Preacher wrote:

---

"Pastor Kyle Jones of Beacon Baptist Church in Hattiesburg will host an Institute of Creation Research seminar Sunday at his church. "Quite frankly it's to inoculate the younger people in my church from what I believe is bad science," he said, adding good science includes the ability to observe. "Evolution has never been observed. Never been replicated."

---

If this is going to be held in a church, I'm sure it won't be a debate.  It will be more like an emergency room inoculation of a patient who can't speak.     

No one has observed how the Grand Canyon was made, but we have a pretty good idea of how it happened.

is there a post-postmodern era, and what would it be called? me thinks we took a wrong turn somewhere.

"Quite frankly it's to inoculate the younger people in my church from what I believe is bad science," he said, adding good science includes the ability to observe. "Evolution has never been observed. Never been replicated."

perhaps one should extend the logic to

"Quite frankly it's to inoculate the younger people in my school from what I believe is bad religion," he said, adding good science includes the ability to observe. "Christ's birth has never been observed. Never been replicated."

Jameela Lares wrote:

---

I fail to see how this thread and its ilk have anything to do with the purpose of this message board. JL

---

With very much respect for you, Jameela, may I suggest that perhaps you forgot that SFT and his supporters led an attack on the faculty.  This attack, using this "code" word "liberal" in the bible belt, was a message your neighbors have been hearing for some time.  The national Creation vs. Evolution debate has brought this division between the faculty and the community to the forefront.  It expresses the view for many in this community as to what is wrong with "university education". 

"It is alright to get an education that leads to a job providing a service to society. But faculty go too far, resulting in students thinking of issues and questioning their parents world view.  We want a career university"

Ah, "Preacher," I see. Fair enough.

But please remember that not all intelligent people are non-Christians. There was a time on the Fire Shelby board when we all wrote in to name liberal arts majors who had done very well in the world. One could also compile a list of remarkable intellects who were/are also convinced that a real God really became incarnate in human flesh to die for the sins of the world. In fact, I'm sure such a list has been compiled and could be googled somewhere, or perhaps folks could help compile it here. In the meantime, I've got to get back to writing a talk I'm giving tomorrow on John Milton, one of those remarkable intellects.

JL

Did we not just have an incredibly long thread on this exact subject quite recently?

Point taken, Left!

This just in: proof positive that there is an intelligent designer:

UNC 83
Duke 76

Woaahh!

If the folks on one side of an argument will never be willing to change their minds no matter what evidence is presented (in other words, if they are willing to rely simply on faith, and even take pride in doing so), then a real "debate" cannot occur. 

Scientists change their minds all the time in light of new evidence and new discoveries.

Before begininng a discussion with anyone, it is usually a good idea simply to ask, "What evidence would I have to present before you would be willing to admit the possibility that you might be wrong?"  By the same token, one could say to one's debating partner, "Here is the evidence you would have to present before I would be willing to admit the possibility that I might be wrong."  A lot of wasted time could be prevented if most controversial discussions began this way.

LeftASAP wrote:

---

Excellent advice, Lest we forget.  This advice would be useful now on the "Nursing Data" thread.  Check out the position of Thamesbeliever on that thread.

---

I'm often surprised by how many people, if faced with the question I mentioned above, will be willing to admit that nothing would ever be capable of making them willing to make them change their minds.  On one level I can understand their response, since certainty is surely more comfortable and reassuring than doubt.  I'm not sure, though, how they can have much intellectual self-respect. 

illogician wrote:

---

I fail to see how or why it has become important for science or logic to prove the existence or non-existence of God. I value my faith in a higher power. It often reminds me that humankind is not "perfect." If we were, we could surely solve this age-old riddle! How can something that is based on faith be proven? And has it been disproven? Perhaps God lives in that other realm with the color  'green' or the number 'two.' Before teaching science or creationism, perhaps we should teach metaphysics!

---

illogician, I don't think it is "important to science or logic to prove the existence or non -existence of God".  In fact, scientifically speaking it is impossible for many reasons, one of which is the term "God" is not well defined for science. 

However, some people have what I call "weak" faith and hold the position that God exist based on some evidence or facts about the physical world.  They may even be completely unaware of this logical error.  (If there was evidence, then logic and science could deal with it and "faith" would not be necessary.)  These people are threaten by science because science may come up with evidence that contradicts something about the physical world that their 'faith" is based on.  These are the people that think science is a threat to their belief and say "science attacks their faith."

For example, if you believe in the literal interpretation of Genius, then your beliefs include facts about the physical world that science may contradict.  Your religion would then have a problem.

 

Hard Core Tar Heel wrote:

---

 proof positive that there is an intelligent designer: UNC 83 Duke 76 Woaahh!

---

Tar Heel, isn't UNC the school whose basketball team first used that chicken-ridden 4-corners offense?

Finally, we have some clear thinking!

This is a free nation, not Christian one

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/OPINION/603060302/1009

"The Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty on its Web site suggests "we not ask government to promote our religion if we would not want it to promote the religion of others. Forbidding the government from making religious decisions, favoring a particular religion or promoting religion in general does not promote secularism. To the contrary, it provides an environment where religion can flourish on its own."