Evolution Sunday/Darwin Day

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations"

"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" Jer. 32:27

>"As intelligent Christians, we need to be good stewards of our intellect and explore the deeper, complex and compelling mysteries that are at the intersection of faith and science,".

— Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton

While scripture is the "inspired word of God" and is "given to all people as a revelation for the salvation, or transformation of our lives," it is not a "textbook for scientific truth."

Zimmerman hopes Evolution Sunday, which will be observed in every state except Arkansas, will help publicize the success of The Clergy Letter Project, and already there are signs of a growing desire among some Christian communities to publicly affirm evolutionary principles. The Roman Catholic Church recently moved to reaffirm and clarify its acceptance of evolution as valid science. Last month, L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper, published an article in which Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, argued that presenting ID as scientific theory creates confusion between the realms of science and religion. And two weeks later, the Reverend George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory in Arizona, affirmed the validity of evolution as a scientific theory in an address at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university with about 3,100 students. Because the Bible is not a source of scientific knowledge, he said, it complicates matters to interpret evolution in biblical terms

And that's how Evolution Sunday went at my church. I'm interested in hearing how things went at your church. So, how did things go at your church(s), readers?

Evolution Sunday was a bit of a bust at my church because of the record blizzard. I got stuck trying to get home afterward.

February 12, 2006 12:00 p.m. EST Denise Royal - All Headline News Staff Writer Vatican City, Rome (AHN) --- Pope Benedict says science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they compliment each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth, according to the Vatican's doctrinal department. The Pope made his comments at a time of heated debate about intelligent design arguments challenging evolution. A Pennsylvania court ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in school. Intelligent design supporters have been trying to get it taught as science in biology classes alongside Darwin's theory of evolution, which some Christian conservatives oppose. Its opponents rejected this as having no scientific basis at all. The dialogue between religion and science would actually help the faithful see "the logic of faith in God," said the Pope, speaking to members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Scientific discoveries sometimes came so rapidly "that it becomes very complicated to recognize how they are compatible with the truth revealed by God about man and the world," says the German-born Pontiff.

POPE Benedict XVI issued a spiritual wake-up call today, telling pilgrims in his traditional Christmas Day message they risked "spiritual barrenness" if they become too involved in modern-day intellectual and technical achievements. The pope told tens of thousands of pilgrims in a rain-soaked St Peter's Square that "men and women in our technological age risk becoming victims of their own intellectual and technical achievements, ending up in spiritual barrenness and emptiness of heart." ...

ivy, I'm not sure the Pope is saying contradictory things: his point appears to be that science is a viable and acceptable technique for investigating the 'miracle' that the church claims the world is. But that abandoning the spiritual side is a danger.

"I'm more interested in how ID went in court, FL. So, how did ID go in your court?

But that's now problematic too, because a battery of criticisms of the Dover ruling is now in place already---with more to come.

— FL

||| french intellectuals deployed in Afghanistan ||| Michael Kelly ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Associated Press : For Immediate Release: March, 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ French Intellectuals to be Deployed in Afghanistan to Convince Taliban of Non-Existence of God. Kabul---The clean-up portion of the ground war in Afghanistan heated up yesterday when the Allies revealed plans to airdrop a platoon of crack French existentialist philosophers into the country to destroy the morale of the remaining Taliban zealots by proving the non-existence of God. Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or 'Black Berets', will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, despondency and existential anomie among the enemy. Hardened by numerous intellectual battles fought during their long occupation of Paris's Left Bank, their first action will be to establish a number of sidewalk cafes at strategic points near the front lines. There they will drink coffee and talk animatedly about the absurd nature of life and man's lonely isolation in the universe. They will be accompanied by a number of heartbreakingly beautiful girlfriends who will propagate fear, uncertainty and doubt by looking remote and unattainable. Their leader, Colonel Marc-Ange Belmondo, spoke yesterday of his confidence in the success of their mission. Sorbonne graduate Belmondo, a very intense and unshaven young man in a black pullover, gesticulated wildly and said, "The Taliban are caught in a logical fallacy of the most ridiculous proportions. There is no God and I can prove it." Marc-Ange plans to deliver an impassioned thesis on man's inescapable lack of freedom of action, with special reference to the work of Foucault and the films of Alfred Hitchcock. However, humanitarian agencies have been quick to condemn the operation as inhumane, pointing out that the effects of passive smoke from the Frenchmens' endless Gauloises and Gitanes could wreak a terrible toll on civilians in the area

are you aware of any legitimate criticisms of the Dover ruling? I've yet to see any.

FL -

I find it outrageous that you used a pulpit to spread nonsense, in a most unethical way.

Out-of-context quotes to trick the innocent into mistaking the theory of evolution, which is a neutral scientific theory, for a straw man version of Hobbesian philosophy. Disgraceful and throroughly unethical.

Yes, I know, you'll squeal that the fragments of text you chose to exaggerate "really are" in some outdated textbook or popular book written by an atheist or some such thing.

To say that you give your own ego and authoritarian political goals top priority would be something of an understatement.

FL -

My language is excessively harsh in my prior post; my apologies for that, but I stand by the major point. Out of context quotes and distortions have no place in ethical discourse.

FL

You may have avoided lying in your speech from the pulpit but you weren't really being honest, were you? Surely that is contrary to Christian tenets?

Richard:

I think the subtlety may have escaped you here. It is entirely, consistently Christian to tell the truth at all times. What you're missing is, the truth is whatever the Christian FEELS like it SHOULD be at the time he speaks it. You are misapplying the inappropriate standard of *integrity* to FL's claims.

Flint,

I find your stance arrogant and incorrect. Just because there are idiots out there giving REAL Christians black eyes, don't lump them all together.

Also, I heartily agree with Judge Jones' decision in Dover. What religion am I?

I suspect FL's 'ethics' are purely relative. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall just to see who was the object of those ....ah scraps of dog food.
I'm surprised he got a whole 4 minutes, he must bore the living daylights out of people.

Kate in defense of Flint he is probably tired.
He IS talking about the fanatics.
And he is far more gentle and polite than I am :)

...the truth is whatever the Christian FEELS like it SHOULD be at the time he speaks it. You are misapplying the inappropriate standard of *integrity* to FL's claims.

Norman I think a simple test would be to see how familiar they are with The Sermon on the Mount and, more importantly, what it means to them in their daily lives.
I'll bet most fundies give it much less importance than the gnashing and the gwhailing in some of the more 'poetic' texts.

Ah, I see FL is indulging us in his psychosis. Must be terrible to go through life with just one map to find your way. Especially when, deep inside, you know that map is flawed and the only way you can function is to, literally, re-map reality to an unreality.

I then proceeded to inform them that Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology 3d edition declared that the process responsible for ~their~ origins, human origins, the process of evolution, was "A completely mindless process", with "No conscious forethought" attached to their origination as humans, "No Purpose", and "No Goal" to their origination as humans.

I heartily agree with Judge Jones' decision in Dover. What religion am I?

... a simple test ... see how familiar they are with The Sermon on the Mount ... bet most fundies give it much less importance than the gnashing and the gwhailing in some of the more 'poetic' texts.

I then mentioned Jeremiah 29:11: For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. ....and asked them to "Imagine that."

Hey, no hard feelings Harold. I would never post something like what I posted and then expect a chorus of happy little 'Amens' from this forum.
I expected serious disagreement amongst the PT congregation with my POV, and lo 'n' behold, there it 'tis.

Actually, all the responses were relatively tempered. No cussing-outs, no deleted-posts, hey, it's all good. Don't agree with some opinions expressed, but at least we get to read each other's POVs on the matter.

One problem, though: folks still aren't divulging what their clergy said or did at ~~their own~~ Evolution Sunday services.

Surely the faithful followers of the First Church of Darwin didn't all s-l-e-e-p i-n on their patron saint's holy day, did they?
O the scandal, the scandal thereof!

Well, anyway, what responses yall's offered, I have read 'em, and thanks for offering at least that much.

But surely somebody somewhere has a live report to offer, no?

FL

Surely the faithful followers of the First Church of Darwin didn't all s-l-e-e-p i-n on their patron saint's holy day, did they? O the scandal, the scandal thereof!

Still, those who did attend sermons welcomed what they heard. After the service at St. Dunstan's, Brett Lowe, a 41-year-old computer engineer, sat in a pew as his son Ian, 2, and daughter, Paige, 6, played at his side. "Sermons like this are exactly the reason we came to this church," Mr. Lowe said. "Observation, hypothesis and testing --- that's what science is," he said. "It's not religion. Evolution is a fact. It's not a theory. An example is antibiotics. If we don't use antibiotics appropriately, bacteria become resistant. That's evolution, and evolution is a fact. To not acknowledge that is to not acknowledge the world around you." Jeanne Taylor, 65, a recently retired registered nurse attending services at St. Dunstan's, said the Bible was based on oral tradition and today "science is a part of our lives." At the Evanston Mennonite Church, Susan Fisher Miller, 48, an editor and English professor, said, "I completely accept and affirm the view of God as creator, but I accommodate evolution within that." To Ms. Fisher Miller, alternatives to evolutionary theory proposed by its critics, such as intelligent design, seem an artificial way to use science to explain the holy. "It's arrogant to say that either religion or science can answer all our questions," she said. "I don't see the need either to banish one or the other or to artificially unite them."

FL,
I attended a church on Evolution Sunday. I do not think the pastor was aware of its importance, unfortunately. It was a "First Assembly of God", and he spoke on the basic theology of Christianity, using Romans 1.

The majority of the time spent was a courtroom skit, very nicely done, which lasted about 15 minutes, in which Christian theology was explained. A substitute person [jeebus] pled "no contest" for the sins of the sinner [u and me], of course.

No explanation was given as to how these preserved god's justice, of course, although that was the major premise of the argument. No explanation was given as to how justice on god's part = eternal separation from god for all sinners who don't repent. No explanation was given as to how people who reject the assertions of people like him (and you, by proxy), and the claimed authority of Scripture, are tantamount to rejecting god (rather than the claims of revealed religion through god's self-appointed ambassadors). If we don't take your word for being god's spokesman, and simply don't believe you, that isn't rejecting god, it's rejecting you. I have never met the Deity, never had an offer or question posed from It that I said "no" to, never once have I or do I plan to "reject god" so much as I reject you and reject your authority and reject your claims to have met the SkyDad. I never rejected the Deity,although I spent about 20 years trying to via Xianity. Too bad people like yourself can't see that.

The pastor then followed up with an emotional 15 minute plea for those in attendance to please please please give their hearts and minds to Jeebus. Quite a few brave (snark) souls did. Unfortunately for Jeebus, I decided to keep my own. In fact, I also decided to keep my own mind and heart when Darwin asked for them...oh wait, nevermind, Darwin gave us an idea, he didn't ask for anything in return.

As an atheist, I just attend every 2-3 weeks with my Xian wife. I mostly do it because I love my wife and want to spend time with her, but also out of boredom, and to critically evaluate the "best preachin" there is to offer these days. Each Sunday, I enjoy smiling arrogantly at the logical fallacies the pastor pours out. Want to hear the details of this Sunday's? Just email me. (thinkingfreely at gmail)

That's actually interesting because it's clear already to the evolutionists that Kansas is no Dover. (No required reading of any disclaimers for example, in fact no required mention of ID nor even a requirement that teachers actually DO or TEACH any of the science standards period.)

And, per his computer auto-response, Lenny's Pizza Guy is was energetically kayaking across the Atlantic to join them...

Hey FL, since you seem so determined to preach at everyone here, I have a simple question for you:

*ahem*

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn't seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn't equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else's. Are you more holy than anyone else? Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else? Does God love you best? Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history? What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone else's? Other than your say-so?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? Sorry, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible. Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are? Other than your say-so?

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else's religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your say-so?

Thanks in advance for not answering my question.

harold:

"I find it outrageous that you used a pulpit to spread nonsense, in a most unethical way."

Do you actually expect ethical behavior from fundies?!? Next, you'll be expecting them to live up to the Christian values that Jesus actually preached! Sheeesh!

Gee, I hope that, uh, minor leak didn't cause too many problems for him ....

Well, FL acted like a real discussion was in order for the first person who attended church on Evolution Sunday. I was the first to claim it on this thread. No discussion has taken place. Surprise, surprise...maybe the fellow thought it would be easier to assume no PT reader would dare step foot in the church door, for fear of hellfire and damnation.

So, thanks to Steviepinhead and Thinking Freely for at least doing some live reports on their Evolution Sunday gigs.

Nice description of early morning breakfast and sunny skiing on Stevie's part. And Thinking Freely's in-church report is really informative and fascinating, the kind of Polaroid snapshot I was hoping to see in this thread.

Also an ~excellent~ discussion of your own honest thoughts and reflections on the gospel presentation that was made, and even your thoughts concerning the family life that forms the backdrop for your attending church as an atheist.
On the latter point, ditto for Stevie's discussion of his Evolution Sunday which was also framed in terms of family life.

(See, there's always something folks can agree on (in SOME areas) if they look hard enough. In this case, at least, the importance of family.)

******

And now, let's respond to the erstwhile Rev. Lenny....

FL

So, yeah, I'd have to say my request here for "live reports." has been adequately responded to now.

******

Having said that, however, it still looks like m.o.s.t of you regular St. Darwin devotees around here, (including thread-starter PvM?) slept in on your boy's special Sunday.

Tsk! But I'm not nagging about it, I'm sincerely content with what's been offered here. I just want to call your attention to this little fact, hold a mirror to it for a minute.

Why? Because I think Rev. Zimm and Company are bending way over for you evolutionists, (waving the white flag of Gould's NOMA), but you evolutionists are not returning the favor by bending way over for Zimm's Christianity. Your collective absence from Evolution Sunday church services is kinda reflective of that, imo.

The word I'm thinking of is Ib>exploitation ...and evolutionists are having a Grade A field day milking Zimm and Company for free PR media mileage. Even though Zimm is so very very sincere about wanting to reconcile science and religion. He's being exploited maximally.

Probably doesn't even occur to him and his homies that Gould's NOMA was never about a "negotiated peace", but simply "unconditional surrender" on the part of the religious. Mmmmm.

******

Anyway, having said that, let me brighten up a bit and say I appreciate the discussion by all here. At least the issues revolving about Evo Sunday are getting a good airing out.

(No promises, TF, but I just might opt to check out "this Sunday's" details you mentioned, even with their so-called alleged "logical fallacies", as you put it, via email sometime in the near future.)

So, thanks to Steviepinhead and Thinking Freely for at least doing some live reports on their Evolution Sunday gigs.

Nice description of early morning breakfast and sunny skiing on Stevie's part. And Thinking Freely's in-church report is really informative and fascinating, the kind of Polaroid snapshot I was hoping to see in this thread.

Also an ~excellent~ discussion of your own honest thoughts and reflections on the gospel presentation that was made, and even your thoughts concerning the family life that forms the backdrop for your attending church as an atheist.
On the latter point, ditto for Stevie's discussion of his Evolution Sunday which was also framed in terms of family life.

(See, there's always something folks can agree on--in SOME areas--if they look hard enough. In this case, at least, the importance of family.)

******

So, my request for "live reports", I consider satisfied, and sincere thanks. Plus real thanks for all the responses, even the most critical too, since they all contribute to the Polaroid snapshot of Evolution Sunday.

But you know something, TF? Although I did not and do not "assume no PT reader would dare step foot in the church door, for fear of hellfire and damnation", the fact IS that most of the PT regulars around here (including thread-started PvM?) apparently really DID NOT show up for church on Evolution Sunday.

Not even all those wonderful evolution-friendly churches and preachers listed by Rev. Zimm, PvM, and all those links. Y'all didn't go to 'em. Y'all didn't even, collectively, give the Unitarians much of any business, and they've been in your back pocket for DECADES, for cryin' out loud!

And that's consistent with what I read in the hometown Saturday newspaper article. There's plenty of evolutionists in my hometown, oh yes indeedy. But the overall interest level was, for all practical purposes, absolutely NO HIGHER than on any other Sunday.

So what's my point? Simply this: Rev. Zimm and Company are bending WAY over for you evolutionists (and yes, any Christian who signs off on Gould's NOMA is wavin' a crisp clean delicately starched white flag), but you evolutionists are NOT bending over for Zimm's Christianity in return.

Zimm's puttin' out, but y'all aint.
Yet y'all ARE taking full media advantage of him.

In short....Rev. Zimm and Company, are being EXPLOITED, being played like a pawn shop violin by evolutionists, for maximum PR moxie mileage. And folks, that ain't how Christians and Christian clergy are supposed to do the do. Nope, mamacita!

******

But on a brighter note, I'm again glad to at least read and note the responses that were indeed given. Thanks all.

******

And now, let's respond for a moment to the erstwhile Rev. Lenny before I take my leave....

FL

(1) all of the various "scientific criticisms of evolution" listed in Kansas are absolutely identical in every way with the same old crap that YEC's and IDers have been feeding us for 40 years now

(2) why none of these "scientific criticisms of evolution" have ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal or been accepted by any appreciable segment of the scientific community, and (3) all of these "scientific criticisms of evolution" are found in ID/creationsit tracts, and ONLY in ID/creationist tracts?

(The student...) 7. Explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations. Some of the scientific criticisms include: a. a lack of empirical evidence for a "primordial soup" Obviously, I've snipped most of that particular Science Standard, focussing on just one claim; lack of evidence for the primordial soup (which is commonly taught, including in my hometown's hi-school biology textbook). That's because of length. Anyway, to answer your question, read the following scientific explanation, then read the science-journal references at the end. "Deep-sea vents, then, just like volcanoes, Earth's early atmosphere, and other suggested sources, appear inadequate to produce the hypothetical prebiotic soup. Of even greater significance is the fact that now scientists have direct ways of testing whether the prebiotic soup existed at all. Geochemicsts have developed two powerful tools for measuring the quantity of prebiotics on ancient earth. One uses carbon. The other uses nitrogen. Both lead to the same conclusion. ...The surprising result of carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio measurements of carbonaceous deposits is that all such deposits formed from the remains of once-living organisms. None of the deposits formed from prebiotic material(44). The researchers who made some of the most extensive carbon-13 to carbon-12 ration measurements concluded, "No known abiotic process can explain the data."(45). With this accumulation of data, the primordial soup hypotheses evaporates. Given the measurable abundance of life on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, a primordial soup--if it existed--would be geochemically obvious... ...A second geochemical tool, nitrogen isotope rations, now provides independent confirmation that no primordial soup ever existed on (or in) Earth. The first of these confirmations comes from nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio analysis. The same ancient carbonaceous filamentous microstructures in which researchers read the carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio signature for postbiotic decay (as opposed to prebiotic origin) also reveal a nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio indicative of a biogenic origin (47). Another confirmation arises from calculations of ammonia abunidances. For any kind of primordial soup or mineral substrate to yield a chemical pathway for the development of complex life molecules, significant quantities of ammonia must be present. Laboratory simulation experiments, lacking significant quantities of ammonia, consistently fail to produce any amino acids. Several studies of the nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio in ancient kerogens (carbonaceous deposits) show that while there may have been some ammonia in Earth's atmosphere at the time of life's origins 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, the quantities would have been inadequate to sustain the prebiotic chemical pathways necessary for life's spontaneous origin. The answer is in: There was no prebiotic menu billions of years ago when life began." (Quoted from PhD chemist Fazale Rana and PhD astronomer Hugh Ross, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, 2004, pp 103-04. Reference 44 is from Minik T. Rosing's article in Science vol 283 (1999) pp674-676; SJ Mojzsis' article in Nature vol 384 (1996) pp 55-59;John M. Hayes in Nature vol 384 (1996) pp 21-11, and Manfred Schidlowski in Nature vol 333(1988) pp 313-318. Ref 45 is SJ Mojzsis page 56. Ref 47 is from Pinti, D.L, Hashizume, Ko, and Matsuda, Junichi, Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta 65 (2001) page 2309.

(1) all of the various "scientific criticisms of evolution" listed in Kansas are absolutely identical in every way with the same old crap that YEC's and IDers have been feeding us for 40 years now

(2) why none of these "scientific criticisms of evolution" have ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal or been accepted by any appreciable segment of the scientific community, and (3) all of these "scientific criticisms of evolution" are found in ID/creationsit tracts, and ONLY in ID/creationist tracts?

(The student...) 7. Explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations. Some of the scientific criticisms include: a. a lack of empirical evidence for a "primordial soup"

"Deep-sea vents, then, just like volcanoes, Earth's early atmosphere, and other suggested sources, appear inadequate to produce the hypothetical prebiotic soup. Of even greater significance is the fact that now scientists have direct ways of testing whether the prebiotic soup existed at all. Geochemicsts have developed two powerful tools for measuring the quantity of prebiotics on ancient earth. One uses carbon. The other uses nitrogen. Both lead to the same conclusion. ...The surprising result of carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio measurements of carbonaceous deposits is that all such deposits formed from the remains of once-living organisms. None of the deposits formed from prebiotic material(44). The researchers who made some of the most extensive carbon-13 to carbon-12 ration measurements concluded, "No known abiotic process can explain the data."(45). With this accumulation of data, the primordial soup hypotheses evaporates. Given the measurable abundance of life on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, a primordial soup--if it existed--would be geochemically obvious... ...A second geochemical tool, nitrogen isotope rations, now provides independent confirmation that no primordial soup ever existed on (or in) Earth. The first of these confirmations comes from nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio analysis. The same ancient carbonaceous filamentous microstructures in which researchers read the carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio signature for postbiotic decay (as opposed to prebiotic origin) also reveal a nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio indicative of a biogenic origin (47). Another confirmation arises from calculations of ammonia abunidances. For any kind of primordial soup or mineral substrate to yield a chemical pathway for the development of complex life molecules, significant quantities of ammonia must be present. Laboratory simulation experiments, lacking significant quantities of ammonia, consistently fail to produce any amino acids. Several studies of the nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio in ancient kerogens (carbonaceous deposits) show that while there may have been some ammonia in Earth's atmosphere at the time of life's origins 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, the quantities would have been inadequate to sustain the prebiotic chemical pathways necessary for life's spontaneous origin. The answer is in: There was no prebiotic menu billions of years ago when life began." (Quoted from PhD chemist Fazale Rana and PhD astronomer Hugh Ross, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, 2004, pp 103-04. Reference 44 is from Minik T. Rosing's article in Science vol 283 (1999) pp674-676; SJ Mojzsis' article in Nature vol 384 (1996) pp 55-59;John M. Hayes in Nature vol 384 (1996) pp 21-11, and Manfred Schidlowski in Nature vol 333(1988) pp 313-318. Ref 45 is SJ Mojzsis page 56. Ref 47 is from Pinti, D.L, Hashizume, Ko, and Matsuda, Junichi, Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta 65 (2001) page 2309.

I then mentioned Jeremiah 29:11...and asked them to "Imagine that."

— FL

There's plenty of evolutionists in my hometown, oh yes indeedy. But the overall interest level was, for all practical purposes, absolutely NO HIGHER than on any other Sunday.

Hey FL, since you seem so determined to preach at everyone here, I have a simple question for you:

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night.

The fact is, Lenny, the scientific problem areas mentioned in the Kansas Science Standards are items that honestly, have been and continue to be longstanding and intractable problem areas for evolutionists.

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night.

Well, for me, 1. The Lord Jesus Christ, who saved me and whom I serve.

The answer is (again, short version): How well my words, your words, anyone's religious opinions (and accompanying deeds) match up with the Bible and what it says. That's the gold standard.

In fact, aside from the quotes and links, everybody's preachin' a little around here on this one; so there's no reason for me to be all shy, eh?

or the guy who delivered my pizza last night.

The last we heard, your "official" Pizza Guy was still paddling away somewhere in the North Atlantic in the leaking kayak he borrowed from you, and now you're telling us that you've already broken in a brand new soon-to-be-downtrodden-and-undertipped pizza delivery person?

I'd hate to lose my kayak.

It's good to know that your heart's in the right place on Valentine's Day!

The answer is (again, short version): How well my words, your words, anyone's religious opinions (and accompanying deeds) match up with the Bible and what it says. That's the gold standard. If my words and deeds AREN'T matching up with what the Bible says, and the pizza boy's words and deeds ARE matching up with what the Bible says, then at all costs stick with the pizza boy's religious opinions, quite frankly.

— FL

But you know something, TF? Although I did not and do not "assume no PT reader would dare step foot in the church door, for fear of hellfire and damnation", the fact IS that most of the PT regulars around here (including thread-started PvM?) apparently really DID NOT show up for church on Evolution Sunday.

— FL

So what's my point? Simply this: Rev. Zimm and Company are bending WAY over for you evolutionists (and yes, any Christian who signs off on Gould's NOMA is wavin' a crisp clean delicately starched white flag), but you evolutionists are NOT bending over for Zimm's Christianity in return.

hmmm, It's thurday and still no word from Lenny's pizza guy.

lost at sea?

FL wrote : I have read sincere, solid, (and very sobering) testimonies from evolutionists that showed how evolution provided their little intellectual "push" towards unbelief and apostasy in combination with other life circumstances. This have even happened to clergy! I read one's testimony not long ago. No small tragedy when you have to prefix the term Christian with "f.o.r.m.e.r".

The heavy negative philosophical baggage that is permanently attached to evolution has the capability of seriously, corrosively damaging a Christian's commitment to the above non-negotiables, especially if a person is already beset with doubts and "issues" concerning God and the Bible.

The heavy negative philosophical baggage that is permanently attached to evolution has the capability of seriously, corrosively damaging a Christian's commitment to the above non-negotiables, especially if a person is already beset with doubts and "issues" concerning God and the Bible.

Well said Ben. To FL: Science is not the problem here, but religious views.If the religious are having problems due to reality, then I suggest they alter their views and face facts, instead of attacking science. Many Christians thinks evolution is true. So what, did God's voice boom out of the clouds and told you they are all stupid?

It's like a wounded animal, attacking everything in it's path. It won't make the wounds better. Deal with your own insecurities instead of blaming science for them. You can be smug and self-righteous with a house on the river De-Nile, but please, leave the rest of us at peace. And yes, there is peace outside of your narrow minded dishonest illusion. And stop trying to cram your dishonest illusion down the throats of innocent children. You don't have to indoctrinate them at school and mess up their science education in the process. Do it to your own kids if you want, but keep your hands off mine! Just because YOU think you are right and everyone else is WRONG still does not MAKE you right. Do you get that, or should I draw you a picture?

hmmm, It's thurday and still no word from Lenny's pizza guy. lost at sea?

If the religious are having problems due to reality

I think you mean "religious fundamentalists".

I think you mean "religious fundamentalists".

"And yes, there is peace outside of your narrow minded dishonest illusion."

-why is it always people like FL that are called narrow minded while everyone else on this forum I'm sure would consider themselves open minded, yet those same people don't give the same kind of consideration to FL(and the like) that they expect themselves?

"Just because YOU think you are right and everyone else is WRONG still does not MAKE you right. Do you get that, or should I draw you a picture?"

-Amen, I say practice what you preach...