Apparently, the Religious Hardrighties aren't happy with the

[Maat]

"Katzmiller v. Dover" case outcome.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22351 :

**Quote**
However, when one actually thinks about how unbelievable Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution really is, it becomes increasingly illogical. Think about it -- you start with dust particles, then rocks, then through a spontaneous event, water emerges, then oceans, then over millions, perhaps billions of years there is the spontaneous concoction of atoms and molecules to form the basic trace elements like carbon and calcium. Then to top it all off, the world spontaneously experiences the formation of one-celled life forms with intelligence. After many millions and millions of years, the one-cell forms spontaneously produce multi-celled beings and, by a freak of nature, humankind arrives on the landscape with the capacity to build buildings and computers and.... For one to believe that people are the result of a random chance of nature takes a real leap of faith.
***Endquote**

I research the Religious Reichies for a project I'm involved in, and this article gave me a chuckle.

By the way, I'm a person of faith, but one who does not see a conflict between science and my faith/belief-system/religion.

I do see a problem, however, with the stuff being published on the website/newssite of the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Hissyspit]

1. "For one to believe that people are the result of a random chance..."

"...of nature takes a real leap of faith."

Um, no it doesn't.

[Maat]

3. HeeHee. No, it doesn't (n/t).

[msongs]

2. how about people = the random act of a bored god?

a god that has played evolutionary "what happens if I do this..." since the beginning and just happened to come up with people?

and like the dinosaurs, when this god grows tired of people......

uh oh, this sounds like..gasp..intelligent design LOL

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Maat]

4. HeeHee. You guys are crackin' me up!

:rofl:

[Warpy]

5. Which begs the question of who designed

that god that is so deeply flawed it's capable of boredom, and who designed that designer and so on. It just never stops.

[Maat]

7. HeeHee.

I don't worry so much about it myself.

Hold on while I go grab another Holiday cookie and stuff my face.

There, that's better!

Happy Holidays!

:toast:

[eleny]

6. Don't they believe that god can take dust 'n rocks n stuff and...do stuff?

Oh, nevermind!

[Maat]

8. And a few million years probably passes fast for Spirit ..

and maybe Spirit doesn't care how things evolve ... and just likes to watch.

[eleny]

10. That's my take on the whole deal

[Maat]

11. Mine too! Take care!

[MikeH]

9. The only reason there is any question about evolution

The only reason for questioning evolution and considering Creationism (or now Intelligent Design) at all is because some people are obsessed with the idea that the Bible, i.e. a collection of writings written over 2000 years ago, must be absolute truth, even scientifically, and this even though the Bible is almost anything except a scientific textbook. And such people are, very unfortunately, now in a position of power and influence in our society.

Just like the only reason for questioning or doubting the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke is because the powerful tobacco industry denies there are any harmful effects. And the only reason for questioning the reality of global warming is because so-called "scientists" paid for by oil and other polluting industries deny that it is real.

And I do not have any more respect for those religious fundamentalists fighting against evolution and pushing Creationism than I do for tobacco industry spokespeople or for polluting industry "scientists".

[Maat]

12. Good analogies, MikeH!

You're right - in that there are extremists defending their turf essentially to keep the money flowing in.

I tell my father-in-law, "Stop proselytizing - it is bullying."

I welcome stories of my friends faith - AFTER I ask them about it.

[madeline_con]

13. "... one-celled life forms with intelligence ..."

Right here, major screw up and total misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.

No wonder they don't believe it, they just refuse to GET it!!


BTW, I know this is an old thread, but I had to comment.

[Maat]

14. I doubt any one of the "Intelligent Designers" have read Darwin ..

or even a science textbook delineating the theory and attendant facts.

[Silent3]

15. It's true that most supporters of ID don't no much about evolution...

...but don't be too quick to assume that all supporters of ID are totally ignorant of evolution.

My born-again sister sent my father William Dembski's book "Mere Creation" a few years back. I borrowed it from him and read it. While I wasn't all that impressed -- there's not too much more to what Dembski had to say than an elaboration on the old watch/watchmaker argument -- I had to give him a little credit where credit was due. Dembski at least showed that he knew something of what he was up against. He didn't laugh off evolution as some hopelessly silly contrivance a child could see through -- the way many fundies do. He approached evolution as a tough opponent. He acknowledged at least a few of its strengths and successes. Although I fault a lot of Dembski's logic, he at least showed that he had a much better-than-layman's understanding of the basics of evolution.

From what I recall about Michael Behe (a big ID "star" who testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover BoE), Behe doesn't even rule out evolution of one species into another -- his big hang up, which he thinks only ID can explain, is cellular biology, particularly things like the famed "bacterial flagellum".

The interesting twist here is that not only are most of the supporters of ID ignorant of evolution, they're often very ignorant of what some of the "leading lights" of ID are saying as well. A Biblically literal young-earther wouldn't find all of the support in ID for their views that they seem to imagine is there.

[CatholicEdHead]

16. Yes, they use the 8th grade definition

and not any of the more detailed scientific theories.