In disucssing the evolution of the eye with Joralex I managed to bring up an off topic point about creation science and the schools. I am starting this topic to carry that on and avoid further digressions in the eye evolution thread.
This is the content of mine and Joralex's comments
Joralex, I would like to clarify something please. Go for it.
There are at least a couple of different camps within the "creationist" group. One may be said to be simply interested in their religion and wish to preserve it in their church. The other are "creation scientists" who believe that creationists ideas should be taught in publically funded schools.
I don't think you want to go there, NosyNed.
You seem to have a foot in both camps. You start to argue from what you think are scientific points at one moment and then evoke god's miracles at the next.
I've yet to learn how to separate a person from his/her convictions... maybe you can show me how this is done.
If you want to play miracles then I won't bother to argue with you.
"Miracles"? You mean like the 'miracle' where once-upon-a-time life emerged from lifeless chemicals and then started down a road towards complexity and diversity? You mean 'miracles' like that, NosyNed?
Of course, you might have to argue with all the others who have a different god with differnt miracles but that's not my concern. I agree very stongly with the separatation of church and state which protects your right to believe as you see fit.
"Separation of church and state" - what's that? As for the other part, yes, I am free to believe in my 'miracles' and you are free to believe in yours - we both have religious convictions, NosyNed, we just worship a different 'god'.
However, if you want to poke your nose out of church and pretend to be playing at science. Then you play by a different set of rules.
Evoking miracles doesn't explain anything in that game.
Then why are Naturalists evoking 'naturalistic miracles' all the time?
Tell me - and you may consult with anyone you like - explain to us how life emerged solely by natural, unguided processes. I'll wait for your reply ...
It's been tried before. Trying to explain the motion of the sun, lightening, disease and so on. Wrong each time.
Ignorance has existed in all times, including the present - so?
I think you need to pick which camp you are in. If you pick the first one, then stay out of the schools. If the second, learn the rules.
My camp is that of my Lord, Jesus Christ.
As for 'staying out of schools' - you'd like that, wouldn't you? That way our children wouldn't stand a chance with the onslought of materialistic naturalism that is pumped into their unsuspecting, not-yet-fully-critical minds.
I think not - I and others like me will remain ever-vigilant to at least try and stem the tide of encroaching materialism.
In fact I do what to "go there". Please defend faith based teachings in public schools given the very explicit separation of church and state in many western countries. If you don't agree with it then you have a problem, there is no country in the world where Christian fundamentalism is in a majority. It would risk being opressed by the majority of believers if the state was behind a different religious view.
quote:I've yet to learn how to separate a person from his/her convictions... maybe you can show me how this is done.
Why is there any issue of separating a person from his/her convictions? By far the majority of religious people of all faiths, specifically Christians, do not have any problem with what we learn about the natural world through science and their religious convictions. About 40% of practising scientists are also religious. It is odd that a small minority have a problem here.
quote:"Miracles"? You mean like the 'miracle' where once-upon-a-time life emerged from lifeless chemicals and then started down a road towards complexity and diversity? You mean 'miracles' like that, NosyNed?
Facinating that you use this approach. After I mentioned a few things that were attributed to gods in the past but as knowledge grew we find that "god" was not the answer. Now you want to latch onto something that is only partially understood and think that "god" is a good answer. Historically speaking this doesn't seem like a wise approach. It is my limited understanding that theologians and serious thinking Christians recognize how weak a position this is.
It is also interesting that you had to digress away from the discussion of the eye to try to find something to pick on.
Even though the issue of abiogenesis isn't settled yet, we already have lots of hints about how this may happen. There doesn't seem to need to be any need for miracles here either. The only arguments I have seen supporting such an idea are rediculous strawman arguments.
worship a different 'god'
It is good that god here is in quotes. However, even with that, it seems to me to do a disservice to your concept of "god" if you equate what I choose as my basic beliefs and world view with that "god" concept. My view is simple that there is an understandable natural world with universal behaviours that we can learn about and grow in our understanding of. It does not include any concepts that would be, by any reasonable person, equated to what you call "god". There are threads in this forum debating that issue. If you wish to do so go there.
quote:Separation of church and state" - what's that?
You are, of course, joking.
Gee, what an intelligent answer. This certainly would win almost any debate wouldn't it? Yes I do say. If I wish to enter your church and debate on the ground rules there then I must use the bible as a central reference, mustn't I? If you wish to step outside that church and challenge the "establishment" and the constitution of your state then you must work with the rules there. If you choose not to, then you will not be very effective.
[quote]Tell me - and you may consult with anyone you like - explain to us how life emerged solely by natural, unguided processes. I'll wait for your reply ...[quote]
As has been discussed in a number of places this explanation is not available in any kind of full detail. However, it is very clear from work with self replicating chemicals that the boundary between life and non-life is porus. Perhaps when you state the minimum characteristics for something to be "life" we can carry on this discussion. Is suggest that this be done in a thread appropriate to the topic. (do note that it has proved fienishly difficult to get a firm definition of "life" ).
quote:Ignorance has existed in all times, including the present - so?
So -- trying to support the idea of god based on ignorance has not proved to be a very stable platform. You now wish to continue this time honored tradition of being proved wrong.
quote:That way our children wouldn't stand a chance with the onslought of materialistic naturalism that is pumped into their unsuspecting, not-yet-fully-critical minds.
There are places for you to pump their minds full while they are not fully critical. Let's have them exposed to both sides one in church and one in school and see how it works out.