Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 331 (147920)
10-06-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 7:05 PM


Re: Secular?
Here is a list of Churches that have come out in support of teaching Evolution and opposing teaching creationism.
Religions Supporting Evolution
These churches and religious organizations have come out in opposition to teaching creationism in school:
* American Jewish Congress
* American Scientific Affiliation
* Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
* Central Conference Of American Rabbis
* Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
* The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
* Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
* The Lutheran World Federation
* Roman Catholic Church
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
* United Methodist Church
* United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 7:05 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:06 PM jar has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 62 of 331 (147923)
10-06-2004 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coragyps
10-06-2004 8:20 PM


Re: Secular?
Coragyps, Thanks for the link supporting the churches belief in a common creator(God), yet accepting natural selection (this part of evolution) as not conflicting with their church doctrine, and re-affirming were a creature uniquely made by God, which means they tossed the common ancestor out, and determined that cladistic similarities to mean we have a common creator, or they wouldn't of re-affirm their belief man was made by God, etc...
We re-affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature whom God has made in His own image.
Presbyterian Mission Agency Theology and Worship | Presbyterian Mission Agency

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2004 8:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 63 of 331 (147926)
10-06-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
10-06-2004 8:50 PM


Re: Secular?
Jar, Can you prove that the majority of those churches belief is devoid of the common creator being God, or that cladistic similarities is not evidence of a common creator, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 8:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:11 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 66 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 9:16 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 64 of 331 (147928)
10-06-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:06 PM


Not the original question
Jar, Can you prove that the majority of those churches belief is devoid of the common creator being God
whatever, that isn't the issue.
Of course, we all know the various Churchs believe that God is responsible for everything.
The issue at hand is that the majority are willing to accept that how God did it is not in contradiction to modern science.
If you try to move away from the issue at hand I will suspend you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:06 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 65 of 331 (147929)
10-06-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 8:39 PM


Re: Secular?
Ned, You did lie, now you refuse to back up what you said, always asking others to do what you yourself refuse to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 8:39 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:16 PM johnfolton has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 331 (147932)
10-06-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:06 PM


Re: Secular?
Frankly, they believe that GOD created the universe. But HOW is a totally different story. They have no problem believing that there is a common ancestor and that we all evolved from slime.
Here is a link to the Pastoral letter from Bishop Sims.
The important part is that every single major Christian Faith supports teaching the TOE and opposes teaching creationism. Not one of them consider the Genesis tale to be accurate or realistic. As Bishop Sims reported...
The 74th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta, in formal action on January 31, 1981, acted without a dissenting vote to oppose by resolution any action by the Georgia Legislature to impose the teaching of Scientific Creationism on the public school system.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:06 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 67 of 331 (147933)
10-06-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:12 PM


Lie?
Since I don't think I've made any direct statements about what the churches believe I don't know what lie you think I've told.
You have backed up exactly nothing. You have suppiled nothing but your assertions.
If you don't supply some support for your statments and if you don't back up the accusation of lieing very, very well indeed you are about to be suspended until the Remedial forum is properly in place.
Note that you will be held to the guidelines there. We will just work harder to help you understand them.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-06-2004 08:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:12 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:23 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 68 of 331 (147937)
10-06-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 9:16 PM


Re: Lie?
whatever, several times it has been pointed out to you that the majority of the religions of the world do NOT have **any** problem with the ToE.
P.S. Your task is to prove that the Churches believe that they have no problem with the Common Ancestor, You owe me an apology, because the church does have a problem with this part of TOE, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:16 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:35 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 70 by jar, posted 10-06-2004 9:55 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 69 of 331 (147938)
10-06-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:23 PM


Re: Lie?
It has been pointed out to you that the churches don't have a problem. There was no lie on my part.
What I am asking of you is that your refute what you've been told with the Church's own statments not your assertions.
And the church's statment that you read doesn't have any problem with the ToE. It is very clear on that. There is no contradiction. God may have made man in his image but he did it through the mechanisms laid out in the ToE. That is clear from the that first church.
The first line at that link:
quote:
Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.
and
quote:
Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science.
I don't intend to argue this with you in any detail there are plenty who will.
You might, however, if you are going to stick to your ideas about what this first church has said show how in the world you can misread the above quotes.
That's just the first one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:23 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 10-06-2004 10:00 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 10:01 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 331 (147942)
10-06-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:23 PM


Add a few more.
here is the resolution pased by the Episcopal General Convention:
THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed socalled "balanced treatment" laws requiring the teaching of "Creationscience" whenever evolutionary models are taught; and
Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such "balanced treatment" laws; and
Whereas, the terms "Creationism" and "Creationscience" as understood in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and
Whereas, the dogma of "Creationism" and "Creationscience" as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and
Whereas, "Creationism" and "Creationscience" is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it
Resolved, that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the "Creationist" movement, and be it further
Resolved, that we affirm our support of the sciences and educators and of the Church and theologians in their search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us; and be it further
Resolved, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the "Creationists" into legislating any form of "balanced treatment" laws or any law requiring the teaching of "Creationscience."
67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982.
and the American Jewish Congress:
AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS
The American Jewish Congress is a national organization committed to the vigorous enforcement of the First Amendment provision requiring separation of church and state. The First Amendment provides "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This provision -- often called the establishment clause -- forbids the government from performing or aiding in the performance of a religious function.
Our appearance at this hearing today arises from our concern that Proclamation 60 (both alone and together with Board Rule 5) abrogates the establishment clause in three fundamental ways. The first constitutional deficiency lies in the Proclamation's glaring omission of any reference to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The second constitutional deficiency lies in the Board Rule's requirement that evolution be singled out for a special negative treatment not required in connection with the teaching of any other scientific theory. The third constitutional deficiency arises from the fact that the proposed textbook standards allow for the teaching of scientific creationism. Despite attempts to describe scientific creationism as scientific theory, it is our position that scientific creationism is a religious theory and that, therefore, the First Amendment's establishment clause prohibits its being taught as science in public school classes.
It seems apparent that, in establishing the proposed textbook standards, the intent of the State Board of Education has been to avoid conflict with a particular religious doctrine and to allow for the inclusion of religious theory in the science curriculum. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the approach employed by Proclamation 60 is unconstitutional. In 1968, in a case titled Epperson vs Arkansas, an Arkansas biology teacher asked the Supreme Court to declare void a state statute which prohibited the teaching of evolution and which prohibited the selection, adoption or use of textbooks teaching that doctrine. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional. In its opinion the Supreme Court stated:
"The First Amendment's prohibition is absolute. It forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of a theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma."
Under the standards so clearly articulated by the Supreme Court, Proclamation 60 and Board Rule 5, as presently written, fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. In order to comply with the applicable constitutional provisions, the proclamation and board rule should be revised in three ways. First, evolution should be clearly included in the science curriculum. Second, evolution should be taught as are all scientific theories and should not be singled out for special negative comment. Finally, the proposed textbook standards should make clear that scientific creationism is not to be taught as scientific theory. Rather, because there is no constitutional objection to teaching about religion, public school teachers should simply tell their students, when evolution is taught, that there are certain religious groups whose members do not accept the Darwinian theory and advise them to consult with their parents or religious advisors for further guidance on the subject.
The American Jewish Congress believes that this approach is not only fully consistent with the Constitution but is also an effective means by which to resolve objections to the teaching of evolution.
Should the Board of Education fail to take the steps necessary to make the Proclamation constitutional, then the result could lead to textbooks which do not meet constitutional standards. And that mistake would be a costly one to the taxpayers.
Testimony in behalf of the American Jewish Congress by spokes person Nina Cortell before the Texas State Board of Education, responding to Proclamation 60, setting forth specific content rules for biology and science textbooks to be adopted in 1984.
And the Roman Catholic Church:
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (1981)
Pope John Paul II
Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.
and the United Methodist Church:
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,
Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,
Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,
Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,
Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce "Scientific" creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.
Passed June 1984, Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.
and the Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders:
LEXINGTON ALLIANCE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS
The following ministers and religious leaders are very much concerned with and opposed to the possibility of "Scientific Creationism" being taught in the science curriculum of Fayette County Schools.
As religious leaders we share a deep faith in the God who created heaven and earth and all that is in them, and take with utmost seriousness the Biblical witness to this God who is our Creator. However, we find no incompatibility between the God of creation and a theory of evolution which uses universally verifiable data to explain the probable process by which life developed into its present form.
We understand that you may shortly receive considerable pressure from groups advocating the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" alongside of the theory of evolution. However, we feel strongly that to introduce such teaching into our schools would be both divisive and offensive to many members of the religious community of Fayette County, as well as to those not identified with any religious group.
Please be assured of our continuing interest in this issue, and of our strong desire that the Fayette County Public Schools not permit the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" as an alternative "theory" to evolution in science courses.
1981; signed by 78 Kentucky ministers and religious leaders.
Shall I go on?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:23 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 71 of 331 (147944)
10-06-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 9:35 PM


Re: Lie?
That second quote you quoted from his link is very important. "Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms"
Indeed, from the outset in Genesis there is no great explanations of how God created, but that he did create.
" in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth "
Numerous indications of possible evolution are also in the text but also of immediate creation, however, no scientific endeavours seem to be there, basically - it seems it's God's business to him and he'd rather give us a story about what we should be concentrating on concerning him.
Only insisting on a literal and scientific approach to Genesis causes problems it seems, otherwise - I agree that there is no definite contradictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:35 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 72 of 331 (147945)
10-06-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 9:35 PM


Re: Lie?
Ned, Your the one that lied, its not up to me, jar, or others to prove what you said to be the truth, its up to you to back up that the doctrines of the majority of the churches support **all** of TOE, etc...
P.S. This means they believe in the cladistic similarities supports the common ancestor part without God, however, the majority of the churches put the common creator ahead of the common ancestor part, meaning they don't support **all** of TOE**, etc...Its truly frustrating talking to you, when you lie, and then say I have to believe you told the truth, do your homework, you simply owe me an apology, etc... I'm taking a break, do your homework, however, if your not honest with what you said, then you will ban me, suspend me, because of pride, whatever, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 9:35 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 10:28 PM johnfolton has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 73 of 331 (147952)
10-06-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 10:01 PM


The first Church -- Presbyterian
The statement of the Presbyterian does not go into describing the details. It is very clear from what they have said that there is no conflict with their beiefs and science. That is what they state.
You have not taken the opportunity to explain the quotes that I put up for you. Including the very first line of their statement.
In addtion, you need to understand that many churchs have appeared in court on the side of the scientists and educators. If the Churchs are on your side then why do they do that? Please explain without your usual avoidance.
Until you explain the statement by the church other than through assertions demonstrating that you lack an ability to read English I would suggest that you stop calling anyone a liar. You have two quotes from the statement that are very clear. You are avoiding disussing them. Why?
The church supports the creation of all things by God. The church also supports what science says about how He did this. "The Bible is not a book of science." The church is not about to discuss genetics or the relationship between phenotypes and genotypes or the details of the evolution of any line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 10:01 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 10-07-2004 12:18 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 74 of 331 (147969)
10-07-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 10:28 PM


Re: The first Church -- Presbyterian
Ned, I believe the first church was Adam and Eve, I suggested in the past for you to read the Books of Adam and Eve, where they talked of the Word to come in the flesh(their savior and mine), and the quotes of this prophecy being fullfilled from the prophesy given through Adam, his body placed in the middle of the earth(Egypt), in respect to the Lord being called out of Eygpt, this prophecy fullfillment documented in the New Testament (kjv Matthew 2:15), however, your two quotes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't exclude the possibility nor does it endorse it. I've always agreed the majority of the Church has no problems with micro-evolution, the natural sciences, but they don't endorse **all** of TOE, your quote simply confirms this to be the case, etc...
and
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never believed Science and the bible conflict, neither does this quote, just look in a microscope, the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, the bible says invisible made the visible, and its quite interesting that while the bible is not a science text book that they don't conflict, we understand and even today being understood by the things that are made, etc...
kjv Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
kjv Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The church supports the creation of all things by God. The church also supports what science says about how He did this. "The Bible is not a book of science." The church is not about to discuss genetics or the relationship between phenotypes and genotypes or the details of the evolution of any line.
P.S. Is this an apology, given your quote in essense saying they don't buy **all** of science, but gives it a possiblity as a theory, etc...It did say theory(right), does not mean does not have any problem with accepting all of TOE as a fact, etc... If this is not an apology then please try again, to prove their is a majority of Churches don't have **any** problems with TOE that you asserted not I to be the case, etc...
This message has been edited by whatever, 10-06-2004 11:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 10:28 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 2:12 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 75 of 331 (147981)
10-07-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 3:22 PM


Whatever suspended
quote:
Just toss Geology 101, Paleontology 101 out, and leave the respectful sciences in, biology, micro-biology, soil sciences, etc...
Whatever, judging from the above, and the general nature of your other messages, I must flat out say "You are a babbling fool".
Giving you a cross the board suspension. Want back in? Discuss it with Percy/Admin at admin@.
This will also soon be announced at the Whatever gets to take a break (suspension).
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 3:22 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024