Motives of anti-Creationists

[MarcoPolo]

In another thread that went into the Dover Intelligent Design trial there were many who insisted that the motives of the defendants who supported teaching ID in science classes had political motivation. Whether ID is totally science, part science/part philosophy, not science, or whatever is not my point here. Nor is whether the defendants of that case had political motives.

I just so often hear pro-Darwinists making these political “you are trynig to force God on us” statements while purporting to be honest for their part. What I contend is that many of these people are anti-Creationist, anti-God, and their goal is to force us to get rid of all matters pertaining to God.

I submit a post Dover trial interview with one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, Barbara Forest. You can hear her thoughts after the trial here.
Some of what she said:

She thanked the ACLU among others for their help in the trial.

She said that one of ID’s definitions is a Christian appeal and it leaves “out a lot of people”.

She said she had been hopeful a court ruling 1987 “would put a stop to Creationism” and was displeased it did not.There is certainly a sentiment among many Darwinists that opposing views should not be considered. They want to put an end to God.

 

[Joyousguard]

I think we could all make a very large list as to why people wish to eliminate God from this world. The irony being that you can not eliminate that which created all to begin with and I doubt many of them appreciate this until they come to realize the truth.

If there is no God then man is god. In part I believe that these people are uncomfortable with not having complete control over their lives. If there is no God then man could in fact be that god and we would decide what was right and wrong. If there is no God anything and everything could be true and evrything and anything could be false. Murder is fine, rape is good, torture can be fun.

Many of these Darwinists do not take their line of thinking to its logical conclussion and thus fall short of a true answer. They don’t finisht eh math equation but continue to argue that their solution is correct when they refuse to acknowlegde that there are a few more steps to go.

These Darwinists do not wish for equality but rather they wish for evryone to think as they do and be forced to have society succumb to their standards. There is no possible way of removing God from our societies becasue God is intertwined in the very fabric itself. You would have an easier time trying to remove parts of your own DNA and then God from this world

 

[AgnosTheist]

secular states should have secular public services. its as simple as that.

 

[AgnosTheist]

If there is no God then man is god.

Its not that. Its just that your God is different from our God. So just keep religion out of public services, because people have various beliefs anyway. religion should be personal.

 

[Joyousguard]

Its not that. Its just that your God is different from our God. So just keep religion out of public services, because people have various beliefs anyway. religion should be personal.

Religion was not personal nor was it ever intended to be personal in this country. At the time the Declaration and Constitution was written, God was a prime factor in almost all the thinking of the time in this country and its founding documents and principles. The Founding Ftahers, through no fault of their own, never foresaw a country where people would attempt to replace religion and God with secularism. They foresaw different religions and religious freedom obviously but never a country without religion.

This country and every public institution in this country has a foundation in the Divine in some manner or another. The very laws that helps hold this country together are partly based on religious beliefs and doctrine. There was no intent to keep religion private but to rather build a country around freedom of religion and certain beliefs that the founding fathers held for granted. If you wish to remove religion from the institution of governemnt this country will fall apart because they are so intertwined from the early days of the revolution.

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ then why does your constitution promote the separation of church & state?

 

[Joyousguard]

To protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

In another thread that went into the Dover Intelligent Design trial there were many who insisted that the motives of the defendants who supported teaching ID in science classes had political motivation.

That’s the ad hominem fallacy. Creationism isn’t right because the motives of some of those attacking it are bad.

 

[buffalo]

Its not that. Its just that your God is different from our God. So just keep religion out of public services, because people have various beliefs anyway. religion should be personal.

The truth is the truth. God is God. What may differ is the human perception which is clouded. The truth is not personal and it affects all of us. If one objectively searches for the truth he can only end up in one place, the true God. The only place that possesses the fullness of truth is the Catholic Church. It is as simple as that. We are all on a journey. Some of us have accepted some truths, others have accepted all the truths. Where are you?

 

[buffalo]

^ then why does your constitution promote the separation of church & state?

There is no separation of Church and state in the Constitution. It is a recent construct. The establishment clause states the state will make no law with respect to a state religion.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a search for the truth.

 

[Joyousguard]

There is no separation of Church and state in the Constitution. It is a recent construct. The establishment clause states the state will make no law with respect to a state religion.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a search for the truth.

My apologies, I should have included that part as well. Thank you for catching my omission.

After reading buffalos post then ad: To protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.

 

[Orogeny]

I just so often hear pro-Darwinists making these political “you are trynig to force God on us” statements while purporting to be honest for their part. What I contend is that many of these people are anti-Creationist, anti-God, and their goal is to force us to get rid of all matters pertaining to God.

Well, I am one who was thrilled with the outcome of that trial and I am an anti-creationist. I am not, however, anti-God and I don’t want to be rid of all matters pertaining to God. One of the key witnesses for the plaintiffs was Ken Miller, a devout Catholic. He doesn’t want to be rid of God. The point is that creationism (ID) isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught in science class. If the district had established a philosophy or metaphysics class, creationism (ID) would have been acceptable. Not in a science class.

I submit a post Dover trial interview with one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, Barbara Forest. You can hear her thoughts after the trial here.
Some of what she said:

She thanked the ACLU among others for their help in the trial.

She said that one of ID’s definitions is a Christian appeal and it leaves “out a lot of people”.

She said she had been hopeful a court ruling 1987 “would put a stop to Creationism” and was displeased it did not.There is certainly a sentiment among many Darwinists that opposing views should not be considered. They want to put an end to God.

There is nothing in those quotes that indicate that Ms. Forrest wants to put an end to God.

Peace

Tim

 

[AgnosTheist]

There is no separation of Church and state in the Constitution. It is a recent construct. The establishment clause states the state will make no law with respect to a state religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

So its illegal for a governmental institution to promote any religion.

 

[Joyousguard]

Well, I am one who was thrilled with the outcome of that trial and I am an anti-creationist. I am not, however, anti-God and I don’t want to be rid of all matters pertaining to God. One of the key witnesses for the plaintiffs was Ken Miller, a devout Catholic. He doesn’t want to be rid of God. The point is that creationism (ID) isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught in science class. If the district had established a philosophy or metaphysics class, creationism (ID) would have been acceptable. Not in a science class.

Unfourtunately I hate to say it but even Theology is considered a science. The more we learn about physical science, the more it proves what we know by faith. There is even the scientific discovery that traces all mankinds DNA back to an original source. (sorry I can’t make a quote or reference here, but from what I understand there is some evidence to suggest that all of mankind came from a single person)

There is nothing in those quotes that indicate that Ms. Forrest wants to put an end to God.

 

[buffalo]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

So its illegal for a governmental institution to promote any religion.

No. The state cannot force a particular religion on its members.

Christianity had been promoted throughout US history.

 

[Orogeny]

Unfourtunately I hate to say it but even Theology is considered a science.

Theology is the study of a supernatural being. Science, as the topic in the trial, is the study of the natural world. God is outside of nature (supernatural), so, no, theology is not science in the context being used.

The more we learn about physical science, the more it proves what we know by faith.

I agree, but then again I believe in God. That isn’t true for non-believers.

There is even the scientific discovery that traces all mankinds DNA back to an original source. (sorry I can’t make a quote or reference here, but from what I understand there is some evidence to suggest that all of mankind came from a single person)

Sorry, but the study that you are referring to does not suggest what you think. It doesn’t point to Adam and Eve.

One can not seek to put an end to creationism and not expect to put an end to God as well. If there was no creation then there is no God. The two are not mutualy exclusive.

Creationism as faith is fine. Creationism as science is not. This case was about getting creationism into the SCIENCE classroom.

Peace

Tim

 

[AgnosTheist]

No. The state cannot force a particular religion on its members.

Christianity had been promoted throughout US history.

Anyway things are changing fast. Christianity is fast becoming a joke in modern U.S. history. Take this for example:

youtube.com/watch?v=aKJonM0fM54

and its funny how american christians are fighting back

youtube.com/watch?v=zXsHPLl-zFY

 

[edwest2]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

So its illegal for a governmental institution to promote any religion.

This is a false statement. It is a common myth, often repeated so as to appear true.

United States money has In God We Trust on it.

The United States Congress opens sessions with prayer.

The President of the United States is sworn in on a Bible.

What is being done here is an attempt to rewrite history as if it never happened. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

Unfourtunately I hate to say it but even Theology is considered a science.

Just because it ends in “-ology” doesn’t make it a science. Theology is a branch of metaphysical inquiry. It is not beholden to the scientific method, to the cycle of hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. It is not a science.

One can not seek to put an end to creationism and not expect to put an end to God as well. If there was no creation then there is no God. The two are not mutualy exclusive.

Creationism != ‘God made us’. What is being attacked is a literal interpretation of ancient myth that completely contradicts what we know about how the world works and has worked, not God. As the last couple of Popes have stated repeatedly, there is no reason to take the first chapter of Genesis on only a literal level.

People have every right to expect that science will be taught in science classes; literal creationism is not science in any way, shape, or form. It is a religious belief.

 

[Joyousguard]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

So its illegal for a governmental institution to promote any religion.

Religion and God are by no means all inclusive. Simply because you do not promote or endorse a partcicular religion above all others does not mean you cannot accept the existence of God and promote that existence. Just because Congress can not say that Christainity is the best religion does not mean that they can not say that God does indeed exist and thus His laws and commandments exist in turn.

At the time the Constitution and Declaration were written, it was written by christians who’s beliefs and understanding permeated in everything they wrote and desired to create. This country is founded on the existence of God and the morality that comes from that existence. It is impossible to seprate this morality and understanding from this country.

Did the Founding Father’s need to include “truths” that are considered “a given” in the constitution such as the law of gravity or laws of nature? These certain core divine “truths” that can be found through out our core documents where not disputed by the Founding Fathers any more than any of them disagreed with gravity or whether the sun rises in the east. One doe snot have toinclude the obvious all the time.

They beleived in God and His commandments and founded a government largly based on their Judeo-Christain beliefs. These beliefs permeate in ever government institution stemming from the Declaration and the Constitution.

Religion is based on God but God is not based on religion. Support for one is not always support for the other. Condemnation of one does not mean condemnation of the other.