existence do not have consequences. This is the very antithesis of liberty. It accedes that no other view is allowed and justifies it's own existence by this faith.

Evolution is science?

Let's face facts folks. Evolutionists oppose creationsim because it smacks of miracles and supernatural events. Doesn't the fact that evolution is contrary to the natural laws make it 'super'-natural? Isn't the scenerio of evolution a miracle in itself?

If evolution is such a supernaturally miraculous event doesn't that disqualifiy it as science and put it into the realm of religion?

You believe evolution not because of the facts but inspite of them. You believe evolution because you have faith in it.

This is nothing more than a religious debate. As such it should come under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment and not be sanctioned by the Government over and above any other religion. It should be taught honestly in schools as opinion with all other opinions presented as well.

The Law of Probability

The Law of Probability gives the odds of the occurrence of any given event.

I am a computer programmer. What are the odds of the computer performing any specific function without a section of code to direct the machine to do that function? I suppose if the machine was turned on and I waited long enough (excluding ‘down time’) some chance random electron might trigger the accomplishment of the task – or not.

The odds of the creation of the simplest amino acid (a building block for cells) without any code for direction has been estimated by mathematicians to be one in 10 to the 520th power. That number is trillions of times larger than the total number of atoms estimated to be in the universe. Amino acids are used by DNA molecules to produce proteins. But the DNA molecules are themselves proteins made up of amino acids. All of these have to exist coincidentally with one another for the system to work at all. What are the odds of the system being up and running at all if the odds for the spontaneous generation of the simplest amino acid is so high?

Evolution violates all the basic laws of science as well as the Law of Probability.

The Law of Biogenesis

The Law of Biogenesis declares that life begets life. Matter and energy do not possess the attribute of life so they cannot be the cause of life. Refer back to The Law of Cause and Effect. Again, the inference is compelling that life is caused by a metaphysical being who has created life and provided for its continuation in this world. If Evolution is true then this law is not a law or it must be repealed since Evolution violates this law.

Second Law cont.

Since this Second Law points to an end it demands a beginning, a cause. Therefore, this law gives a compelling inference that the First Cause must be a metaphysical being, unbound by natural processes that used unnatural or supernatural creative processes to convert an enormous storehouse of energy into the matter and energy of this universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics declares that the universe is running down and moving toward to a condition of maximum disorder where no energy will remain to perform work. The universe will eventually die a heat death. Looking backwards in time, the matter/energy of the universe would show an increase in order and complexity. If Evolution is true then this law is not a law or it must be repealed since Evolution works exactly opposite to this law.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

The First Law of Thermodynamics declares that the natural processes of physics, chemistry, etc. can neither create nor destroy matter/energy. While one form of energy may be transformed into another form such as fuel or motion into heat, no energy is destroyed in the process; it just radiates out into space and is lost. This leads us to the Second Law.

The Law of Cause and Effect

The Law of Cause and Effect declares that no cause can produce an effect that it does not possess itself or that is greater qualitatively or quantitatively. If Evolution is true then this law is not a law or it must be repealed since Evolution works contrary to this law. Life cannot begin from non-life. An amoeba cannot create the genetic codes for a paramecium. A dog cannot give birth to a cat.

slacker

I will never understand why you say science provides objective "truth", that faith cannot be valid.

From a theological standpoint we are talking about two different kingdoms. The Greater kingdom (spiritual) is that of the heavens which the Bible reveals to us.

The Lesser kingdom (human) is that of the planet we live on. (You know, the one Algore has this great concern about).

Science includes drawing objective conclusions on this Lesser kingdom and does make some observations of the heavens. Obviously, scientists have added enormously benefits to mankind ( I, for one, am grateful for all they have provided).

But, science has not to this date been able to supply one particular human need: that is, hope.

One may place their hope in many things on this planet, but "true" hope is the desire for a Savior. That is the defining difference between the spiritual and the humane

As you stated, they are in opposition, have been, and always will be.

All Conservative are not religious. I don't know where you got the idea they were. All Liberals are not religious neither.

The Bible is the Authority for the Christian faith. It is not this kingdom the Bible is concerned with; it is for the unseen world or the Greater kingdom. What we learn here and now is about the there and then.

Man is not able to obey the Word of God no matter how hard he trys. He will fail, if not on one command, then he will on another. It was not written as a guide for this life. It was written to show mankind that if they were reconciled to the Father (God) in the Greater Kingdom, they would get some kind of an inkling what life in the Greater Kingdom would be like. Through a relationship with the Son (Jesus Christ) a believer is able to get a glimpse of what life might be in the heavens.

Mankind is burden with a sin nature (unproven by science, of course) which prevents him from following the Word of God exactly as it is written.

The believer, through faith, appropriates Christlikeness and he thereby can model the Creator of mankind on this Lesser kingdom to a some degree until it is time for him to be in an eternal relationship with God in the Greater Kingdom. Then, all the commands of the Word of God are fulfilled because man, in his new body, is no longer burdened by his sin nature because of his new nature.

At that point, science and faith will both be absolute and objective.

Collectivist Education
Actually I think the leftist education has had the effect the left wants.

Passivity, conformity and obedience are rampant. I see very little questioning of authority these days.

It is all group, no individual.

AliveInHim
Like I said in my first post, this is a very emotional issue that I am reluctant to discuss. Many of the points you make are purely religious points and have nothing to do with science. Fundamentalists make claims solely on faith. It becomes an "us vs them" argument rather than a fair evaluation of the evidence presented. The scientific "claims" at least have the benefit of mountains of irrefutable evidence.

Science doesn't arrive at "truth" and doesn't claim to. At best, it comes up with practical solutions to practical questions. Science can't begin to hypothesize about what preceded the "Big Bang" if that, in fact, ever happened. Evolution, so far, is the best theory presented to explain life's progress on this planet in the time frame for which evidence exists. It isn't perfect and many questions remain. Intelligent design is no different than all of the other creation myths that all cultures create. That doesn't make it a bad thing. But it isn't science. You have to keep those things separate. In fact, science without the assistance of a philosophical "envelope" loses much of its purpose.

I believe in God too. I do my best to keep track of the Catholic Church's positions and I did read Pope Benedict's decision on intelligent design. The Church's official position is that it accepts intelligent design as a creditable theory, not as the unassailable truth. You, on the other hand, apparently see it as the revealed truth that is indisputable and anyone who doesn't see that is dishonest and/or ignorant. That is irrational, reveals a fragile faith and taken too far, it is dangerous. It's how people end up getting burnt at the stake.
If evolution proves out to be true, my faith will not be shaken. Ultimately, none of us really "know" much of anything. At some point, we just stop thinking and declare what we believe to be what we know. Intelligent design may ultimately be proven to be true. In fact, I can construct arguments of my own that make a better case than I have read or heard. But I don't buy it at the exclusion of everything else and I don't think you should either. If that is being dishonest or ignorant, I feel sorry for you and people like you.

Pasadena Phil
What on earth does the Pope have to do with all this? Last I heard the RCC accepts the theory of evolution as valid. Your point?

That I reject what is *claimed* as science is not a rejection of science itself. It is not science to claim knowledge of events that happened in the past. That is history. History by definition cannot be tested or repeated. Evolution is a theory about history. It is not science. It IS an awful lot of guesswork; reference my comments about evolutionary progression as pictured in my previous post. I've seen enough guesswork in the natural history museum to make me wonder how it is anyone could believe that a little bit of bone and a lot of blue plastic with imaginative descriptions thrown in can be legitimately presented as science. Imagination is not the same as observation.

It is not science to say that life can come from non-life. That is philosophy (religion, or even wishful thinking, if you will). Nobody has ever shown that life can come from anything but life yet we are supposed to accept this as true, because a textbook author/sceintist says so. Indeed, this is a faith that can move mountains!

So many of evolution's icons have proven false one wonders why more scientists aren't willing to simply admit the whole scheme is terribly flawed. I could respect someone like that, even though he insists on continuing the search for that one "missing link". But no, they really think we are benighted unless we believe what they themselves have been unable to prove.

Phil, I notice that you didn't answer a single one of my objections to evolutionist teaching. You simply claimed I reject science. I'm afraid that isn't good enough. I'm not afraid of evolutionary teaching, I have no problem with it being taught. I DO believe that at the very least the flaws should be pointed out with no snide comments about ID/creation added in. That simply isn't necessary and need not even be part of the discussion. I do grasp what I'm studying in biology, and the whole of it just shouts creation, to my mind. It's too orderly, too perfectly synchronized, to have come about by accident. The results of disorder and non-synchronization are also documented-and is isn't pretty. The lines between that which is man and that which is non-man are too sharply and firmly drawn, whatever the genetic similarity. I'm not threatened by not having *all* the answers-nobody on either side has been given them so far as I know; not even the Bible gives us *all* the information about origins beyond God's "Let there be..." and "God created man in His image, in His image did He create him" and what precisely defines a "kind" of plant or animal. As one who is also a prodcut of public schooling (and indeed am back in it after 30 years) I can tell you that having been taught evolution for 12 years (and again now), and the other side from well-educated people who have more letters after their names than I ever will (and from secular schools, no less)I can't in good conscience or honesty come to any other conclusion than that we are created.

The Declaration of Independence
I want to type up the Declaration of Independence and fax it to my U.S. lawmakers.

In fact, it should preface every fax I ever send them -- and I send plenty.

Maybe I could just pick out a few of the "self-evident truths" depending on which grievance I wish to have redressed at that particular time.

Just for the pure fun of it, I should also add The First Amendment.

Does anybody think for a minute that these lawmakers will really look at the Declaration or the First Amendment, let alone my "grievances"?

Nope -- not with their own agendas clutched so firmly to their hearts.

Abe Froman's response to Magnificus
>>>
The fossil record is absolutely full of transitional fossils, some of which are difficult to classify as either "ape" or "human".
>>>

Evolution scientists might disagree with you on “missing links”:

In 1940, Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt had faced the horns of this dilemma of the gaps with his hopeful monster theory; the idea that every once in a while an offspring was produced that was a monster grossly different from its parents. (Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1940), p. 390.)

Dr. David Pilbeam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale and later professor of anthropology at Harvard, wrote an article in 1978 entitled "Rearranging Our Family Tree" in which he stated that we had been wrong in the past and that he was convinced we would not hit upon the true or correct story of human evolution.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, published an article in the January 1979 issue of the museum's journal entitled "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology" in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.

In April 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author that he didn't know of any real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among living or fossilized organisms.

On April 22, 1984, Dr. Gould had not changed his opinion that evolution was purely an accidental process, for on the television program “60 Minutes” he said: “If the history of life teaches us any lesson, it is that human beings arose as a kind of glorious accident ... surely a kind of glorious cosmic accident resulting from the catenation (linking) of thousands of improbable events.” Let me repeat that last line…” the catenation of thousands of improbable events.” What does ‘improbable’ mean to you? Could that mean that it probably did not occur or that the catenation was highly unlikely?

What about those Missing Links:

Nebraska Man was discovered in 1922 by Harold Cook in the Pliocene deposits in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska. A tremendous amount of literature was built around this supposed missing link which allegedly lived 1 million years ago. What exactly was the scientific proof for Nebraska Man? The answer is the tooth of an extinct species of pig.

One of the most famous of all the anthropoids is the Java Ape-Man, Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man). He was discovered in 1891 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, a fervent evolutionist. Dr. Dubois' find consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh-bone, and three molar teeth. They were collected over a range of about 70 feet. Also, they were not discovered at the same time, but over the span of one year. To further complicate matters, these remains were found in an old river bed mixed in with the bones of extinct animals. Despite all of these difficulties, evolutionists calmly assure us that Java Ape-Man lived about 750,000 years ago.

Another Pithecanthropus was found in Java in 1926. Typically, this discovery was billed as a prodigious breakthrough, the missing link for sure. It turned out to be the kneebone of an extinct elephant.

The remains of Piltdown Man were allegedly discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson, an amateur fossilogist. He produced some bones, teeth, and primitive implements, which he said he found in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England.

All was well until October of 1956 when the entire hoax was exposed. Reader's Digest came out with an article, summarized from Popular Science Monthly, entitled The Great Piltdown Hoax. Using a new method to date bones based upon fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent. Further critical investigation revealed that the jaw-bone actually belonged to an ape that had died only 50 years previously. The teeth were filed down, and both teeth and bones were discolored with bichromate of potash to conceal their true identity. And so, Piltdown Man was built upon a deception which completely fooled all the "experts" who promoted him with the utmost confidence.

Present-day speculation about human evolution revolves about a group of fossils called australopithecines and, in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40% complete skeleton. Lucy was discovered by D. C. Johanson in the Afar area of Ethopia during investigations conducted from 1972-1977. However, there is evidence that people walked upright before the time of Lucy. This would include the Kanapoi hominid and Castenedolo Man. Obviously if people walked upright before the time of Lucy, then she must be disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor.

With all of these false starts by Evolutionists, I think I will wait until something really special comes along. Missing links are called ‘missing links’ because they are still MISSING. But, hey, if you want to believe a fairy tale, be my guest. But please stop calling this stuff science.

Someone above already quoted Richard Lewontin as stating that "we (i.e. evolutionists) cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Sounds like Lewontin had made up his mind and facts would only get in the way.

AliveInHim
Just proved my point. Intelligent design ultimately IS about destroying science. I don't know anyone who believes in intelligent design who doesn't trash science first. You don't have to accept science because someone in authority told you to. You can test a theory yourself, any theory, independently too and see if you get the same results everyone else is getting. It's not perfect but because everything is spelled out in the open, no one can argue, for instance, that the arc of an arrow's trajectory is an illusion because the Pope said that all moving objects on earth travel along straight lines. The Pope can, and was, proven wrong and it certainly didn't further the mission of Christianity for Pope's to insist on baying at the moon.

Abe Froman
Abe says,

> "Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is so well supported by so many different lines of evidence that the whole thing is a complete non-issue in the scientific community. The theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity."

So, Abe, can I ask which theory of evolution you are subscribing to? Is it Darwin's theory of gradualism? Or could it be Gould's theory of puctuated equilibrium? This is important because they are mutually exclusive.

You must remember that Gould was perhaps the best known evolutionist of the last century. He came up with the theory of PE for a good reason: Because, according to him, the evidence for Darwinian gradualism just wasn't there. He often spoke of "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record", and called it "the trade secret of paleontologists". And his colleague Niles Eldredge agreed.

Of course, being a die-hard atheist, Gould needed somthing to replace Darwinian gradualism, hence, punctuated equilibrium was born. This theory basically articulates a belief that evolution happened at some point in the distant past, for an unknown time period of time, but probably isn't happening now.

Gould's theory differentiated from gradualism in that gradualism claimed evolution could not be detected because it happened so slowly, but should have left plenty of transitional forms as evidence, even though that has never panned out.

PE claims evolution happened rather quickly, then ended, with one further bonus: Because it happpened so quickly it left little evidence to be discovered. Hence, no need to explain those pesky missing links, which in reality are missing chains!

So, which is it? Do accept gradualism which Gould rejected? Or, do you like PE which Gould admitted also had slim evidence? In any event, it's hardly the stuff of rock-solid science.

I am Grateful
that at least half the people in this country reject evolution. Evolution is what is taught in the schools, and is what we all learned growing up, but it's interesting that nobody mentions the religious, even blind, faith that undergirds the theory.

It takes faith to believe that everything came from nothing, all by itself. It takes faith to believe that chaos somehow turned to order, when anyone who's ever cleaned or built anything knows that order must be imposed on chaos. How is it possible to believe that life came about from non-life, except by sheer force of will? Even a college biology text has to twist the theory of cells to force this concept upon the reader, and all in the same breath, no less. It takes faith to believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary that everything does not progress upwards. Rather, everything degenerates. Evolution can't explain life and consciousness, much less death. But the deaths of untold billions of organisms is supposedly what got us to our present forms. It takes faith to believe, again, in spite of all the evidence, that mutations are good, when in fact even basic genetic teaching shows that only one of the three possibilities for mutation is only neutral at best. The other two kinds lead to serious defects. Of course we're not told just when or why mutations stopped being a good thing and somehow went bad. It takes faith to believe that amoebas evolved into men by way of fish, lizards and monkeys. We don't know why of course we even still have monkeys-of what use are they now, since we're obviously more "fit" (what monkey ever consciously did anything to contribute to civilization?) It takes faith to believe that in spite of the lack of fossilized remains of this alleged "common ancestor" from which we all supposedly sprang, the pictures of "evolutionary family trees", complete with its many missing links (that is, there's nothing there to show the alleged progression from A to B, much less A to Z) are still in the college texts.

I'm just grateful that people are smarter than to just swallow everything they're told by those in authority. I'm grateful that my biology professor, in her opening statements to the class, made it plain that she is teaching what state law requires her to teach, and not to take it as a personal attack upon any other belief system. She has shown class in respecting that not all will accept evolutionary belief and does not insist we believe what is taught, but that we only learn it so that we may pass the exams. Still, the evolutionary thing "jars" with everything I've seen so far; it is truly a square peg being forced into a round hole.

Calabash: He is risen indeed!!


Calabash again, last time
I am not ready to concede that standing in deep water has no effect. I was once a diver and my toes are now webbed.

Yes, animals and their appendages can be quite confusing. As a young boy in Montana I thought I had these things figured out. Male elk (bulls) had antlers; female elk (cows) did not. Same for moose. Same for deer (allowing for bucks and does). (That’s how hunters can determine which one they are allowed to shoot.) See the pattern? Plain as can be—the males had pointy things jutting out of their heads; females did not. At the local rodeo you could see the big riding bulls with not only the pointy things on their heads, but also certain other hanging instruments on the other end that shall go unmentioned.

Riding my bicycle down a road just outside of town after having full confidence in my new understanding I noticed a cow…a cow with horns…and with an udder with pink teats protruding from it. After crashing my bike, I returned for a second look at the strange creature. This did not make sense, this combination of male and female parts. Who says God does not have a sense of humor?

By the way, on far more serious matters I share with you in your joy that Jesus Christ is risen. Today on TH an author named Conners had an excellent presentation of the gospel if you are interested. You also might want to explore the thread that follows. I am signing off for at least several hours, perhaps more. May you be blessed in Him.

birdman
>Where do you come up with your understanding that there are some who would destroy it?<

Probably from the same place Pastore got the idea that the Left has been trying to persuade most Americans to abandon their belief in God and creation and replace it with a belief in atheism and evolution.

Mea Culpa
In my ignorance, I didn't realize that steers were castrated male cattle. I guess it's hard to fathom the nuances of animal husbandry when you're stuck in Philadelphia.

I swear to God, I thought that "steer" was the proper name for male cattle.

I still maintain that standing up to your nose in water will have no effect on potential mutations.

And I still maintain that Jesus is my saviour. Halleuia! He is risen!

birdman
It may be that "destroy" is the wrong word but for people grounded in religious faith to be lowering the stature of their faith by attacking a benign and useful tool shows fear through ignorance.

Christianity, being a philosophy, is by definition in the all-important business of asking all of the deep and profound questions that have been asked since the beginning of human existence. Theologians have various tools to explore those questions, some are purely intellectual while others, like mathematics and science, are practical. Religion seeks the path to the ultimate "truth". Science doesn't because it cannot ponder that which cannot be seen or measured.

And so, in my opinion, it is unbecoming of Christian fundamentalists to be challenging Darwinism by developing specious arguments that neither prove nor disprove anything. Science already agrees evolution is not conclusive and may in fact be wrong but let the science find its way to a logical conclusion. Christian fundamentalist are seeking to shut down the discussion entirely. That is what the Dark Ages were all about. It is a fear of ideas, a fear rooted in a lack of confidence that may itself be due to leadership that is intellectually unequal to the demands of the question being considered.

By opting to attempt to shut down the science without proving it wrong, it is a direct attack on the scientific process. Just like the Catholic Church effectively "out argued" Galileo about the nature of the solar system based on the logic that God would never place His most cherished creation anywhere but in the direct center of creation, modern fundamentalists are arguing that nature is too complex and flawed to have evolved, that complexity itself combined with the flaws of scientific theory are defacto proof that intelligent design is self-evidently true.

If intelligent design winds up being imposed as an alternative "scientific" theory in public schools or evolution gets banned, as a corruption of the definition of science, I consider that destroying science. If the carpenter keeps hitting his thumb with his hammer, it doesn't follow that the hammer is defective or should be replaced with a different tool. It may be that intelligent design, in some form, even one that is consistent with evolutionary theory, is correct. But the current controversy is inherently political, intellectually dishonest and regressive and can not lead to a greater good.

You can believe in it if you want but it should be taught privately like all other religions. And I don't believe for one minute that those who are advancing intelligent design don't see where this could lead.


Hey.. cat trapper!
Where ya been hiding? Haven't seen your posts in a long while.

As you can see, the Liberal Moonbats are out in force again. I don't waste my time with them. They all say the same thing anyway.

Apples and Oranges
As Pasadena Phil stated: "Religion is a branch of philosophy."

Science makes no pretense to answer ultimate philosophical questions such as Heidegger's root: Why are there beings, instead of nothing at all? Nor does it attempt to encroach upon religious beliefs.

Science deals with empirical evidence--reproducible experiments--not religious beliefs, not mystical revelations, not existential experience.

Science has little to say about alien abductions, fairies, leprechans, salamanders, undines, sylphs, ghosts, incubi, succubi, and Nancy Pelosi.

I have been blessed by God with a plethora of synchronicities (meaningful coincidences) during my life. This is not yet an area that has been adequately explored by scientists. It's difficult to reproduce a synchronicity. To date, only philosophy can handle the freight.

Nothing in science has contradicted my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Halleluia! He is risen!

Pasadena Phil

No one on the religious side is trying to destroy science. Where do you come up with your understanding that there are some who would destroy it?

slacker

From whence your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

if you're going to teach creationism
the argument here is that if you're going to teach about how the world and humans came to be, you cannot present just one sides beleifs (evolution theory), no matter how backed it is by science and evidence. ACtually, it doesn't even matter if it is based on any facts at all, which creationism is not; creationism is based on the word of god through the bible.

So by that standard of logic, to be fair and consistent, in addition to evolution theory, we have to teach every other creation and origin of life theory. Why stop at the Christian story of things, why not teach the Islam, Buddha, Hindu, Taoist, and there is many more etc etc... They're all modern pervasive beleifs about the origins of life, why does the education have to be limited to just Evolution and Christianities version of the origin of life?

Calabash
First, you are correct in that I do believe in intelligent design, which I do not intend to qualify further here. But then, I have to take exception with something you said, having ranchers in my family (real live cowboys and cowgirls in Montana).

You said, "And, if by chance, any of the steers were born with gonads, they would vote for Fred Thompson for POTUS in 2008."

Oh, the ignorance! Steers are not born--they are made steers by sharp pocket knives, with Rocky Mountain oysters being the resulting treat for people of dubious eating habits. Bulls are born. Cows are born (although cows can be an Elsie or an Elmer). Again steers are made. (Didn't you see "The Horse Whisperer"?)

Therefore, from the tone of your reply I assume that you would not expect the steers to vote for Fred Thompson, but rather that any remaining bulls and she-cows would be the best bet...not to steer you wrong though.

SteveL
Actually, I find your post re the Opinion Dynamics poll on "beliefs" encouraging.

A similar poll taken by the Harris organization when I was in high school (early 1970's) put the number of respondents who believed in UFOs, ghosts, witchcraft, and reincarnation at approximately 50% on all four. If the belief in little green men, spooks, and The Wicked Witch of the West (no, I'm not referring to Speaker Pelosi) is down to about a third, and the number of people who think they were once either Cleopatra or Julius Caesar is now down around a fourth, that has to be considered an improvement.

In fact, it indicates to me that the whole "New Age" movement may finally be showing its age- and about time, too.

P.S.- On the "Political Compass" chart, I check in at about one square to the right of the center, and 1.5 squares below the horizontal axis. This, according to the chart, puts me in the same category as German PM Angela Merkel. Does that make me a conservative, a "right-of-center" moderate- or just really naive'?

cheers

eon

Slacker
Since you wrote right after your comment about Al Gore, that Newton Einstein and some others were genius, were you trying to include Al Gore as well, or did I just get the wrong impression. I thought Al Gore invented the Internet and if that is true then maybe he is a genius. If not, then maybe he is full of BS and no one should believe anything else he has to say. It is definitely true that he is a one of the biggest hypocrites currently alive. I will believe there is a serious problem when he cuts his energy use to what an average American uses. If he can't sacrifice for his cause, then I am NOT listening to anything he says. What good does buying a "carbon offset" do in the scheme of things? If he is serious in believing in "global warming", then he will reduce his ABSOLUTE use of energy and really do some good. I would be very interested to know if he recycles his water bottles, newspapers and other recyclables. I recycle my recylcables because I am conservative with things. I didn't say I am A conservative, although I am. I try to plan my trips to accomplish several objectives at one time because it is just a more efficient way of doing something. That it helps reduce energy usage and reduces emissions is just a side effect. It also means that I spend less money on gasoline and therefore less money goes to the terrorists in the Middle East who sell us their oil.

yeah
how does the left have a monopoly on public education when cirriculums are derived by state and local school boards... and their local communities and parents especially have significant input?

Kingsman
Take a herd of libsquirts, and make them stand in Kool-Aid up to their noses for the better part of the day... Just kidding.

Your example seems to imply some purposive, intelligent design in the inevitable transformation of a species. This conflicts with my understanding of the asserted theories of random mutation and natural selection. The simple circumstance of standing in water would have no bearing on what mutations might occur. If, by chance, over millions of years, one or more cows were born with gills and fins, they might happen to swim off, and begin to eat seaweed instead of Zoysia. And, if they were successful at reproduction, we’d have a new species of sea-cow with whom to contend.

And, if by chance, any of the steers were born with gonads, they would vote for Fred Thompson for POTUS in 2008.


Catholics and the Bible
Earlier today, jetpilot lamented the lack of religious instruction when he went to a Catholic high school. That is sad.

He goes on to say, "Why are Catholics not big on bible reading, I don't know."

Every day, at the daily Mass, there is a reading from the Bible, often from the Old Testament, a reading from the Psalms, and a reading from one of the Gospels of the four Evangelists. Every day. On Sundays and feast days there are two Bible readings before the Psalm readings.

And they are beautiful.

Pasadena Phil
Phil,
I use the term "neocon", because they used it themselves to differentiate their views from traditional conservatives. Now that they have taken over much of the Republican party, they would like the name to disappear and be considered just... conservatives. But, that would be a lie, Phil. Neoconservatives share very little in common with traditional conservative ideals. I can think of ONE. A strong national defense. That's it.

They are one of the reasons that conservatives have lost their way, in my opinion. There are all kinds of people out there today, who call themselves conservative all day long, but when it comes down to it, they don't embody more than one or two conservative principles.

Pick someone, anyone, who calls themselves a conservative and rate them on what used to be considered, traditional conservative principles:

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

How'd they fare?

SteveL
I'm a conservative who finds the evidence for
evolution very compelling, so you're not alone.

Creationism, or "intelligent design" as it is
styled these days, seems less a theory than an
abandonment of the search for a naturalistic
explanation of facts. You can always explain a
particular phenomenon by saying "It is what it
is because God wills it". This may even be the
strict truth, but it's untestable and holds no
"predictive power" - the hallmarks of scientific
and naturalist theory.

Also - there's nothing to be gained by dividing
conservatives along evolutionist/creationist
lines. Pastore could use his column better by
writing about topics that unite us.

Liberty
I completely reject your analysis of cons v. neocons and wish you would reconsider using the term neocon at all. But I would like to add another consideration to your spectrum because that is basically the way I see it too. I don't see chaos on the furthest right but total freedom. Free societies are efficient, as long as people as virtuous. Freedoms are lost because people have to be policed which is a waste of resources and so inefficient. Freedom without responsibility leads to chaos which takes you to the left end of the spectrum because when societies breakdown, a consensus builds to at least find stability through law enforcement, whatever it takes. It takes a virtuous society to willingly act responsibly and minimize the need for police. Virtue, as we have been taught, is what you do when nobody is looking. Religion doesn't guarantee virtue but absence of some sort of moral philosophy-based ethos guarantees that freedom is impossible. In other words, if everyone uses their freedom to kill, lie, rape and steal, the end result is totalitarianism. Look at it another way, all people everywhere are free to do whatever they want. The only difference between societies is what consequences are imposed for the exercise of personal freedom. As a conservative, I believe in leaving virtuous people alone and making the best use of wasted resources to control those who need to have their liberties curtailed for their own good as well as everyone elses.

Conservatives vs. the rest
Traditionally, conservatives believed in the limited Constitutional federal government laid out by our Founders, with the remaining powers (which was MOST of the power) left to the states and the people.

However, neoconservatives appear to believe in the opposite. They endorse a strong, all-powerful federal government to force their agenda. By definition, they are on the left side of the spectrum, along with the big government, Rockefeller Republicans.

Neoconservatives and Rockefeller Republicans only differ from liberals in what they want their all powerful, unconstitutional, federal government to do.

religiouslib
This is the way I learned the political spectrum. Instead of the circle that so many have pushed, the following which was explained to me, makes much more sense.

The spectrum runs from total government control on the far left to absolutely no government (i.e. anarchy) on the far right. What our Founding Fathers left us, a limited Constitutional government, is somewhere in the middle.

So, as someone moves further and further right on the spectrum, they believe in less federal government control of their lives.

For example, many times Hitler has been described as being far right. Actually, he advocated strong national control of the government, so Nazism is on the far left, along with Communism.

Sinclair was right!
Sinclair Lewis was absolutely correct when he said that, "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

SteveL
You really are carrying your skeptism too far. You are placing way too much stock in science. That 92% of Americans believe in God is reassuring to me. About four years ago, the UN, I repeat, the UN issued a study that America is far and away the most religious country in the civilized world and church attendance is the same as it was in 1945. Not only that, about a third of atheist polled admitted that they pray from time to time. Who are they praying to?

Science can only answer practical questions. The universe is to big and too small to ever understand given our limited human capabilities. In an infinite universe, anything is possible. That is the main thrust of string theory, that at the smallest level of matter, there are no laws. Nothing but chaos. It is very possible that your version of what is fact is true. Or not. Prove it. And be careful making light of or insulting people of faith. Limiting your judgment only on what you "know" can lead you over the cliff in the real world too.

SteveL d'oh!
Why didn't I save that for an essay on my blog. Too late. Sometimes they just spill out without effort.

SteveL
Yeah, I think creationism is a crock too. As I explained in an earlier comment, it creates a conflict where none exists. The idea that science is the anti-religion is intellectually dishonest. Although there are those who hear "it's been scientifically proven" and mistake that for "the truth", those who dominate the discussions that lead to policy should know better. Philosophers ask all of the important questions. Not all questions lend themselves to scientific analysis, questions about morality for instance or "Is their a God?". And that's ok because we don't need to "know" everything. What we "know" through science is only "true" until it is proven false giving way to a better theory and better, and more useful, "fact". Science is just a process. For Christian fundamentalists to be picking a fight with science over evolution is not wise and is pandering to the most simple-minded and superstitious among us. Evolution is just a theory but it IS a scientific theory and it has holes and unanswered questions. But it will hold together as the best explanation for observations that Darwin and subsequent scientists have carefully and diligently amassed. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not science. It cannot be reduced to a hypothesis that can be tested. It is just opinion being promoted as "obvious truth" by people who are intellectually disingenuous, lazy or both. By that I am not saying they may not be right, but believing in intelligent design is nothing more than an act of faith like believing in God. I believe in God but I can't prove He exists either. I reject intelligent design because has nothing to do with morality and is nothing more than religion picking a phony fight with a very useful tool. Like Sideshow Bob and his arch-nemisis, the common garden rake.

Yes, how silly ...
... even college educated people can be. No matter how crazy or foolish an idea is there will always be someone who is willing to believe it, in spite of evidence to the contrary right in front of their eyes. A college degree is no guarantee that a person has any basic understanding of history, science or religion.

Some people are impervious to knowledge. All you have to do is watch Jay Leno's Jaywalking segments once in a while to see that.

It's amazing what people believe
BleedingHeartLiberal asks: "Do 34% of college grads believe man walked with the dinosaurs and everything began 6000 years ago or do they believe in a creation that science can only explain with faith?"

You would be AMAZED what Americans believe, particularly poorly educated Americans. Here's an Opinion Dynamics poll taken in 2004:

Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in
heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News
poll. Though belief in God has remained at about the same level, belief in the devil has increased slightly over the last few years — from 63 percent in 1997 to 71 percent today.

The national poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search), shows that about a third of Americans believe in ghosts (34 percent) and an equal number in UFOs (34 percent), and about a quarter accept things like astrology (search) (29 percent), reincarnation (search) (25 percent) and witches (24 percent).

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,99945,00.html

There you have it, folks, roughly one-quarter of ADULT Americans believe in witches, astrology and reincarnation. And a third of all adult Americans believe in ghosts too.

That's even worse than believing in creationism. At least creationists are scholars of the Bible if nothing else. I don't know where the heck tens of millions of Americans got the idea that ghosts are real. Is there some other religion that teaches that???

Occam's Razor
Occam's Razor: "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."

Theory 1: The origin and evolution of life on Earth is a result of observable natural processes.

Theory 2: The origin and all life on Earth is the result of intervention by an unknowable supernatural being.

Conservatives who support Darwin here?
Are there any conservatives here besides me who haven't embraced creationism, and who accept the prevailing scientific view of evolution by natural selection?

The only one I know of who has come right out and said he thinks creationism is a crock is Charles Krauthammer. And he's absolutely, 100% right about that. Everybody else seems to have been cowed into submission by the Christian evangelical wing of the conservative movement.

This is appalling. Conservatives are deliberately choosing to identify themselves with pseudo-science and are making themselves look ridiculous in the eyes of the vast majority of the scientific community. In the entire conservative platform, this has got to be the LEAST defensible position of all, because it has the MOST scientific evidence against it.

America's pre-eminence in the world is largely a function of her pre-eminence in the sciences and applied sciences. The 21st century is virtually guaranteed to be a century of fantastic advances in genetic engineering and biomedical engineering.

And at the heart of all biological science being done today is the theory of evolution. You can't look at a DNA sequence without recognizing the evolutionary process from which it evolved. The same chemical sequences, the same functions, in our DNA that are in the DNA of other species; but our DNA has add-ons that make us just a little bit different from other species. It would be like looking at the Windows XP operating system and not recognizing that it had anything in common whatsoever with earlier versions of Windows. Of course it does, and it came AFTER those earlier versions, based on prior experience with those earlier versions, not all created in one cosmic flash by Bill Gates and his magic wand.

We can either choose to be a part of that revolution in the biological and medical sciences, or clutch the Biblical account of creation to ourselves and leave the field to the Chinese and other countries (even Israel) who are investing heavily in it.

Evolution doesn't in ANY WAY disprove the existence of God. Why can't God make use of any mechanism for this planet he chooses to use, from the theory of relativity to the theory of evolution? This planet itself formed out of a cloud of gas and dust, billions of years ago; are we also claiming that the laws of physics which caused that cloud to accrete into a planet would somehow also deny the existence of God? Why not just admit what's really bothering you, which is that scientific laws don't REQUIRE God? Well, so what? Does God need us to find Him a reason to exist?

Have all conservatives except Krauthammer retreated back into Bible-thumping fundamentalism? I certainly hope not, because if so, then you have come down foursquare on an argument you must INEVITABLY lose in the end. And that's not a winning political strategy.


dyerje, you still seem confused.
You say

"Our increasing ability to detect the previously invisible, and explain the previously inexplicable, has had a bad effect on our sense of humility and perspective, though."

Not true at all. Currently scientists know that the vast majority (96% !!!) of the universe is made up of "dark energy" and "dark matter". They have no real understanding of what these are. If that doesn't give one a sense of humility and wonder I don't know what will. There are truly "more things in heaven and earth than we can possibly dream of" to paraphrase Shakespeare.

As for your muddled comentary on divine revelation I have no idea what to make of it. I never claimed science and religion should "referee" each other, nor do I believe such a thing. In fact I said quite clearly they are very different forms of inquiry and deal with very different kinds of knowledge. Religion is primarily after subjective knowledge and science is all about objectivity and refining objective knowledge by experimentation.

You aren't seriously saying that divine revelation trumps - or is of equal value to - working scientific theories that are backed up with independently conducted experiments in advancing our knowledge of the physical universe, are you?

Go back to school
dirtroadscholar writes: Sunday, April, 08, 2007 1:49 PM

"Funny, I would think that these fossil 'discoveries' would have been trumpeted far and wide..."

They have been genius:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis

And this list is by no means complete.

"...and since Darwin himself declared his theory bogus if there weren't transitional forms up to our eyeballs, as there should be, but also ongoing massive diversity of currently transitioning forms, there should by now have been declared a National Atheists Day."

Too bad for you that virtually every form of animal, both extinct and living displays some transitional features.

"But there are neither, and what pitiful few fossil examples there are cited, and touted as "proof", could employ their same credentials on old Barbie parts dug up under the back yard swing. Tenuous is more a polite term than fabrication."

Ignorant is a less polite term than ill informed, but it fits you. You know little to nothing about evolutionary biology and paleontology if you seriously believe this.

"The 'emperor' is stark bare-butt naked, and the 'peasants' know it. Elitist atheist clergy with lab coats for vestments can scientifically put lipstick on the pig of materialism, but your standard issue Created man can still, even after intense indoctrination, tell a pig when he sees one."

You are arguing that people with little education in this field somehow know the "truth", and that their opinion is to be valued above that of specialists who have spent their entire adult lives studying the field. Right.

"Your only hope is a totalitarian dictatorship that suppresses speech, burns books, controls thought, and imprisons or executes counter-revolutionaries. But then liberal socialists are just atheist communists with patience."

Isn't it funny then how the rest of the developed world -- most of which consists of places where speech ISN'T suppressed, books AREN'T burnt, thought ISN'T controlled, and "counter-revolutionaries" AREN'T executed -- haa no problem admitting the validity of evolution? But I shouldn't be surprised that you claim this. For you to believe the things you do, the idea of checking the facts to see if they match your assumptions is obviously one with which you are little acquainted.

"Or you could convert to Christianity, join a church, and denounce demi-god Dawkins."

No, for me to do that I would have to spend the rest of my life stifling my doubts and refusing to face up to facts staring me in the face.


slacker
... your post is muddled, in that it attributes to me something I never said: that Newton was wrong. He was assuredly incomplete, but where he was right, he was right against earlier error -- not against "earlier not having thought about it."

Scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers had been trying to formulate principles that could explain why the stars seem to move in the sky, and how the earth and material things inhere, for centuries before Newton. They were wrong -- as demonstrated by Newton.

That's my point. It's worth adding that science does ask new questions when it knows more than it once did -- one of the key reasons we even had an Einstein in the 20th century. We didn't know enough about the universe, through what was apparent to us in the 17th century, to ask the questions that required adding time as a factor in the physical relations of matter and energy.

Our increasing ability to detect the previously invisible, and explain the previously inexplicable, has had a bad effect on our sense of humility and perspective, though. It is not scientific to insist that "divine revelation claims from either side of [a religious] dispute do NOT settle the arguments."

For whom? And how do you know? If they don't settle the argument for you, that leaves you as merely an unsatisfied disputant. Since the arbiter in religious disputes is not replicable scientific evidence, your claim is no more evidently true than the claim of either side in the dispute. Science is incapable of refereeing religion, as religion is science.

Well
I might agree that if a few hundred men qualify as the "Founding Fathers" perhaps a statistical majority of them were orthodox Trinitarian Christian. Though this has never been proven; nor do I think it can be. But it may well be the case.

But the key Founders -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin -- and a few others were not.

Washington's creed, because he was so reticent to discuss his personal faith, is debatable. The other four are not. They rejected the tenets of the Nicene Creed and hence weren't "Christian" as traditionally defined by its orthodoxy.

In terms of what Adams said in his quotation, he seems quite clear -- unless he were joking -- he's quite clearly bitterly mocking the doctrine of the Incarnation which as an anti-Trinitarian he didn't believe. He says similar things over and over and over again.

Cheers,

Jon Rowe

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com
http://positiveliberty.com

Jon
I too have been involved in this debate most of my adult life. You accuse me of cheerypicking my quotes. Is that not what you have done? You offer one quote and do not provide the entire context of said quote. Is that not also cherrypicking? In studying the Founding Fathers and their intent I will continue to go to their quotes and writings and not engage secular commentaries or even religious ones to draw any conclusions. The preponderance of the evidence remains that our Founding Fathers were by and large Christan men.

neconservative
you shift the argument now.
but that is ok because at least it tells me you are able to adjust to fact based arguments and that is a good thing.

now let us address the communist aspect of your complaint against liberals.

there are those on the extreme right who are just as radical. mccvey is a good example, david duke is another. the armed militias in the upper midwest come to mind.

do i propose to paint all conservatives with the broad stroke of those sick individuals. absolutely not. so why do you propose to paint the 10's of millions of liberals with the sins of a very few who are sick on the liberal side.

we both have nuts on the fringe. that does not mean they in anyway represent the majority of conservatives or liberals.

Cherry picked quotations
Well sorry for jumping to conclusions. But I've been involved in this debate long enough that the pattern cherry picked quotations you quoted are often seen on "Christian Nation" threads where orthodox/evangelical/fundamentalists Christians (Wallbuilders for instance) offer these quotes to try to prove these Founders were Christians like them.

If you approach this debate from another perspective, mea culpa.

The fact remains Adams and Jefferson were Enlightenment unitarian rationalists who believed things about Jesus and the Bible which would cause evangelicals today to deem them heretics. Back then the fundamentalists were fond of using the term "infidel" to describe such beliefs.

The quotations you offered mislead without further context. They mislead because I've seen them mislead. I've witnessed people see David Barton give seminars and think they know something only to be shocked by finding out what John Adams really had to say in between the ellipses.

dyerje, your post is muddled...
... though in the end I think you agree with me and not jerubaal.

1) It is incorrect to say that "we have arrived at all scientific knowledge by proving that earlier theories were wrong". In spite of Einstein, Newton's theories are still adequate for most purposes and it is a vast stretch to call them "wrong". On the macro level, they work well.

2) Newton's theories were certainly incomplete. We both agree on that.

3) Religionists do not all agree either. There are substantial differences between religious faiths on important topics, and divine revelation claims from either side of such dispute do NOT settle the arguments. T

4) Within religions that do agree on fundamental prinicples there are still serious debates on the application of these fundamental principles to important questions. That is why there are denominations and sects in any religion of significance in world history. Claims of divine revelation do not settle these disputes. Rather they more frequently exacerbate them.

Jon
Do you always jump to conclusions? I have made no statements whatsoever of my religious beliefs. If you study the same way you draw conclusions about my beliefs....enough said.

Communism not allowed, religion or not
See many liberals read into the fight for or against religion the left or right aspect. Freedom of religion in this country can include atheism or the right not to practice, however communism is not permitted. It is ultimately a fight against tyranny and communism. Communism the ideology of the radical left(liberals) is oppression and slavery of the "governed" The fight that libertarians and conservatives put up is a fight against the omnipotent state, the tyrannical government. For so long the "just powers from the consent of the governed" has been twisted into once I get into office I'll do what I want. The fight for freedom continues.

Cat Trapper
Jefferson and Adams were both fervent anti-Trinitarians who believed the Bible was errant and that God primarily revealed Himself through the rubrics of "nature" and "reason."

They both believed in an active personal God (hence they were not Deists) and respected Jesus as a great, arguably the greatest moral teacher, but not as God or the second person of the Trinity.

Adams in that very letter when he calls the Bible "The best book" elevates reason over revelation and states the Bible is so great not because it's infallible, but primarily because it agreed with him and his "little philosophy" which is derived from "reason."

Jefferson and Adams following their spiritual mentor Jospeh Priestly thought the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement and Plenary Inspiration of Scripture were "corruptions of Christianity."

The general principles of Christianity to which Adams referred, if you saw the entire quotation, included the works of militant Enlightenment philosophes Rousseau and Voltarie and the atheist Hume.

Here's a little taste of John Adams' "Christianity" on this Easter Sunday:

"An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity."

John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816

If you want to make John Adams' heterodox Enlightenment unitarian philosophy fit with your religious beliefs, fine. Just try to understand what he really believed before you do.

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com
http://positiveliberty.com

Religiouslib did not read right
I used terms like alot of, and the ones who ARE NOT, and at the end I said "commie libs will never be free- atheist OR NOT. Please read before commenting. See to comprehend you have to read it. I'm sure there are conservative atheists but they are not communists as liberals are.

Repeat a lie
I believe in the creation, I just don't believe in the fundamentalist creation. Do 34% of college grads believe in fairy tales or does their faith allow them to believe in a creation where science backs it up. Do 34% of college grads believe man walked with the dinosaurs and everything began 6000 years ago or do they believe in a creation that science can only explain with faith?

If 34% of college grads believe in the fundamentalist myth, this country may just as well through in the flag. Our greatness was based on rational thought, not make believe and a gypsy's crystal ball.

Magnificus
I suggest this experiment to correct your wayward thinking:

Take a herd of cows and make them stand in water up to their noses for the better part of the day. Allow them to come back onto land long enough to eat and to prevent their flesh from wasting away, and then return them to the water. Do this daily. Then have your descendants keep up the experiment for perhaps 214,652,712 years. Eventually the cows will grow gills and shed their hooves for fins.

My family did this with dinosaurs, and we eventually created whales. That was what really happened to the dinosaurs. So you see, these things have been proven.

johninoregon
Here is a few things that Jefferson himself had to say....

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

ne conservatve
your statement about liberals being atheists is simply conservative dogma and not fact based.
here is a website with a list of conservative atheist groups.
now you will maintain that they don't represent most conservatives and i will counter that the same is true for liberals.


http://www.compleatheretic.com/links/godlessright.html

Conservative Atheist and Agnostic Connections

This page was last modified on 28 February 2005.
Please note: This page is something of a hybrid of two other Connections pages: Atheist, Freethought, and Secular Humanist and Political and Activist. The links on this page are to individuals who and groups which in someway espouse conservative politics from an irreligious perspective, what I've long referred to as the "Radical Irreligious Right" or the "Godless Right." Apart from this, any additional opinions expressed in these sites reflect only the views held by those listed and do not necessarily conform with my own or the other listees. This page exists as a challenge to both religiously-oriented political conservatives and reflexively leftist atheists and agnostics:
WE ARE HERE, WE ARE ALL-TOO-REAL, AND YOU WILL HEAR FROM US!
Contents

* Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
* Because I Said So
* A Candle in the Dark
* Conservative Atheism
* ConservativeAtheist.com
* Focus on Reality
* Free Conservative
* FreethoughtDebater
* Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
* National Atheists
* The Secular Republican
* Suspension Of Disbelief


Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
(Please note: While this organization is apolitical, thus not specifically conservative, I have included it because I consider its activitites to be decidedly conservative in the broadest sense. -- The Compleat Heretic)
Answering a perceived need, I founded this online organization of nontheistic and nonreligious pro-life/anti-abortion advocates on 18 January 1999 "because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being." Hey, somebody had to do it!
Because I Said So
The blog of Erika Lee, a conservative atheist wife and mother from Jacksonville, Florida.
A Candle in the Dark
The blog of Ernesto Haibi, a conservative atheist soldier (a combat medic with the Stryker Brigade who just returned from Iraq) from Ft. Lewis, Washington.
Conservative Atheism
A Yahoo! Group "[f]or atheists who understand the socioeconomic justification for conservatism, or anyone who wants to learn or argue."
ConservativeAtheist.com
"Political conservatism coupled with atheism is a combination that you don't see much of, overtly, anyway" which is why Frank Cress's site exists.
Focus on Reality
The blog of Sasha, a conservative atheist father from Colorado; "I am an Atheist. I am a Republican. Is this crazy, or what?" (from "Political imps" posted 2Sep04).
Free Conservative
David G. McDivitt's "Free [of religion] Conservative" site.
FreethoughtDebater
"The journal and resource center for conservative freethinkers."
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
(Please note: While this organization is apolitical, thus not specifically conservative, I have included it because I consider military service to be a decidedly conservative activity. -- The Compleat Heretic)
The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF) is a worldwide organization dedicated to the principles of freedom, freethought, and the separation of church and state. Membership is free and is open to members of all branches of military service (Active Duty, Reserves, and National Guard), their family members, veterans, and DOD civilians and their families who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secular humanist, skeptic, or another form of religious nonbelief and who support the separation of church and state.
National Atheists
A "site dedicated to the conservative movement of the atheist/freethought philosophy."
The Secular Republican
The blog of Rick Pearce, a conservative atheist whose political views survived his deconversion from Christianity.
Suspension Of Disbelief
The blog of Ron Battista, a conservative atheist soldier and "An Atheist Who Is Tired of Atheist Activists," read "Michael Newdow."

mongerer
jerubaal writes:

*** "wjriii
Are you sure it's not spelled: Hate Mongerererererererererer?" ***

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I'd only use that in _extremely_ rare circumstances.

As it was I only needed one extra syllable. :-)

Read Some History
Read some history, Mr. Pastore. Of course the Founding Fathers were influenced by Christian culture, but they were also influenced by the 18th century Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that moved beyond the narrow religious strictures of preceding centuries. Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson's Bible---one from which he stripped everything that he considered to be based on myth? Hardly the kind of guy you're going to see in the next pew at your local megachurch.

As for the 34 percent of college graduates who still accept as literal the biblical account of creation, I hardly see that as a hopeful sign. They are either ignorant, delusional, or as dumb as a bag of hammers. There are many sincere, committed Christians who recognize that bonehead literalism is not necessary for a strong and vital faith in the essentials of their faith.

Elisabeth
good post, for too long the GOP has been demonizing liberals and i agree that there are many Christians out there who are tired of the arrogance of conservatives who claim they are more "enlightened "
than the rest of us.

Pastore's point of logic
... although his column is imperfect, is still valid. Doing away with God leaves us only human power as the basis for enforcing ideas of rights on each other.

Many people claim to hate the absolutism of religionists, and yet assume laundry lists of absolutes to make their own points -- absolutes that are founded on nothing but their own opinions, or their belief that most people share their opinion. Fair enough, but in no way superior to people who believe in God.

For slacker, Jerubaal is correct about one thing, although I would have put it a little differently. We have arrived at all scientific knowledge by proving that earlier theories were wrong. It wasn't the Church in Rome that held the Western world in thrall to the earth-centric idea of the universe for centuries, it was Ptolemy (who long predated the Church) and his followers in astronomy and mathematics. The Church misguidedly tried to make the Bible support Ptolemy (it doesn't). But what was disproven by Copernicus, et al., was a long-held view of the scientific disciplines (as well as some pre-Christian philosophy).

It is probably more accurate to say that whatever current sciences know is incomplete, rather than categorically "wrong." But history demonstrates amply that across the millennia, scientific theories have been wrong about absolutely everything, before better ones proved them so.

To assume that that is no longer the case, and that now we must be right even when we haven't yet been proven right (as with the element of evolutionary theory that suggests more complex organisms evolve randomly from less complex organisms), is an unscientific error. I'd give you credit for not making it, but I see many who do, mistaking things we think are unlikely for things that are impossible, or mistaking lack of proof for disproof.

A truly scientific perspective acknowledges man's record of being wrong about everything first, before he learned better. One thing we could be wrong about is the belief that man's ability to test material things is the final arbiter of cosmological truth.

Darren that was good work
Sobran is on the mark. I also like Vin Soprynowicz for noting and documenting lost freedoms and government(mostly liberal)intervention in every day lives. It's not just that alot of lefties are atheists, the ones who are not cannot denounce it as they will undermine the mass communist effort of their political peers. These dirty communist pigs that have dug in in America have to destroy religion to achieve their primary goal of tyranny and omnipotent government. With religion and faith out of the way the communist road is open highway to bowl over any source pure free thought. Liberals make it easy on communism as they are not smart enough to know they are braiding their own rope with which they will be hung. Commie libs will never be free atheist or not.

Handy
Get a clue and try studying history...

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

If you would like I can go on and on and on...

The "missing link" is an outworn concept
Sorry to break it to you Magnificus, but the idea of a "missing link" is outworn and ignorant. The fossil record is absolutely full of transitional fossils, some of which are difficult to classify as either "ape" or "human".

And that only refers to hominid fossils. There are numerous transitional fossils of other animal species as well.

The fossil record is far from complete. Yes it does have gaps, and it doubtless always will. Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is so well supported by so many different lines of evidence that the whole thing is a complete non-issue in the scientific community. The theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity.

Congratulations....
You people do a remarkable job of fooling yourselves.

Christianity is not the sole property of the GOP.

But, keep up the efforts!

jetpilot
you say;

"I just want balance and facts in academics. If you teach evolution (which is faith based in my opinion) than you need to teach creationism (also faith based)."

And I tend to agree, but the Left will not cede that to them, "science is a religion" because it would then fall into the same "seperation" category.

The only fair way to teach any of it is to teach ALL of it, then the only argument either side could make is WHEN to teach the subjects...

BUT if a school board does not think a particular age group is 'ready' for a certain lesson then it should be argued that same age group is too young to comprehend the 'other' as well.

When these kids finally graduate, at the very least then we would be turning out a class of students who are well schooled in analytical thought if nothing else.

eon
I don't want to argue the point but really when you say...

> "It's a scientifically-proven fact. Deal with it".

I can only respond by saying;
you are free to believe anything you want, BUT until someone solves that MISSING LINK problem I don't see it won't be "scientifically-proven" to my standards.

Jerubaal, you make no sense
You say,

"Science eternally falsifies itself as knowledge is gained, and so therefore, science will never be right. It will never reach the end of knowledge. Every scientific theory we have will be disproved... But the religions endure."

1) Extending a scientific theory does not "falsify" it. Later extensions to Newton's theories of light and gravity do not mean Newton's theories are "false" or "invalid" in any way. All of Newton's experiments can still be repeated and validated today. Other scientists like Einstein just "stood on his shoulders", so to speak and extended his theories to give us deeper insight into the nature of the universe.

2) When you say "science will never be right" you are falling into the trap I said all religionists fall into. It is true that science will never be "complete". That doesn't mean it is "wrong". Steam engines, automobiles, radios, telephones, televisions, nuclear weapons, they computers you and I use to post our thoughts here for the world to see, cell phones are all products of science, NOT religion. They continue to work even as the underlying theories on which they are based are continually extended and revised.

3) Religions are not "absolute" and change as well. There are many different sects in all religions. Christians today believe different things about their faith than those that were alive 1,000 years ago. This is inevitable since interpretation of texts is a human activity. This does not mean, nor did I say it meant, that all religious experience or wisdom derived from ancient religious texts and introspection is "false". It is just a different kind of knowledge than science. It is much more relative, ironically, given religionist's frequent trumpeting of their introspections as "absolute truth" and has a different value to humans.

4) I wish you religionists could just get the above through your thick skulls. Then you would not be so darn arrogant. If you would read me carefully you would see that I am not making such arrogant statements as you, when you say "the only way to ... truth ... is by way of divine revelation(s)... they are all the truth we will ever have". I don't deny that what people claim are "divine revelations" are sometimes important and wise. I just believe I have a right, and obligation to subject them to they same skepticism with which scientists greet revolutionary new theories.

Nothing to be proud of
"According to the latest Newsweek poll, 9 out of 10 Americans still believe in God, and half still do not believe in evolution." -- The fact that half of Americans do not believe in evolution is a national disgrace.

The Myth of a Christian Nation
The Myth of a Christian Nation

It is not a matter of semantics—not a playful exercise in linguistic gymnastics to challenge the pronouncement that a nation (any nation) is a Christian nation. This is a profoundly serious issue, and it cannot be answered or effectively addressed in this kind of forum. Nevertheless, I would like to provide some observations:

(1) This nation was founded by individuals well-versed in Christianity, and by individuals who largely acknowledged a personal belief in God and a profound respect for Him.
(2) God’s guidance and blessings were sought.
(3) God was not shunned.
(4) Prayer was routinely exercised in public and political settings—strongly suggesting therefore that matters of faith were not to be relegated only to strictly religious settings.
(5) There was no religious test for holding or denying office.
(6) There was to be no state-sponsored or mandated religion.
(7) This nation—it’s government—was not considered an evangelical tool.

To say that a nation is a Christian nation implies that it has submitted itself to the Christian faith and that its citizens are largely members of that faith. However, people cannot even reach a consensus on what a real Christian is, much less apply that definition to a diverse citizenry.

To many people a Christian is simply a person who believes there is a God, that this God is revealed to some degree or another in the Bible, and that people are supposed to live moral lives. They believe that God grades on the curve and that by trying to be good and by not committing any horrendous sins that they will pass judgment. Christianity becomes almost a social sense of decency.

To other people a Christian proves or disproves his faith based on his performance. This is a works-righteousness type of belief system where religious Law (the Ten Commandments, etc.) plays a heavy role. Here the standards are sometimes very narrowly defined, and they can differ between denominations, and they most certainly differ between various cults.

To other people a Christian is someone who has at some point in his life had a conversion or awakening that was not orchestrated by his own determination, but rather by God intervening through the accomplishments of his Son, and that through this He provides a Christ-centered spiritual life. It happens to be this group where I personally belong, but yet I will admit that within this group there are many different shades of understanding and misunderstanding.

So unless you know what the genuine article is and what the counterfeits are, it is impossible to reach a meaningful understanding of what does or does not constitute a Christian. To then suppose that a country can be accurately defined as a Christian nation requires either a leap of questionable faith or of great misunderstanding. Individuals, not nations, are or are not Christians. A simple test might be: “What is absolutely the most important thing in my life? If Christ is not in that equation, then I would recommend examining yourself to see if you are in the faith.

What a moron.
This guy equates leftists with atheism. I've got news for you: most leftist liberals, like most Americans believe in God. And rightist conservatives have more than their fair share of atheists.

"It took 18 centuries of Christian thought to produce the Declaration."

The only problem with this is that it isn't true. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution are a product of primarily "Christian thought." Neither of them quote Christ, the Biblical God or Scripture. And the Constitution, aside from the customary way of stating the date, leaves God out all together.

In terms of the Declaration's ideological sources, he should go to the man himself who wrote the document -- Thomas Jefferson -- in his Letter to Henry Lee May 8, 1825 he names 4 sources and the Bible is not one of them. Two are from the Pagan Greco-Roman tradition, and two are ENLIGHTENMENT thinkers.

Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. ...

http://www.ashbrook.org/constitution/henry_lee.html

Cheers,

Jon Rowe

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com
http://positiveliberty.com

Happy Easter.
Happy Easter to everyone.


Visit: http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

Science vs Religion: Phony Debate
I'm not going to waste much time with this because people are too emotional. Let me just say that science and religion are not opposites. Religion is a branch of philosophy. Science is a techical discipline that addresses questions that can be reduce to hypotheses that can be proven false. Science cannot prove that God does or does not exist. And religion cannot counter with "intelligent design" as a scientific theory. These are intellectually incongruous concepts. Philosophers ask the questions. Science seeks to provide practical solutions to practical problems. Science doesn't seek "truth".

We need both: science and religion. Either can be used to further good or evil. That is our choice. Those who seek to destroy religion will fail. Those who seek to destroy science have a better chance but what is wrong with you?

slacker
That was certainly a harangue. Your entire first paragraph contained nothing but ad hominem. Did you know that? Did you know insulting people makes you look like the idiot?

"Looking back in history anyone who is not a fool will quickly convince themseleves [sic] that when religion and science are in opposition, you will be right nearly all of the time if you bet in the long run the scientists will turn out to be right. "

Science eternally falsifies itself as knowledge is gained, and so therefore, science will never be right. It will never reach the end of knowledge. Every scientific theory we have will be disproved.

But the religions endure.

Face it - the only way to grab at truth, if it's correct that science is eternally self-falsifying, is by way of divine revelation. If there are, in the world, divine revelations, then they are all the truth we will ever have, because science, like a limit in Calculus, forever approaches but never attains to truth.

Dissenter 57's tangled yarn
If to user Dissenter 57 Pastore threw a screw ball, I'm still trying to figure out what D57 threw with that tangled ball of fishing line that was as indiscipherable as simian typing.

Would anybody please translate or interprete user D57's attempt at profundity?

Or perhaps user D57 himself would like to re-run it in a less convoluted way.

Let's count the straw men.
Where do I begin?

"We claim these opinions to be our relative truth..."
It is a canard that all atheists are moral relativists.

"...that most men are to be considered equally evolved, that they are granted certain temporary rights by government..."
Who said that atheists all believe that rights are granted by government? I'm an atheist, and this is not what I believe.

"...that among them are generally life, lib-erty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to create, define, and enforce these rights, governments are insti-tuted to rule over men, deriving their powers from the ruling elites, that whenever any form of govern-ment is threatened, it is never the right of the people to alter and abolish it, for they are to never insti-tute new government. For it is the power and authority of government to create and destroy all rights, and to always determine what is in the best interests of the people. For the people are forever depend-ent upon government for all things."
This is pure claptrap. This whole thing, from start to finish, is both an absurd caricature, a straw man argument, and an offensive generalization. Atheists come in all stripes, and very often all they have in common is a lack of belief in a God. Moral relativism, leftist political views, and all that do not flow inevitably from atheism.


Religious conservatives are SO stupid
I guess its OK if Pastore's intent is to preach to the christian right and other mental midgets who have surrendered their power of critical thinking to be christian fundamentalists. But if his intent is to convince anyone whether conservative or liberal that he has anything intelligent to say he is only making a fool of himself. His "atheist's declaration of independence" is just laughable, and no atheist wrote that drivel.

Lets dispense with public polls as a means of establishing objective scientific truth. It wasn't that many generations ago that if you took a poll to tell you what to believe, you would be certain the world was flat and there were only a few hundred thousand stars in the universe. Today if you took a poll to establish facts, we would all believe global warming is primarily caused by human activity and that we all need to get behind Al Gore's radical proposals to combat it.

In reality, much scientific progress has come from people like Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and others who were not only geniuses who were not equal in mental capabilities to their peers, but vastly superior. At the same time, they dared to challenge ideas that were commonly held sometimes under threat of imprisonment and even torture, by religionists, the majority of people alive in their day, and even other scientists. The main point though is not that they were smart or brave, but that they not only proposed a view of reality, they devised methods of testing it and proving or disproving their theories. They never ask us to take anything on "faith".

It is the height of arrogance for a religionist to hold up any religious text -- bible, koran, talmud, sutra, whatever -- as a basis of a objectie knowledge. Science and religion are two VERY different methods for humans to understand the universe. Sometimes they are complementary. Many times they are in opposition.

Looking back in history anyone who is not a fool will quickly convince themseleves that when religion and science are in opposition, you will be right nearly all of the time if you bet in the long run the scientists will turn out to be right.

A problem most religionists and common people have with science is that it is not "complete" and does not eliminate all doubt about its conclusions. This is because science is a human "tool" for understanding the universe and is constantly being improved. Its theories and conclusions are constantly extended by the research and experiments of scientists working all over the world.

Religionists take the opposite approach. They hold up a text like the bible with murky origins filled with myth, apocryphal stories, poetry and moral dramas and use it as a lens to see and define the world around us. They all claim their particular text and version of it is the direct word of an invisible god who cannot be criticized and the text is complete, absolute and infallible.

Humans are supposed to internalize the text, understand it, and live by it. Lifetimes and millions of lines of commentary are devoted to interpreting and understanding the "eternal" message that is being delivered through these texts. Religionists will never admit it, but the "revelations" and deep thinking of men working with these texts, and the cultures in which a text is interpreted and understood can lead to different people to radically different conclusions. Hence the continual ebb and flow of various sects within each major religion.

Both science and religion can give us self knowledge and understanding. The self knowledge we get from religion can be very profound. But by the very nature of its method of inquiry, religion will always lead to subjective and relative "truths". Depending on the religious text you start with you can come to very different conclusions on the nature of the "soul" or the "rights" that "god" has given to man.

Scientific "truths" like theories of gravity, or the nature of light, while always incomplete and subject to extension and revision give us objective, knowledge that is based on objective and repeatable experiments that are independently verified. Science, not religion, is the path to objective, and universal "truth".

How ironic.



religion
Spot on B.B.The libs like to pick only the parts of the Constitution that fits their zany beliefs

wjriii
Are you sure it's not spelled: Hate Mongerererererererererer?

Darren
That was awesome work, thanks.

I'm a leftist Christian
And most of the friends I have who are liberal are also Christian. There may be good reasons why folks disagree on politics but to try to paint each other into cartoonish characters does nothing to get at those differences or even begin to have a discussion.

Religion and the constitution
A comment was made on this thread that "Founding fathers I think where guided by God and they wisely left religion out of the constitution". We need to re-read the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall pass no law regarding the free practice of religion nor the establishment thereof." The consitution does mention religion as a right to be protected by law. The leftists are running the educational system and they have carte blanche to act upon their prejudices. There are public insitutions that will not grant tenure to a conservative or religious Christian. There are public colleges and universities that want to inflict religious litmus tests on applicants for teaching positions. If our government gets to the point that they cannot even acknowledge the existence then they will not be able to protect the free practice of religion. Government cannot protect that which it is not allowed to recognize.

Liberty or Death
Liberty or Death writes:
“There are no unalienable rights, only those rights granted by the amendments to the Constitution, which did not include liberty for Black People.”

No! You have bought into liberal history revisionism; that is not how the founding fathers drafted our Constitution. Read Article 1 Section 8. Those are the enumerated powers of Congress. There is no power here by which any God-given right may be taken away. There is also no power given to the federal government by which any of the rights in the Bill of Rights may be violated. This is why the Bill of Rights had so much opposition in the Philadelphia Convention, as Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist No. 84:

“They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

To address Hamilton’s concerns, the ninth and tenth amendments were added. The ninth amendment prevents the Bill of Rights from being used to suggest unlimited federal power, and the tenth amendment gives all powers not enumerated in the body of the Constitution to the states or to the people.

How then does the federal government today regulate every step we take? We no longer operate under the Constitution the Founders drafted. Our federal government has been usurping powers ever since the Civil War. Today, the Constitution can be blatantly violated by a simple majority vote. Everyone please read Joe Sobran’s article below, and read the Constitution carefully. You may learn why we wacky Libertarians support Ron Paul’s candidacy so fiercely.

http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

YMML2
I see that you've stopped taking your meds.

Anti-hint 1:
Here is Frank’s quote: “According to the latest Newsweek poll, 9 out of 10 Americans still believe in God, and half still do not believe in evolution.”

The author of the Newsweek poll wrote that 82% of those polled were Christian. Frank did not contradict that number.

Anti-hint 2:
If you are splitting hairs over 48% not being half, then you are just as guilty, because the figure of 9 of 10 in your hint 1 is not equal to 91%, as stated in the Newsweek poll. Didn't you read it? Here's the URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/
Close, but no cigar.

Anti-hint 3:
34% of college graduates accept the Biblical account of creation even though secular humanist philosophy college graduates are included in the numbers.

Anti-hint 4:
You must have had a rough day. Let me restate his point more simply. Despite decades of liberal influence on the public school system, of which 90% of the population attended, the percentage of adults who believe in God has not been significantly reduced.

Anti-hint 5;
By your argument, should “proper” religious people round up all the atheists and ship them to Europe?

Anti-hint 6:
Get your calculator ready. 87% who follow a specific faith, plus 10% who follow “no religion” equals 97%, which allows for 3% who follow a non-specific faith. Does that clear it up?


A question: If the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not come from God, but from man (and women, naturally), could a majority, or even a supermajority of people vote to revoke your rights? If not, please explain.

You have posted that conservatives are just hate mongerers. By the tone, tenor and the consistently high percentage of capitalization in your posts, I declare you the Grand Champion Hate Mongerer of the year. Congratulations! You are a great inspiration to hate mongerers everywhere.


Losing but still dangerous
The left may not be making any strides in thoroughly convincing America that worship of God is obsolete and should be replaced by a worship of the material world but they are continuing their declared declaration of war against Christianity nevertheless. They will not be satisfied until every Christian is locked up in concentration camps labled for extermination.

Mankind is incapable of self rule
It does not matter what the Constitution says. Mankind is incapable of ruling himself. There must always be someone who must oversee what others do. From the local town to the whole world, everyone seeks others to provide for them and to keep them safe from others who choose to harm them. Humans are foolhardy to believe that they are the masters of their own lives.

Allah is the master of their lives. He, and only He, provides what all seek. Humans fool themselves by refusing to submit to Allah. They think that their laws dictate their decisions. Laws are of the world, created by man, and controlled by man. These laws can be made and removed with the mere stroke of a pen. Constitutions are only as good as the paper they are written on, and only last as long as the citizens support it.

This creates a problem because everyone fights for recognition. Whoever is on power decides who is recognized. The fallacy is, if all men are created equally, then no one should have to seek recognition or protection from someone else.

Not everyone is created equally. There are always those who are smarter and more capable then others. These are ordained by Allah to provide direction to those who are incapable of taking care of themselves. Everyone has a master.

You cannot state your belief in a God and then demand freedom to make your own decisions. To do so denies your place in the world.

Religion starts at HOME & Church
GOD HAS THE POWER NOT MAN. So your worry about what other men are doing is not really putting much faith in God, is it?

Founding fathers I think where guided by God and they wisely left religion out of the constitution, while paying homage to it (judaeo-Christian law). We have freedom of religion or free from religion. We saw how the 18th century church of England and government cabal worked out. The taliban had a theocracy.

You can't legislate belief. If your faith in God is so weak you need it affirmed in the public square, than your faith is weak or you an authoritarian, not a lover of freedom and liberty.

I feel very strongly that religion is BY FAITH ALONE and comes from the HEART. You can't force people to follow religion by legislating it.

I would not want to be forced to read the Qu'ran or follow islamic law. However I think americans should have some working knowledge of what is in the Qu'ran, myself included.

I'm old enough to remember doing the pledge of allegiance to the flag, one nation, under God thing in school. I also remember that they never taught religion or evolution in grade school, junior high or high school. There was no controversy about teaching religion, just those few words "under GOD". God is pretty generic and again it was the founding fathers that set up separation of church and state, but with a tip of the hat to God. I guess the disturbing thing is the hostility towards "God". God not religion.

Strange enough I went to a Catholic high school for 4 years. They did not teach religion there either. We had religion class but it was not bible based theology, it was a cross between Catholicism and "morals". It was quite secular actually. I kind of hard feelings about that. What a great missed opportunity as a young man. I did not find the bible until I graduated from College, and my wife and I started going to a Lutheran Church. Why are Catholics not big on bible reading, I don't know.


THE LIE Evolution is FACT

I do get mad when I see the series of hand drawn pictures, illustrations, of the the various stages of a monkey or ape turning into man. People present it as the gospel or fact so to speak and people accept it as such.

You hear the evolutionist make scientific SWAG's (scientific wild a$$ guess) and throw out numbers like BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years like its set in stone. They make lots of assumptions and crank the numbers. The formulas may work out, but lots can happen in BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years. (I have two scientific degrees, so I know where they are stretching the science and stating assumption as fact.)

I don't think religion belongs in public school. For one its too deep for kids. They need to learn other things. However if you teach evolution than you need to teach creationism (ie God made everything). In the stark academic sense its another theory.

Did God use evolution in making the world and the BIG BANG making the universe? Interesting and would be a topic for a whole class. I do think God uses adaptation, evolution as part of his design or plan to some extent. All our physics, math and chemistry is Gods creation also. I have my personal belief that the bibles approx 6,000 years is in God years. I don't think the earth took 6 days as in 24 hours x 7. God's time-line is different than ours, no beginning no end, so it could (and probably was) billions of years. How he did it? Well he is God.

My bottom line is if your faith or religion is SO weak that you are worried about religion or prayer in school or the 10 commandments at some court house, you should not. Put it in Gods hand. Pray. More important, through your church spread the good news.


Anti-Religion is NOT secularism

Christians should fight CLEAR attempts at undue discrimination against them for religious reasons. The war on Christmas has been over done by Bill-O and Fox news for sensationalism, but FAIR is FAIR. The fact is we are a secular land of law, man's law. Yes yes there are some relations to biblical teaching and our law, but law is not theocracy.

When it comes to politics, public squares, public schools, separation of church and state is fine with me. Theology has no place in school, unless you are in a theology school. Other wise teach your children well at home or send them to private school.

In higher education, college, they NEED MORE classes on comparative religion and evolution. However the evolution should not be taught by a TRUE BELIEVER and should be put in the same place as religion: Faith alone - belief, NO PROOF.

Primary education K-12 should offer optional comparative religion classes at some point, I think that would be great. It would probably be over some kids heads, at least until late in high school. Of course parents (of all backgrounds and beliefs) would not allow it. That is too bad. The OPTION to take religious class or bible classes, even for pure academic reasons would help America.


YOU CAN'T PROVE IT

We can't prove God (we know but) and they can't prove we came from space dust that randomly combined in the primordial ooze and crawled out of the swamp to become everything. Any one should be able to decide, but you can't force them. That is what is great about America. The problem is the GOP has PUSHED so hard to the religious right (Evangelicals - what ever they are) and has scared the "Freedom" loving secularist.

I just want balance and facts in academics. If you teach evolution (which is faith based in my opinion) than you need to teach creationism (also faith based).

I followed the link to the poll
But found the arguments of the individual supplying the link profoundly irrelevant.

So, for that matter, were Mr. Pastore's arguments. The question was, are rights "unalienable" (i.e., inherent to the condition of being human) or "alienable" (i.e., granted or withheld at the whim of a ruling elite')? Most societies prior to ours hewed to the latter view. The fact that those men who wrote both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution believed the former view, and wrote it into the body of law, is what matters. No matter whether or not they believed that such rights proceeded from a higher power. And also, that those laws may only be changed within the parameters set down within the Constitution. If we are to have a government of "laws, not men", then it is very important that we remember that the purpose of the Constitution was to explain to future generations of Americans how the government was supposed to work, and what it could and (more importantly) could not do for (or to) them. The Bill of Rights is essentially directed at future generations of government officials- saying "Thus far, and no farther, thou shalt go."

BTW, I am not a member of any "organized religion", and I happen to consider expressing "belief" or "non-belief" in "evolution" (natural selection) about as sensible as expressing a belief one way or another as to whether or not the Earth orbits the Sun. In each case, the correct answer is, "It's a scientifically-proven fact. Deal with it".


cheers

eon


The Right Sentiments Wrong Arguements
I strongly support your conclusions, but your arguments fall way short.

Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written