I think i rejected the very idea of creationism itself when i was about eight years old, so no i'm not all that 'threatened' by it.

What i am threatend by is the President of the strongest country in the world say we should teach both sides of the arguement, which in essence means we should teach Intelligent Design.

This is a terrifying thought for me personally.

This boggles my mind because the Evolutionists feel this way but yet say we, the Creationists are not the "thinking" ones.  The Christians are more apt to let both stand side by side but the Evolutionist are not.  Can't you see thru this? 

It reminds me of Solomon who made his very wise decision in a very well known court case.  Two babies born.  One died in infantcy and the mother of the dead child stole the healthy child.  When they went to court, the wise judge (Solomon) made a judgment that the baby would be cut in half, with each half given to each mother.  Only the real mother cried out, "let the other woman have the child" while the apostate mother was more than willing to let the child be cut in half.   Solomon declared the real mother from their reactions. 

The Evolutionists are threatened sure enough.  You said well Scotteh. 

I'd be inerested in knowing more about how such a young child could turn away from God not being able to put all the pieces together at such a young age.  Usually it's the other way around.  Children usually easily believe in God and have been trained to think otherwise.

'

Now you just said you're not threatened but here you say you're terrified?  What's the difference?

Why does "education" terrify you?  Don't you see when you only teach one side of anything, you're not allowing for critical thinking but instead are only indoctrinating?   Where does this fear come from?  From a Christian POV fear does not come from God.  We are not called to fear only Satan puts fear in men's minds. 

 

well it depends. If you're talking about biology or physiolgy or chemistry then fine but  if you're talking origins then I would say both should be given consideration as I mentioned in my first reply.  Both cannot be proven but are theories that are believed by many out there.  So why exclude one and only teach the other?   It can be taught quite easily without too much "God"  or any God really.  That's why ID is sort of non-committal and harmless as far as teaching religion is concerned.  Remember I don't agree with the ID theory myself as a Creationist but I would agree it should be taught alongside Evolution. 

While I agree with you here I would pinpoint this a bit closer and not use "religion" as the endall.  Like SC said there are so many religions out there and they can be quite confusing and contradictary.  I would zone in and say either historic biblical Christianity or the Scriptures don't contradict Science or History.  We can't say that about all the religions out there. 

Thanks SC I will take a look-see but I really would like you to see Expelled tho before you can really comment.  I wish I had taken a notepad in with me tho.  So maybe you might want to?   I usually am such a good notetaker and it was bugging me that I couldn't do so in this movie because I had lots of ideas to release here but now most have flown far away.....lol....chalk it up to my older brain.....or maybe I've got it so crammed full I can't find it! 

Scientific American remember is very biased and would be vehemently against Creationism.  But SC I'm so curious that you take such a strong stance for Evolution really given your Mormon faith.  I would be expecting you would be a little bit more creation minded than you are.  

 

Ha! I have it from Aradne that she did it! And in writing too!

The LDS Church has never made official statements of doctrine one way or another. Some of its leaders have been very ardent Young Earth Creationists, some have never mentioned their specific beliefs about creation, and some have even been big evolution supporters.

I see all the evidence that you do, and of course I see the hand of a creator, but I tend to see him guiding his hand over eons to get the world the way it is.

To put my position in a nutshell, I suppose I can quote Spencer W. Kimball, one of our prophets:

"We don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."

If I'm wrong and incontrovertible evidence comes out pointing to a Young Earth model, yay for everyone. I'll be more than pleased to change my mind. But since there's no evidence that can be held up to scientific scrutiny, I prefer to have ID out of the science classroom.

I'll probably download the movie illegally one of these days and tell you what I think.

I dont recall his orders or statements on that, but then I do not follow his every word.

Nor does such an edict scare me. It WAS taught for years, and somehow this nation survived. I can see how some would fear it, but I am not one of them. It is a real non-issue to me.

But one thing does bug me (not about you particularly, but what is happening in our society now) and that is how there can be only one. One answer to everything. One answer to all things (not necessarily the same answer). We see that with Global Warming now. They are exerting great influence to try to stiffle debate and discussion. There is no problem with teaching that man is causing it, albeit I do not agree. But to ostracize those who advocate a dissenting view means that the dark ages have again descended upon us, and ignorance is the next step.

That scares me.

While I haven't had the time to look at the videos, I can also recommend people who think "Expelled" was a great movie to check out the Wikipedia entry (providing it hasn't been altered since I read it) for a nice summary of the problems with the movie.

but he did tell us SC. That's what the revealed Word of God is all about. I'm hoping to expand and expound on this more soon. I just got a really good book called "Biblical Creationism" written by Henry Morris who is to Creation Science what Darwin is to Evolutionary Science. Should be interesting. My son just lent it to me.



But see there is NO evidence for the other either. They are taking the evidence we do have and coming to a conclusion that cannot be proven. So why exclude ID for doing the same except they are taking the evidence and coming to a diff conclusion? Why not included both conclusions and let us decide? Not indoctrination but education is needed.



exactly. I agree Doc. The question is why?



now see Wikipedia can't be entirely trusted for the exact reason you put forth here. It can be altered by anyone who doesn't like what it says until the next person alters it again. So it can be a very subjective source to rely on.

Last I checked the article in question cited all of its sources making it easy to verify. Heck, even the Discovery Institute feels its a poor film.

Wiki's aren't *totally* unreliable (I haven't looked at this particular one, so I'm not stating that IT is reliable - just saying...) Many of them include citations you can follow that back up statements. And I've yet to see a wiki where some devilish no goodnick has gone in and edited everything to make it say the reverse. The worst I usually see are no citations - at that point you have to do your own research...no big deal.

So if you don't want to give credit to something just because it's on a wiki, you'd be better served to go to the actual wiki, pick out something specific you disagree with, and then refute that with your own sources. Discounting something just because it's on a wiki is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Wow. Just looked up the Expelled Wiki. It's probably the most heavily cited wiki I've ever seen.

Ok, went and found that wiki and came back here to post a link to it and the forums ate it. Evidence of a god if there ever was one! (*rimshot*) Turns out it is very heavily cited. You can find it easy enough. So KFC, if you want to refute it, there are plenty of things there to try and refute. Just don't blame it for being a wiki

Edit: And now it shows up when this comment posts. Crazy forums. You can delete one if you like, KFC.

Who doesn't like Wiki's? I have one, and I'm an admin on one. Wiki's are awesome!

No, I agree I'm just saying don't take what they say as totally golden as their are some issues that can come from this site. I've used it before but mostly because it's easy enough to read and get to.   So not totally unreliable but not totally reliable either. 

I'm not a fan of DI so I wouldn't go by their recommendation anyhow. 

   not "a god" but "the God"

Delete what Ock?   One of the links on Wiki?  I could couldn't I?  LOL.

I'll check out your link next.   But remember there was not much (basically) in this movie I didn't already know beforehand.  Some from personal experiences and some from the experiences of my son and others like him who are tip-toeing around the establishment as they do their research and whatnot. 

 

 

 

Heh, no, my sort of repeat comment on your blog. One of the comments didn't appear when I clicked submit. So I tried a different response (here) after looking at the wiki, and BOTH comments appeared. Just saying my feelings won't be hurt if you want to unclutter your thread.

As for the wiki itself, I think the thing that bothers most folks is the lack of scruples involved in the making of it. So many and varied reports of the producers misleading people and/or manipulating/quote mining/sound biting is certainly a smoke that at least hints of fire. I don't think it's a stretch for anyone purporting to be searching for truth - be they religious or otherwise - to see that clearly. I won't comment on the central issue. We already know how that plays out.