Ben Stein "Expelled" from University of Vermont

[Alcott]

Many Christians view the Genesis story as a parable, not meant to convey methodolody, but theological truths.

Yeah, sometimes I wish there really was a real Abraham who longed to see Jesus' day.

 

[Revmitchell]

It isn't just atheists who accept science. Many Christians view the Genesis story as a parable, not meant to convey methodolody, but theological truths.

It is methodology.

They are a small few of unorthodox who aren't taken very seriously. Such unorthodoxy creates several theological crisis. It effects prophecy, the fall of man, and creation. But when you interpret scripture by pseudo science then calling Genesis a parable is what you get.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

You misunderstood. Go reread my comment. I said "IF" you are against science. Pointing out the hypocracy of being anti-science while living with many benefits derived from it, which is nothing than the study of how things work. I am sure almost all here DO take their kids to the doc...but it points out that one should not denegrate something which they use to enrich their lives.

I'm not anti-science, I'm pro-God.

 

[annsni]

I'm not anti-science, I'm pro-God.

Yeah - that.

Do I believe the guy who did it all....

or do I believe the guys who think they know it all....

 

[Mexdeaf]

There is "science"...

and there is "science (or "knowledge") falsely so-called"- 1 Timothy 6:20

O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge," for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.

 

[BigBossman]

It isn't just atheists who accept science. Many Christians view the Genesis story as a parable, not meant to convey methodolody, but theological truths. And if you are against science, I suppose you will be sure not to take your children to a doctor if they become seriously ill.

In all honesty, I don't have any children yet, much less a wife. You almost make it sound like I have to choose between God or the doctor's office. If I am sick, I actually won't go to the doctor's office. I generally let the sickness run its course. Normally when I go to the doctor, I'm usually there to get a doctor's note for work. Unless the pain & discomfort is just too unbearable. I don't put my faith in other human beings. Doctors have been known to be wrong many times before.

Anytime I have ever watched a documentary about biblical events on Histroy Channel, Dicovery Channel, or The Learning Channel the scientists are always trying to disprove everything about what we have been taught. For one to be a scientist like that, you'd almost have to be an atheist.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I am going thru the website www.answersingenesis.com, and would REALLY like some feedback from our more Bible-based Christians on the board on that site. I am enjoying the lectures.

 

[Marcia]

Evolution is as much a matter of faith as any other view based on faith, except it does not have good evidence. Pro-evolutionists interpret data in light of their belief in evolution.

My son read Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in the 8th grade and won a debate in English class (they were teaching debate tactics). The kids voted on who presented the best case - this was in a very liberal school here in the DC area where evolution is taught as fact.

Btw, Denton, as far as I know, is either an agnostic or atheist.

 

[Revmitchell]

Evolution is as much a matter of faith as any other view based on faith, except it does not have good evidence. Pro-evolutionists interpret data in light of their belief in evolution.

And it is not science since it cannot be reproduced.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And it is not science since it cannot be reproduced.

Incorrect, and just another creationist chestnut, showing a total superficial understanding of what constitutes scientific inquiry. From HERE:

Overall, the general view of reproducibility is that it is tightly linked to the issue of tentativeness. As noted in that analysis, much of scientific data is viewed as tentative, and will remain so until it has been reproduced. Failure to reproduce this data under identical conditions will typically result in an evaluation of the technical challenges involved in recreating identical conditions. Continued failure, however, will ultimately lead to the initial results being discarded.
Even under identical conditions, however, many experiments will yield non-identical results. In these cases, statistical analysis of the data becomes critical for generating confidence in the existence of a typical result. Much of science, however, relies on reproducing results under non-identical conditions. This is an essential part of the process by which the generalized application of a model can be tested. But it's also a key component of many fields which rely on the study of singular events, and so must test collections of similar events. In these areas, collections of similar events provide evidence that substitutes for reproducibility.
Based on this, it seems that the creationists' focus on "historical vs. operational science" misses the mark; all scientific experiments are, to an extent, historic, as their reproducibility is always dependent upon precisely recapitulating the inital experimental conditions. Given that this is often as unlikely as seeing an identical earthquake happpen twice, all science suffers from limitations to its reproducibility. Science does recognize distinctions between natural and controlled experiments, which may seem to be similar to the distinction that the creationists are trying to make. Attempting to discredit science based on natural experiments, however, would discard much of current astronomy, geology, and biology—in short, it would severely limit what is subject to scientific analysis.
In the end, it appears that reproducibility's links to tentativeness make it subject to the same lack of understanding by a public that typically expects its scientific results to be concrete and absolute. As with that topic, the only apparent remedy is a better education in the sciences.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I am going thru the website www.answersingenesis.com, and would REALLY like some feedback from our more Bible-based Christians on the board on that site. I am enjoying the lectures.

I think it is very good, and a lot to learn there. Kin Ham was with Dr. Morris at ICR for years and then went on to AIG.

 

[Enoch]

I’m looking forward to seeing Expelled and the overwhelming bias against creation exposed!


Evolution is just a theory.


Although I do believe a few people on the BB may have come from apes… :tongue3:


Answers in Genesis is an excellent resource!!!!! If anyone is near Petersburg, Kentucky check out their Creation Museum! I highly recommend a subscription to their magazine, Answers!