Except that the evidence attached to the unofficial report of the OSC investigation does not support the allegations it contains. The facts in the report support these claims:
My faith and my understanding of science fit well together.
No one has been prevented from doing anything other than teaching non-science in science classes. Is that hard to understand? You have fallen for Stein’s propaganda. Any scientist that wants to research ID is welcome to. Like your Christian artists, those scientists may find funding hard to come by, but for a different reason. Anyone doing research on a subject that has not shown any scientific validity tends to have a hard time getting funding, but there are organizations like the Discovery Institute that would be willing to come up with at least some funding.
Because science is not, as art is, in the eye of the beholder. If science doesn’t have parameters, then anything under the sun would be considered science, including the tea leaves I mentioned previously. Would you be inclined to argue for tea leaves as passionately as you do for ID? Probably not because you understand how un-scientific tea leaf reading is. Yet you are advocating something that has exactly the same amount of scientific evidence as tea leaf reading does.
Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to it being correct. There has been exactly zero scientific evidence supporting ID. Zero. None.
I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else accepting the story as literal, especially if it helps you understand the story better. The “temptor” was and is Satan. The state of union that existed was one of immortality. Sin brings death to our souls unless we ask for forgiveness. Prior to original sin, there was no spiritual death.
Once again, because you are not a scientist, I will tell you that you are greatly mistaken about scientists not having a sense of awe for nature. Most scientists that I have ever known have a great sense of awe. That is what keeps them going.
Of course there are many people just like you that have the same questions that want answers. He played you like a fine violin.
Tim, I did think you were sincere about the 'peace" at the end of your message and I was sincere about mine. You probably don’t realize that some of the tone of your other answers shows a certain impatience at the very least.My faith and my understanding of science fit well together. No one has been prevented from doing anything other than teaching non-science in science classes. Is that hard to understand? You have fallen for Stein’s propaganda. Any scientist that wants to research ID is welcome to. Like your Christian artists, those scientists may find funding hard to come by, but for a different reason. Anyone doing research on a subject that has not shown any scientific validity tends to have a hard time getting funding, but there are organizations like the Discovery Institute that would be willing to come up with at least some funding.
Those scientists, if they ever find any real scientific evidence for ID, will then be able to make their case to the scientific community. Until then, they will be as welcome as anyone who wanted to present a “scientific” paper about pre-historic leprechauns was at the recent conference your daughter attended.Because science is not, as art is, in the eye of the beholder. If science doesn’t have parameters, then anything under the sun would be considered science, including the tea leaves I mentioned previously. Would you be inclined to argue for tea leaves as passionately as you do for ID? Probably not because you understand how un-scientific tea leaf reading is. Yet you are advocating something that has exactly the same amount of scientific evidence as tea leaf reading does. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to it being correct. There has been exactly zero scientific evidence supporting ID. Zero. None.I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else accepting the story as literal, especially if it helps you understand the story better. The “temptor” was and is Satan. The state of union that existed was one of immortality. Sin brings death to our souls unless we ask for forgiveness. Prior to original sin, there was no spiritual death.Once again, because you are not a scientist, I will tell you that you are greatly mistaken about scientists not having a sense of awe for nature. Most scientists that I have ever known have a great sense of awe. That is what keeps them going.
Scientists, Christian or otherwise, are certainly free to question. That is precisely what scientists df course there are many people just like you that have the same questions that want answers. He played you like a fine violin.
Flippant answers? Stein counted on you not knowing anything about science and only fed you what he wanted you to see (including the lies he pushed off as examples of censorship). Based on that, you have come here and continued his assault against the integrity of all scientists, including those who are devout Christians who reject ID but were for some reason left out of Stein’s film. Flippant? I don’t think so.
Science isn’t an easy subject. You have shown that you don’t have a basic understanding of evolution and yet you come here demanding answers. And yet I am flippant when I don’t get into the science!
And by the way, I really do mean it when I sign off with “Peace”. You don’t have to accept it as it is clear that you don’t think I am sincere. I am used to that as it has happened several times over the years here, just like having my faith questioned or being called an atheist outright.
Peace
Tim
Hi Tim
Though I don’t know MaryJohnZ, I do wish to express my heartfelt joy in knowing that you are an honest and sincere person. Above all else, a gentleman. You continue to be the best of the best of the best! 
The DNA molecule measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of the double helix spiral. 34 and 21 are Fibonacci numbers and their ratio closely approximates phi. DNA has two grooves in its spirals, with a phi ratio between the major groove and the minor groove (roughly 21 angstroms to 13 angstroms)."Hi MaryJohnZ. I apologize if my answers gave that impression. I and others have been answering questions about science for quite a while here and sometimes it is frustrating to see those same questions over and over again. That isn’t your fault. Being impatient is my fault.
The only problem is when you assume that random to you is the same as random to God. There is no such possibility for an all-knowing God.
ID is an attempt to get God into the science curricula. The problem is is that there is plenty of order that can be explained without having to go to the “designer” (whom, you might be interested, is not necessarily God according to some who are now trying to get ID into the classroom). Just because we can’t explain it now doesn’t mean that we need to go to “God did it” as an answer.
I have read the statements that Dawkins made about this. I wouldn’t agree with your take on that. I can’t stand the man, but what he was saying is that to him the idea of an extraterrestrial origin of life is just as probable as God creating life from nothing. Remember, this guy is an extreme athiest, so he naturally rejects any suggestion that God was involved.
ID is flawed in the most basic of scientific ways. It makes no predictions and it can’t be falsified. In other words, how do you test it?
Lets move on. Those incidents are past history (1920s). They also had a lot of Laws in MA against blaspeming the Lord’s name and working on Sundays, etc,
Newton should be held morally responsible for formulating the theory of gravitation. Look what it led to: the good Catholic Agosto Pinochet pushing parents of young children out of airplanes to their deaths.
Don’t be a twit.
One Q Tim…
Don’t be too hard on orogeny. He has been a class act here on the forums. He is Catholic no doubt and he believes in God.
I understand, but his tone really annoyed me.
I’m sure Jesus didn’t have burning heretics in mind, either. There isn’t anything in the world that’s good, that someone won’t pervert to an evil purpose. Pretending that science is different, might comfort people who hate knowledge, but it isn’t going to change reality.
Oh, you’re angry at technology, not science. If you held science to be at fault, you should hate Bernoulli, not the Wright brothers.
You think people weren’t killing each other in groups before science?
He said scientists ordered his relatives into the gas chambers. As usual, he was lying. It’s his profession. He was a speech writer for Nixon. And he’s good at it.
Let’s talk about this year. In Texas, a creationist abused her power to get a Texas Education Agency employee fired for publicizing a talk by a scientist the creationist disliked. It is very clear that these people will suppress other opinions whenever they get a chance to do so.
I just did, just the other day. I assigned my Pre-AP students a paper on the ethical considerations in cloning. I asked them if they thought God or religious ideas could not be in the paper. They differed with each other on that. I then pointed out that science is a tool, and should serve their values and beliefs, and if they wanted to make a religious argument, they were free to do so, even if I as a teacher could not.
Blame the Bill of Rights. That darn religious freedom thing, again.
What would you call it when a so called scientist holding a clip board watches as SS officers herd women & children into gas chambers? Either directly or circuitously… they had a hand in it.
Are the scientists more at fault than the construction workers who built the gas chambers, or the technicians who maintained them, or the architects who designed them? How about the accountants and bookkeepers who kept meticulous records of the Jews in German territories so that they could be rounded up more efficiently? How about the SS officers who rounded up the Jews after destroying their lives and property, and those who maintained the railroads to ship the Jews to the death camps? Are scientists more to blame than them? How about Hitler’s security detail, or those who could have taken him out but chose not to? Or the civilians who stood idly by while their friends, neighbors, and in some cases families, were sent to their deaths? Or the governments who turned away boatloads of Jewish refugees or refused to issue them visas to escape German territories?
I’d be pleased to see your evidence. A clipboard is not the evidence that a man is a scientist.
Well, so far, you’ve given us no reason to think so.
Well, I would certainly be open to your evidence that scientists ordered Jews into the gas chambers, but your equivocation suggests that you’ve now realized he was lying. Show us the evidence.
I’ve quite a few hours in European history (due to a duty assignment at a really boring post) and I’ve read a lot. But I’ve never seen any sign that scientists were doing that.
A huge number did leave. But even so, “there were scientists in Germany at the time” certainly is a considerable backpedal from “scientists ordered my family into the gas chambers.”
I think you’ve realized he was lying.