Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

But then again, the primary source material has been shown to be faked so often, remember Lucy?

 

"But then again, the primary source material has been shown to be faked so often, remember Lucy?"

Please show us where anything "fake" is being used to support evolution.

Please show where anything concerning Lucy was faked.

Is this what you are talking about?

Read in full here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

This seems to be another case of YEers having to misrepresent in an attempt to make a point. If they had a case, they would not have to repeatedly misrepresent the way things are. I sometimes wonder how many times one has to be lied to by people they think they can trust before they start to doubt what they say. Or at least check up on them a bit before blindly trusting them. Is it simply a matter that these people share your opinion and thus you don't think that they would be dishonest?

[ December 23, 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

But getting back to the OP...

Can anyone provide postive, testible, falsifiable evidence for ID? The defense experts in the recent trial were unable to do so. If you cannot provide such, then why should it be in a science classroom? If you cannot provide positive evidence, just what is it that you propose to teach?

I guess you just want to have a big discussion based on personal incredulity, also known as an argument from ignorance. It's not science, but it is, well, somehting.

So, tell us, what positive evidence for ID/YE should we teach? How do we test it? How can it be falsified?

The lack of such material is why ID / YE cannot be taught in the public science class.

 

JWI in the very post you just followed, claiming no evolutionist presents facts, your evolutionist protagonist presented you with some facts.

Such as modern horses occasionally being born with atavistic three toed feet. For your information, contrary to your opinion as stated, that is a fact.

And it is a fact that shows modern horses descended from three toed ancestors.

 

Exactly. Just like other scientific theories, it only deals with natural causes. It makes no statement about whether God is the creator and sustainer of those causes, and whether he uses them to accomplish his purposes. You see, God does send the rain on the righteous and the wicked, just as God creates living creatures and provides them with food. Meteorology and evolution are our best attempts to discover some of the details about how God does that. The fact that meteorology and evolution don't speak of God, or that many meteorologists or biologists don't believe in God doesn't mean that these theories don't describe parts of his handiwork.

Wonderful! Glad to see you're not tied to a literalistic interpretation. I can also look at all the creatures in this world and see God's handiwork -- not just as offspring from God's creations, but each one being a creation of God. They're all made from dust and given life by his breath (Genesis 2:7,19, Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, Psalm 104:29-30). And while any talk of supernatural things needs to stretch language past its plain meaning, I'm still speaking more literally than your comment about storehouses of snow in the sky.

Bald assertion. [Edit: I just read Ute's post. Yeah, the assertion's naked too.] If a person consistently held your position, they'd decry all the gaps in meteorological theory. They'd point out the times meteorologists have been wrong and use this as evidence that they know nothing and their theories are useless. Perhaps they'd accept that natural forces might be responsible for breezes (micro-wind?), but claim that extrapolating those forces to be responsible for hurricanes (macro-wind?) is just ridiculous. Sure, they could say, we know hurricanes form, just as we know different species exist, but that doesn't mean natural forces are responsible for them.

But, for some reason you only use that reasoning when it comes to evolution (and perhaps astronomy, geology, and a few other related sciences). It's not because Scripture speaks of God's creation of all kinds of plants and animals and doesn't speak of God's direct action in making weather. The Bible does both. It seems that it's because you have been so convinced by the legitimacy of meteorology that you'd have to be dishonest with yourself to reject it. And that's exactly the position many others are in when it comes to other aspects of reality, such as the age of the earth, the even greater age of the universe, and the common descent of living things.

 

There wasn't any physical proof of Einstein's theories for years but it wasn't just good science, it was great science. It formed the basis of much of the scientific advance in the 20th century and he was named Time Magazine's Man of the Century.

 

Evolution is a theory. It has not been sufficiently proved to be called a fact as has say, gravity although we don't really understand the nature of gravity.

If we put Intelligent design in the same arena then it will be treated like evolution, a competing theory. While there is a growing body of evidence to support it, it also doesn't have enough to call it a fact (as a scientific theory).

From a scientific perspective I don't have any problem treating it this way. What I do have a problem with is calling a teaching of the Bible a theory. I personally believe that God could have used the process of evolution to create the universe.

However, I come to a major problem with this in regard to the creation of man. I don't see how a scientific process could all of a sudden (millions of years) produce an entirely different kind of animal, one with a highly developed mind and a soul.

I wonder how many children, if they find a prepondrance of support for Evolution over Intelligent Design, will conclude that the rest of the Bible is a theory as well and reject it because there isn't enough scientific and historical evidence to support it.

 

Absent the details given in Genesis 1, I could believe the same; however God is very specific in His description of the process.

Which is precisely why this evolution heresy is straight from the pit of hell!!!

In His word God described the process of creation, but man has decided that when God said , "the evening and mornoing was the --day" that He really meant billions of years!

If billions of years and evolution were correct, surely God would not have been so definite as to the time-line AND the "HOW"; would He?

Interestingly, here is the method: (God said--and there was. --)
and the time needed ( And the evening and the morning were the --- day.)

If man and God say something different, who are you gonna believe? Hmmmmm???????

 

Mercury

Most people can easily distinguish when the Lord is using symbols in the Bible.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Now, no reasonable person believes that Jesus was actually claiming to be a loaf of bread here, or a literal door made of wood or some other material.

A man cannot be a loaf of bread, and a man cannot be a door. So, it is obvious that symbolism is being used.

But this type of language is not used in the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2.

God quite clearly states that He formed Eve from Adam's rib. So there is no reason why God could not have said that Adam was also formed from some other creature that came before him. And God could have said the same of all animal life as well.

But that is not what God says. God says he formed Adam from the dust of the ground. He does not mention how the animals were formed, except that He spoke them into existence.

Now granted, it does not mention the scientific process by which Adam, the animals, or even Eve was formed. But in the case of Eve, we know that evolution was not involved. Evolution takes a long time. Adam would have grown old and died, even with his long lifetime. No, Eve was formed very quickly. So this is not evolution at all.

Man is made of the elements found in the Earth. And woman is made of the same basic elements as man, so this is entirely different than claiming a man is bread, or a door.

While I am glad Paul of Eugene believes the Bible, to believe that God would tell everyone very misleading poetry to give man an impression of creation until science came along later and showed evolution is absurd in my opinion.

Look, if God had said he formed each animal from another animal, and if God said he had formed Adam from some creature before him, I would have no problems with your theory of evolution. That would certainly explain away the mathematical impossibility of evolution that many scientists have expressed.


It is ridiculous to believe God would tell us a fairy tale when he could have told us the simple truth.

God had no problem telling us that Eve was formed from Adam's rib, so why would he fail to tell us that Adam was formed from some other living creature????

How inconsistent.

What is truly sad is that you all know what I am saying is true and completely reasonable.

But you would rather trust in man's science which has been wrong many times instead of God's Word.

[ December 24, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: JWI ]

 

StraightandNarrow wrote:

Actually, much of Einstein's theory is in serious doubt today.

Go to Google or Yahoo and type in "was Einstein wrong" and you will see many articles on the subject.

 

Nor is it used in Ezekiel 16. A city and a woman can indeed have the same name. In fact, Israel is both a person and a nation. Yet, you don't even consider the possibility that Ezekiel 16 might be literally true. Why is that?

God quite clearly states that he saw Jerusalem wallowing in her blood in an open field, and he said to her "Live" and made her flourish until she grew up tall with full breasts and long hair (Ezekiel 16:6-7). So there is no reason why God could not have said that Jerusalem was actually a collection of people living in a city. And God could have said the same of Jerusalem's sisters Samaria and Sodom as well (Ezekiel 16:46).

That's not even true from a literalistic reading. The animals were formed from the ground in one account (Genesis 2:19) and created when God commanded the earth to bring them forth in another account (Genesis 1:24) and are continually created when God sends forth his Spirit in another account (Psalm 104:30).

Now granted, Ezekiel 16 does not mention the scientific process by which Jerusalem grew into the harlot. But, we know that city building was not involved. Building a city takes many generations. The lady Jerusalem would have grown old and died before it was built and became corrupted, if this passage was talking about a city, yet she is still alive at the time Ezekiel is writing. No, Jerusalem is just a woman. So this is no city at all.

Then I'm sure you'd also consider it absurd if God would tell everyone very misleading prose (Ezekiel 16 isn't poetry) to give man a false impression of Jerusalem. Is Ezekiel 16 misleading?

Do you consider passages such as Ezekiel 16 to be fairy tales? If so, I hope you have more respect for fairy tales than it sounds like. This is God's word we're talking about, after all.

 

Mercury

Thank you for pointing out that the Bible does indeed say that the animals were also formed from the ground. I had forgotten that verse.

So that leaves Eve only as the only creature in the Bible formed from another.

And what kind of argument is Ezekiel 16? Here, God clearly identifies Jerusalem in the very first verse. Anyone can tell God is comparing Jerusalem to a woman.

How silly. Don't you realize that by pointing these verses out that you actually show that you too know when God is using symbolism??

How does this relate to Genesis 1 and 2 where God is describing creation???

You and other "theological" evolutionists say you believe the Bible. But you take every occasion to try to find fault and mistakes with it. You tell people who believe God's simple and easy to read creation account they misinterpret scripture. You say Genesis is prose and poetry, because it disagrees with your religion of evolution.

I have never seen anyone wrestle so hard to twist the scriptures to fit what they want the Bible to mean.

 

What translation are you using?

Here's the first four verses in the ESV:

"Again the word of the LORD came to me: 'Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths.' "

Where exactly in this passage does God "clearly" identify Jerusalem with anything other than a baby girl?

But, even if you did have such a verse, I also have a verse where Adam is identified as more than an individual:

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Genesis 5:2, KJV)

Newer translations try to render the word adam as something other than a name in this verse in order to favour a more literalistic reading, but the name for the first people is still there. Adam.

Yes, I see the same type of symbolism about Adam, Eve and the serpent as I see in Ezekiel 16 with Jerusalem, Samaria and Sodom.

It relates to Genesis 2-3. This passage describes the creation and early history of humanity the way Ezekiel 16 describes the creation and early history of Jerusalem.

That appears to be a difference between us. You see passages as at fault if they don't line up with your understanding or your preconceptions. I think God speaks through all of Scripture, regardless of whether it conforms to my ideas of how it should be written. (And in any case, I don't think Scripture should all be written literally. I think poetry and non-literal prose can often convey far more than a literal, historical account.)

 

Mercury

It was the 2nd verse that indicated Jerusalem, my mistake.

Don't take my mistakes to mean the Bible is wrong though.

Look, I (or you)can take any part of the Bible and make it mean whatever I want. That doesn't mean that this is the correct meaning.

And give me a break. Millions of Christians who believe the Bible believe the creation account in Genesis to be literal. This is why there is such a trememdous debate about evolution. And yes, this is probably the main driving force behind the push for Intelligent Design. Millions of Christians believe God created man supernaturally, just as the simple account in Genesis 1 and 2 reads.

But this is not blind faith and superstition. Many of those in the scientific field believe life far too complex to have come about through random or purely natural processes. They argue that the astronomically complex design of even the most simple form of life argues for a supreme intelligence and designer.

What? Do you think I am the only person who believes Genesis 1 and 2 are literal accounts?

And evolutionists recognize this too. This is why they fight against Intelligent Design with the argument that it is promoting religion and a belief in God.

It is ridiculous that science that gives evidence for a deity cannot be considered science.

Science should be about truth. If real evidence points to a supernatural deity, then this evidence should be presented.

You are trying to ride the fence, believeing in both God and the atheist theory of evolution.

Evolutionists biggest objection to creationism is that it is religious. This shows the true atheism behind evolution.

So you try to twist the simple account in Genesis to fit your belief. It is not me twisting scripture. I understand these verses the same as millions of Christians have for centuries.

What does both Adam and Eve being called Adam prove? Most women take their husband's name when they marry.

It also says "created" twice.

And there is even a city in the Bible called Adam.

Jos 3:16 That the waters which came down from above stood [and] rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that [is] beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, [even] the salt sea, failed, [and] were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.

But unlike you, this does not confuse me.

In Ezekiel 16 God is comparing the sin of Jerusalem to that of a wayward woman.

What could God be comparing Adam and Eve to???
They were the very first people. There were no people or cities before them.

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

1Cr 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1Cr 15:47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

Here the New Testament confirms that Adam was the first man and of the earth.

 

Look at these many statements by Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at Berkeley.

Yes, Berkeley. Amazing, but true.

Phillip Johnson (b. 1940) Professor of Law at Berkeley Web Amazon LoC GP

Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990 †

If some powerful conscious being exists outside the natural order, it might use its power to intervene in nature to accomplish some purpose, such as the production of beings having consciousness and free will. If the possibility of an "outside" intervention is allowed in nature at any point, however, the whole naturalistic worldview quickly unravels.

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990 †

Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990 †

Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990 †

The problem with scientific naturalism as a worldview is that it takes a sound methodological premise of natural science and transforms it into a dogmatic statement about the nature of the universe. Science is committed by definition to empiricism, by which I mean that scientists seek to find truth by observation, experiment, and calculation rather than by studying sacred books or achieving mystical states of mind. It may well be, however, that there are certain questions -- important questions, ones to which we desperately want to know the answers -- that cannot be answered by the methods available to our science. These may include not only broad philosophical issues such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become accustomed to think of as empirical, such as how life first began or how complex biological systems were put together. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990 †

Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact must therefore use their cultural authority to enact rules of discourse that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers. First, they can identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of first principle that no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter. Second, they can impose a rule of procedure that disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some very modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and unless it is supplanted by a better naturalistic theory. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990 †

The assumption of naturalism is in the realm of speculative philosophy, and the rule against negative argument is arbitrary. It is as if a judge were to tell a defendant that he may not establish his innocence unless he can produce a suitable substitute to be charged with the crime. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990 †

Methodological naturalism -- the principle that science can study only the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques -- is not in question. Of course science can study only what science can study. Methodological naturalism becomes metaphysical naturalism only when the limitations of science are taken to be limitations upon reality. If the history of life can involve only those natural and material processes that our science can observe, then either Darwinism or something very much like it simply must be true as a matter of philosophical deduction, regardless of how scanty the evidence may be. Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning March 1992 †

Simpson tells us that the world is purposeless because Darwinian evolution did all the creating. Gould and Hull tell us that Darwinian evolution must have done the creating because the characteristics of organisms imply a world devoid of purpose. A wise and benevolent creator would not employ homologous parts; would not waste millions of sperm and ova when one pair would suffice; would not countenance the deplorable ethics of the cuckoo; and would not even allow the variations in finches and turtles that Darwin observed in the Galapagos. These particular examples don't seem persuasive to me, but lurking behind them is the well-known argument from evil and undeserved suffering that forms the background to some of the world's greatest literature, from the book of Job to Paradise Lost to The Brothers Karamazov. Yes, the world is full of waste and suffering, and also nobility and beauty. If that is all that is necessary to establish Darwinian evolution, then Darwinian evolution is established. But do we call this kind of reasoning science? Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning March 1992 †

Darwinists know that natural selection created the animal groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to pick a single example) not because observation supports this conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not God -- because the whole point of positivistic science is to explain the history of life without giving God a place in it. Darwinism and Theism March 1992 †

To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. To know that is to know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create. Darwinism and Theism March 1992 †

The all-purpose defense that Darwinists invoke when their theory is under attack is to invoke what I called in my earlier address "Dobzhansky's rules," the rules of positivistic science. That is, they say that "science" is defined as the search for naturalistic explanations for all phenomena and that any other activity is "not science." This position is sustainable only on the assumption that "science" is just one knowledge game among many, and theists suffer no great loss if they have to go and play in another game called "religion." The problem is that the games do not have equivalent status. The science game has government support and control of the public educational establishment. Everybody's children, theists and non-theists alike, are to be taught that "evolution is a fact." This implies that everything contrary to "evolution,'' specifically the existence of a God who takes a role in creation, is false. If "evolution" has strong anti-theistic implications, the theists in the political community are entitled to ask whether what Darwinists promulgate as "evolution', is really true. The answer, "That's the way we think in Science," is not an adequate response. Darwinism and Theism March 1992 †

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible -- or least implausible -- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not “theistic evolution,” but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error. Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin Christianity Today October 24, 1994 p.26 †

The worldview of scientific naturalism preserves a place for religious beliefs: a place, that is, among the things to be explained by science. The Christian religion thus enters the university with a status precisely equal to that of other comparable religious systems -- say, the Aztec system of human sacrifice. Any individual, even a person of eminence in science, can make a personal choice to "be religious." Such choices are made on the basis of "faith," meaning subjective preference. A problem arises only if the Aztecs or the Christians claim access to knowledge. If they do that, they are claiming that their own beliefs are normative for unbelievers. Only scientists can claim that kind of authority, because what is endorsed by the scientific community constitutes knowledge, not belief. That is why Darwinian evolution can be taught in the schools as fact, however strongly parents or students object, whereas a simple prayer acknowledging God as our Creator is deemed unacceptable -- because somebody might object. How the Universities Were Lost First Things March 1995 †

My purpose was to show that what is presented to the public as scientific knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms is mostly philosophical speculation and is not even consistent with the evidence once the naturalistic spectacles are removed. If that leaves us without a known mechanism of biological creation, so be it: it is better to admit ignorance than to have confidence in an explanation that is not true. Reason in the Balance (1995) p.12 †

For scientific materialist the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might therefore more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism First Things November 1997 †

One of the ironies of the whole controversy is that it's a stock in trade for the Darwinists to say, 'The critics are religiously motivated and they believe in God and they're throwing their religion at us and they shouldn't be doing that, and they should keep that out of science,' But being religious or antireligious is the same thing: It's a position about religion and God, and it goes beyond the evidence and into very confident assertions that are based more on personal convictions than they are scientific testing. Phillip Johnson's Assault Upon Faith-Based Darwinism East Bay Express July 27 2005 †

When you ask a Darwinist, 'What evidence do you have for your mechanism that random variation and natural selection can actually do any creating?' the Darwinist will say, 'Well, tell me what God looks like, Why did he do this or that? I want you to show me God doing the creating because if you can't show me that, we can get rid of God or the creator and what's left is Darwinism, so it's got to be true.' It's the variation of, 'This is the only thing that could have happened, so it doesn't have to be demonstrated, it can just be assumed to be true.' And anyone who doubts that it could be true has to provide ironclad proof and justification for an alternative. Phillip Johnson's Assault Upon Faith-Based Darwinism East Bay Express July 27 2005 †

 

Ho hum. Simply more and more of the same nonsense.

"Evolution isn't science its religion" is their mantra but saying it a thousand times will have no affect and scientists will go on making science such as evolution anyway.

"Evolution isn't a fact its an unproved theory" they say but saying it a thousand times will have no affect and scientists will continue to examine the evidence that evolution happened and use it to make their theories about evolution better and better.

"Intelligent Design isn't religion, its science" they say but saying that a thousand times will have no affect and everybody will notice that ID is never used to advance science but is only used to advance religion.

The people who oppose evolution are trying to save God's word from being shown to be false. That is the only reason evolution has been singled out of all the sciences; they don't really care that man came as part of the common descent of all life instead of seperate creation, exept for their desire to maitain as literal the poetic stories of Genesis one and two. Their efforts are misplaced and will backfire until they learn to have enough faith in God to let God show us the truth about Creation in all the ways God has to show us that truth, including the God given knowledge of His world we call science.

 

But you will never see any findings that Einstein was wrong . . . yet.

Even if something supercedes Einstein, it will have to account for the things Einstein accounts for in a similar fashion, and yet provide more.

In that sense, Einstein's theory will live on as a subset of the greater theory that will follow.

 

Absent the details given in Genesis 1, I could believe the same; however God is very specific in His description of the process.

Which is precisely why this evolution heresy is straight from the pit of hell!!!

In His word God described the process of creation, but man has decided that when God said , "the evening and mornoing was the --day" that He really meant billions of years!

If billions of years and evolution were correct, surely God would not have been so definite as to the time-line AND the "HOW"; would He?

Interestingly, here is the method: (God said--and there was. --)
and the time needed ( And the evening and the morning were the --- day.)

If man and God say something different, who are you gonna believe? Hmmmmm??????? </font>[/QUOTE]You don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say. If we teach creation in schools it will be taught as a scientific THEORY just like evolution. Do you want the Bible to be taught as a THEORY? That's blasphemy straight from the pits of Hell, as you put it.

 

Absent the details given in Genesis 1, I could believe the same; however God is very specific in His description of the process.

Which is precisely why this evolution heresy is straight from the pit of hell!!!

In His word God described the process of creation, but man has decided that when God said , "the evening and mornoing was the --day" that He really meant billions of years!

If billions of years and evolution were correct, surely God would not have been so definite as to the time-line AND the "HOW"; would He?

Interestingly, here is the method: (God said--and there was. --)
and the time needed ( And the evening and the morning were the --- day.)

If man and God say something different, who are you gonna believe? Hmmmmm??????? </font>[/QUOTE]You don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say. If we teach creation in schools it will be taught as a scientific THEORY just like evolution. Do you want the Bible to be taught as a THEORY? That's blasphemy straight from the pits of Hell, as you put it.

 

I have a great idea. Why don't we teach religion in our churches?