I’ve dug enough. I don’t read or study many, “any” legislation that I support or oppose. It’s not my hobby and it isn’t neccessary. Maybe that’s your thing.
No, of course they are not. My position comes down to this: A spider's web, or a butterfly's cocoon, or a human's consciousness did not develop through billions of positive mutations. I cannot be demonstrated that it has, and it will NEVER be possible to prove it. It is hatred for faith in and allegiance to an omniscient Creator that has perpetuated this befuddling myth of macro-evolution.
I have read the exact words of the Dawkinses and Provines of the world, and believe me, they consider people such as you to be completely illogical in your faith in God. There is a poignant hostility toward believers that you refuse to acknowlege. Blessings, Bob :cool:ID the science is not pseudo-science. Learn more about it.I’ve dug enough. I don’t read or study many, “any” legislation that I support or oppose. It’s not my hobby and it isn’t neccessary. Maybe that’s your thing.
I spend my time doing things that interest me and delving into legislative text ain’t it.
If said document would result in kids hearing pseudo-science then that’s all I need to know.
Yes they do - they have harsh words for theistic **********ists. They see the issue clearer than many theists.No, of course they are not. My position comes down to this: A spider’s web, or a butterfly’s cocoon, or a human’s consciousness did not develop through billions of positive mutations. I cannot be demonstrated that it has, and it will NEVER be possible to prove it. It is hatred for faith in and allegiance to an omniscient Creator that has perpetuated this befuddling myth of macro-evolution.
I have read the exact words of the Dawkinses and Provines of the world, and believe me, they consider people such as you to be completely illogical in your faith in God. There is a poignant hostility toward believers that you refuse to acknowlege. Blessings, Bob
There is no “science of ID,” any more than there is a “science” of astrology, or palm reading, or “New Age” crystal healing.
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.Casey, the difference is that while Big Bang cosmology has been srengtheend by a variety of discoveries since it was first proposed, ID has not been strengthened. Rather, some of the evidence previously thought to demonstrate “irreducible complexity” has been shown to be reducible.
Personally, I do not see macro-evolution as the key issue in this decade. I could be wrong since I am not in contact with Christian leaders.No, of course they are not. My position comes down to this: A spider’s web, or a butterfly’s cocoon, or a human’s consciousness did not develop through billions of positive mutations. I cannot be demonstrated that it has, and it will NEVER be possible to prove it. It is hatred for faith in and allegiance to an omniscient Creator that has perpetuated this befuddling myth of macro-evolution.
I have read the exact words of the Dawkinses and Provines of the world, and believe me, they consider people such as you to be completely illogical in your faith in God. There is a poignant hostility toward believers that you refuse to acknowlege. Blessings, Bob
The fact that the TOE implies disappearance of the soul, and the reason for the cross, should alarm EVERY Christian, not just Catholics. Believe me, most major evolutionary theorists would like nothing more than to see Christianity disappear. :ouch: RobThe fact that the TOE implies disappearance of the soul, and the reason for the cross, should alarm EVERY Christian, not just Catholics.
False – it does not imply this.
Believe me, most major evolutionary theorists would like nothing more than to see Christianity disappear.uch: Rob
Evolution says nothing about the soul, most especially the spiritual soul possessed by humans. The soul is not a biological trait, and it did not “evolve”, so no scientific theory can have any statement about it one way or the other.The fact that the TOE implies disappearance of the soul, and the reason for the cross, should alarm EVERY Christian, not just Catholics. Believe me, most major evolutionary theorists would like nothing more than to see Christianity disappear.
That is not exactly what I said.The fact that the TOE implies disappearance of the soul, and the reason for the cross, should alarm EVERY Christian, not just Catholics. Believe me, most major evolutionary theorists would like nothing more than to see Christianity disappear.
Science has changed and expanded. This is the 21st century. At the same time that science is moving forward in the medical area, we are now introduced to “soulishness” which is one of the terms to describe a material epiphenomenon that substitutes for the spiritual soul. Another description for the absence of the spiritual soul is the rise of consciousness due to cultural awareness.
I don’t think it is a good idea to equate consciousness with the soul. The soul is united with the body of a human embryo at the moment of conception, not when the brain of the fetus begins to stir with electrical activity.
You’re right that consciousness does not equal the soul. However, human DNA does seem to be closely associated with it, if the claim is made that all human DNA and only human DNA is capable of bearing a soul.
I assume you mean spiritual souls, and not just souls in general which are found in all living material things.
Actually, I learned about “soulishness” on CAF. I doubt if it is an official scientific term, but it certainly describes what is happening. It is not “equating” consciousness with the spiritual soul; it is a matter of “replacing” the spiritual soul. Some of the more popular experiments are heralded in the media with pictures of wires attached to someone’s scull or MRI pictures.
Hm… I guess I am guilty of generally avoiding discussions of this nature
Yes, I suppose that is the intention of the legislators who are backing the Indiana bill, and also the intention of the proponents of creation science, in general. I think they are misguided in their approach. A discussion of the human relationship with God may fit very well in a biology classroom. It can shore up religious beliefs and provide a perspective on the wider world which will serve students well in their adult life. But such a discussion has a very real danger of becoming sectarian. I am not sure that the Indiana proposal, even with its requirements that multiple faiths be discussed, will be able to avoid that danger in practice.