Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Dover: Whether Intelligent Design is Scie
>>Susan:  The issue at hand was government monuments to the 10 Commandments. That is endorsement of a particular religion.Yeah right. And because Carl Sagan outright said in a
government-supported nationally televised network "science" program that
"The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will
be", that makes atheistic materialism the national religion too.
The difference was though that Carl Sagan was no doubt paid for his work
out of government funds, whereas Judge Roy Moore did it with his own
Oh, and that Carl Sagan's religion is an anti-theistic philosophy and
Moore's is a Christian one.
>I have heard EXACTLY the same rationalization from people whoVery interesting. "Thou shalt not steal". If "Thou shalt worship the
>shoplift. "So what? They are rich, they aren't going to miss it. I'm
>not doing any harm." In my book it's still theft.
Lord Thy God" is "establishing a religion", then so is "Thou shalt not
steal". They are part and parcel, a unified whole.
So which are you? For or against stealing?
>And establishing a state religion without actually going to the trouble of passing a law isn't a step up.And banning it without a law is a step into the abyss.
The Founders of the United States of America, however, the ones who
signed the "Declaration of the Thirteen states of America", and then
the signers of the Constitution, take issue (in their quotes still with
us) with the cockamamie idea that acknowledging the reality of a God is
equivalent to an "establishment of religion". "God" is recognized (you
might say "enshrined") in the very Declaration FOUR times in very
And the Declaration makes very clear that the recognition of God
includes the recognition of Him as Creator, and not only that, but that
our natural rights (whether you call them "human" or "civil") do not
come from legislation or constitutions but from that Creator. Your first
amendment was brought to you by people who believed that, who signed
their names to it. And that __includes__ Thomas Jefferson!
And the signers of the Constitution always said it was a Christian
nation. They pointed to the Bible as the source of their inspiration.
For a "humanist" revolution you can contrast the French Revolution with
the American one.
There are some now who would ban any official government action based on
any religious motive. The latest fashion among atheists is to claim that
their atheism is "an absence of belief" rather than a belief, by which
they mean the absence of any theistic belief.
And yet they would claim that the judicially-enforced "absence of
theistic belief" upon government "protects religion"!!! They would have
government blithely and irrationally go about pretending that religion
can teach government nothing about government!
>And "humanistic" isn't an insult. Humanism has always been a powerful"Humanism" gave us the French Revolution and fertilized the Bolshevik
>force for good in the world and I'll always fight to protect it. I
>have no wish to return to prehumanistic days when the infant death
>rate was 50% and the only treatment for disease was a couple of "Our
>Fathers" and a grave digger.
and Stalinist and Maoist and Khmer Rouge genocides, and its less brutal
versions have slowed the European progress to a snail's pace. It gives
us the new deceitful vocabulary term "politically correct", a euphemism
for linguistic thought control.
In another ironic twist on the reference to infant death and disease,
Louis Pasteur, a Creationist, gets much of the credit for cutting down
infant deaths. Orphanages around the world owe their history to
Christians who are building the Kingdom of God on Earth.
And Christians are the ones who founded the first hospitals.
And Creationist scientists, crediting their belief in a creation-ordered
world, gave science its push, when the Church and churches, and more
importantly believers, finally shook off the shackles with which
state-imposed science had held them back. (Although the "dark ages" has
been exposed as a misnomer itself).
Irony of ironies, back to the Charlemagne days, Irish and English monks
brought books and learning back to the European continent, including
hundreds and even thousands of Greek and Roman classics, snatched from
oblivion by the Irish monks, legacy of the evangelistic firebrand Saint
Irony of ironies, while Baptists have to apologize for slavery today
because they bought into the anti-Christian mercantile slavery trade
while other fundamentalists fought it, St. Patrick's campaigning began
the movement of shame that brought formal slavery to a virtual end
within Europe for centuries until godless merchants resurrected it and
slayed the missionary opposition along with indigenous populations.
Yes, those dangerous fundamentalist Reconstructionists were the first on
the scene with the first necessities after Katrina, but of course one
would never know it.
>If the government erects a big marble monument with "I am The LordWhen did the "government" do that? Which government?
>They God, Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me." I take notice.
>Yeah, they are telling. They are the ones with the power. AnythingWhich is why a government pretense that no God had anything to do with
>the government does is necessarily coercive.
Origins on the supposed basis of a "lack of [government] belief" is
dangerous. Subtly so for an atheist, maybe, it might be hard to
comprehend for them, but it is so nonetheless.
> Do you think God is happy with coerced religious expression? Do you really think it pleases him?Theology, Susan? He hates coercion, or else you'd have been "coerced"
already, obviously. The founding apostles and first followers of Christ,
to this day, around the world, have died to spread their faith, while
there are others who have killed to spread theist.
>And why is there no big push to post the Bill of Rights in the publicThere is, the Constitution Center does all it can, and a good friend of
>schools and in courthouses? I have a feeling it's because expanding
>rights is WAY not the project.
mine here even chaired the local version of Constitution Day and made a
presentation with local school kids.
It is an OUTRAGE that the actual __wording__ of the First Amendment is
never quoted in all the stories. The phrase they always use is the
"separation" phrase, a semantical trick, a sneaky one. Whenever the
subject comes up in conversations, I always go back to the wording.
Anti-religious fanatics and anti-creationists cannot get around the
One person or official is not a Congress, and one monument is not a law
(whether it's a statue of a Greek goddess or the Ten Commandments), one
person's act whatever his government or private position is not
"coercion" unless it is coercion, one's own money is not taxes.
>>Isaac Newton credited his drive for discoveries in science toYou're seeing a glimmer of the light of truth here amidst the darkness
>>Creationism, and credited God with his own inspiration.
>yet he didn't assume that God pushed the planets around in their
>orbits (did planets orbit by Newton's day?) He developed laws of
>motion to explain it.
here. Like Isaac Newton could see, God created an ordered universe with
a lot of useful consistent behaviors.
By the way, part of his conviction on this point, and I'm sure a driving
motivation, was his definitive certainty that man's technology would
skyrocket in the days leading up to what we refer to as "the last days"
or the "End times". Some of this surety had to come from the first
verses in Daniel 12 that obviously refer to today's interconnected world
of transportation ("men shall run to and fro") and our recent-years
explosion of knowledge ("and knowledge shall be increased").
I read somewhere also FWIW that he figured that for fulfillment of the
worldwide travel prophecy therein, man would come to invent a mode of
transportation that would exceed 70 miles per hour. My speculation for
his basis for that is that he would regard it as a threshold figure of
>>Modern science and the giant leaps it has made in the past few centuriesMaybe they did, but Darwin's ideas weren't even new, he just put them
>>were incubated among creationist scientists, of which Isaac Newton is
>>only the most famous example. There is the big long list that atheists
>>and darwinists seem to forget every time the subject comes up, as if
>>science all started with Darwin. In a big historic irony, Darwin might
>>have been a peasant if creationism had not already developed a culture
>>of scientific inquiry, except for the fact that he was among a few who
>>desperately wanted to find an Origins solutions that did not involve
>Most naturalists in Darwin's day had already noticed that species change through time. They were clueless as to why or how. Darwin figured the mechanism out. He assumed God created the ancestor organism.
together in the book. Natural selection was a concept that creationist
scientists brought to the table before Darwin, he just added his own
speculations about the ancestor organism. It's what you get when you
start imagining how things might have gotten that way if you just a
priori reject the idea of a Creator. You don't even have to explicitly
articulate such an a priori assumption, you just speculate. He did.
That's what he came up with. You add "unbelief" (in Creation) to
"speculation" and overlay it on top of the evidence, what else would
they come up with for "how we got here"?
However, as the majority biologist belief in Creation was already
extant, and as natural selection as a concept had already been presented
and accepted among them as a way that species remain adapted to their
environment, "fit" if you prefer, as in fit for where they live, these
considerations show that he only added some speculations to hypothesis
to come up with non-theistic origins for all of life and a common ancestor.
But the intellectual culture was apparently ready for it. There were
other sociological and political groups that were already pushing at
Christianity by that time, as other developments could show.
>>Come darwinism, and when doctors find a human organ and cannot figureDoctors nowadays say no and rarely take it out. No doubt many still want
>>out a function for it, they declare it "vestigial", and thereby stunt
>>medical advances for decades while thousands, maybe millions, of people
>>pay for them to remove a perfectly functional organ.
>More and more people are born without an appendix. It's a liability. It kills people.
to justify the money made on it. Kind of like so many Caesarians. There
are long lists, including the appendix, several dozen, of formerly
"vestigial" organs no longer. I think the pituitary was even one of
them. How would you like to remove your own pituitary organ? Some women
think their ovaries are a liability, and my mother died of cancer that
began there, they said, but you can't call them a liability.
>>Geneticists find DNA without a direct discernible (to them for theMaybe you know more than geneticists, but go notice that for the reason
>>moment) expression, and declare that most DNA is "vestigial". Lo and
>>behold, they had to backtrack on that one very quickly.
>nah. Much DNA is non-coding (I think that's what they call it.) There's a lot of redundancy and noise in the system. Some DNA that was thought to be junk turned out not to be. Whoopie. It doesn't help you.
you just gave they now refrain from calling any DNA vestigial.
>>Pasteur did not say, "goddidit". His scientific work without a doubt hasYou were the one trying to say that creationism stunts research, a
>>made the difference between living and dying for people in this list.
>and your point is?
ridiculous statement when compared to actual history where things count,
and research helps us fight disease.
>an interesting blog post on right wing Christians and their attitude about vaccination:When darwinists come up with some new cheer chant for their side, or
think they find something, what I do is actually try to consider what
they're saying. I know what is behind the quote they put out there, and
if you really look you can see the twist in the wording. Their attitude
is one of caution. Of course anti-Christians and those who simply buy
into whatever the official top-down line is will follow a Marxist right
into a rose-colored path to dictatorship, just like they're doing in
The "disinhibition" factor, do you even know what it is? A former
abortion clinic owner explained it this way, she said they were always
delighted at an invitation to speak at schools about sexual safety
practices, because they knew that instead of teen pregnancies going
down, they always went up. Problem is also that the diseases also always
went up, for the same reasons.
As to vaccinations, there is another story about them. I disagree most
sharply and emphatically with Hal Lindsey on some important views, but
he says that when his first book came out some doctor friends of his
told him he shouldn't put in that part about diseases going up, because
we were conquering them, but that recently the same ones were calling
him "vindicated' on the subject.
>>Livingston was driven to explore new geographies in Africa, along withYour scurrilous sarcasm belies your ignorance of the subject.
>>of course his drive to bring the good news of the Gospel to its inhabitants.
>and that went *so* well. Susan
susan...>>*Of course* the government was (and is) interested in it.
Knowledge of evolution has brought major advances in medicine and
agriculture. Without an understanding of evolution, new flu vaccines
would be impossible. Antibiotic use would be openly dangerous.
Understanding ecology would be impossible.
aec...>> Right, and I myself invented the Internet! ROTFL!
susan...>> Evolution was outlawed in the early Soviet Union (it was too
capitalistic) with devastating effects on their biological sciences.
aec...>> This is baloney, an attempt to distance "evolution" from
"Larmarckianism", in fact a "kissing cousin" of darwinism. Not quite as
baffy as the Hopeful Monster, nonetheless. In fact it shows the
devastation that government enforcement of one particular scientific
theory on an ideological basis only wreaks havoc with science. Much
better to have a true free exchange of ideas.
..And we have biotech and they don't have much visible biotech industry
because permitting profit incentives for research, as long as it is
coupled with the appropriate restraining and mostly voluntary moral
ethic, is a powerhouse engine for research. I think though that these
incentives are diminishing, because it is so very hard for one guy to do
anything, and there are barriers. I met one scientists who had applied
for a patent for an ambient-temperature superconductor, and never got
it. A lot of Tesla's inventions have had "Classified" stamped on them