|
|
|
| Wed, Dec. 02 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Evolution, creation, and a large dose of 'faith'
Date published: 9/11/2008 Evolution, creation, and a large dose of 'faith' I agree with Daniel B. Cooper's statements about the influence of atheism on government as just another belief system ["Atheism, creationism: Neither should rule the day," Aug. 31]. However, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in our Constitution. Religion is addressed in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Our Founding Fathers didn't want the government to establish a state religion. They wanted to be free to exercise their own religion The courts appear to be making interpretations and placing restrictions beyond what the authors of the Constitution intended. Finally, definitions are needed when discussing such complicated issues as evolution and creation. Changes within species, such as by natural selection or mutation, are accepted by everyone and are sometimes known as microevolution. These changes are cited by Darwin evolutionists as proof of evolution, including support for the theory that we all evolved over time from one-cell creatures. This change from one species to another and ultimately from one cell to complex life is sometimes called macroevolution. But there has been no fossil evidence of transitional intermediates to support this macro theory. Each time someone has claimed to have found such transitional evidence, it has ultimately been exposed as a fraud. Concerning this "one-cell" theory, microbiologist Michael Behe uses the term "irreducibly complex" to describe several biological systems that perform no function until all parts are present and are working together as designed. You cannot build such complex systems by starting with a single cell and using natural selection or mutations to increase their complexity. The theory that we all started with one cell requires great "faith"! Larry T. Ingels Locust Grove
Date published: 9/11/2008
OK, where is Savedbygracealone?????
(posted by
pinkphantom
, Sep. 12, 2008 7:50 am)
This letter sure sounds like something he would write. OK, Larry, are you Grace???? C'mon, 'fess up if you are! :-)
Thanks for making my point!
(posted by
frankvert
, Sep. 11, 2008 9:33 pm)
Looks like many Americans, just like blowinsmoke, don't understand and don't give a darn. They just want their food, medical care, electronic gadgets, national infrastructure, etc. delivered to them. They can't evaluate evidence, can't calculate probabilities, and all they respond to is adolescent selfshiness, football-style, in-your-face military might from their government and irrational fear of hell. THIS IS WHY WE'RE GOING DOWN!
Yes, religion is a human invention. They've been
(posted by
pinkphantom
, Sep. 11, 2008 8:00 pm)
formed over centuries by different cultures for all kinds of reasons. If there was one god & one true religion, there would not be this variety. Why don't people believe in Zeus anymore? Or Thor? Or any of the other obsolete gods? Because cultures have changed!!! God's existance may or may not be. Religions change over time. If god is eternal (and there's only one) why is there more than one way to believe in him/her/it? Can't you see that god's existence (or not) has nothing to do w/ religion?
Pink/Frank
(posted by
blowinsmoke
, Sep. 11, 2008 7:35 pm)
Pink, you can't have it both ways. If there IS a God (which I believe there is) then religion isn't an invention. Frank, Frank, Frank. Yes I suppose it's all my fault the US is lagging behind in microscopic diddling. Get a grip. I could give a rip what you folks with overcrowded pocket protecters do. If you get off on figuring out what black matter consists of, good on ya. To me, it doesn't matter why we are here, I'm just glad to be here. Trying to understand EVERYTHING is nonsense.
Michael Behe (con't)
(posted by
schrodinger
, Sep. 11, 2008 4:41 pm)
of ‘intelligent design.’ While we respect Prof. Behe's right to
express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed
by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent
design has no basis in science, has not been tested
experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” Behe's
position was destroyed in the Dover case when he was cross-
examined by the lawyer for the plaintiffs.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
