Judge Cooper Rules Conservative Christians Second Class Citizens...

[RichardT]

Judge Cooper Rules Conservative Christians Second Class Citizens and Political Outsiders

http://www.rae.org/cobb.html

[JimfromOhio]

Judge Cooper Rules Conservative Christians Second Class Citizens and Political Outsiders

http://www.rae.org/cobb.html

I knew that would come one day.

[MrJim]

Rejoice in persecution...

1John3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

John 15: 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you;

[arunma]

I'm not quite sure how this qualifies as treatment of conservative Christians as second-class citizens. Refusal to give creationism serious consideration doesn't seem like persecution to me. Besides that, if not evolution, then what should be taught in school?

I believe in the inerrency of the Bible. But I'm sorry to say that creationists have never presented a viable scientific alternative. Every common objection to evolution (the earth is too young, improbability of evolution, etc.) is scientifically unsound. More than that, some creationists out there go so far as to lie by distorting scientific fact, and as a Christian I cannot support deliberate deception. I'd be all for teaching creationism, if only creationists would present a valid, testable scientific theory.

Labeling this as persecution is not appropriate, since it is right to discriminate against unsound scientific theories. Judge for yourselves whether or not evolution is true. But as a Christian (who believes in God's infallible words) and as a scientist, I can tell you guys that evolution does meet the standard of scientific rigor. I know that's not what any of you want to hear, but my only alternative would be to sugarcoat the truth (i.e. cover it up).

One other thing. Regardless of your position on evolution, the statement "evolution is a theory, not a fact" is contradictory. In science, a theory is a fact, at least to the extent that scientists are able to deduce any facts at all.

[cory533]

One other thing. Regardless of your position on evolution, the statement "evolution is a theory, not a fact" is contradictory. In science, a theory is a fact, at least to the extent that scientists are able to deduce any facts at all.

Then how about this one Evolution is a religion it requires a belief in an unprovable theory that on the face of it apers unlikely.IE: the usual arguments about the missing links the evolution of the eye being necessarily an all at once adaptation etc.
Cory

[arunma]

Then how about this one Evolution is a religion it requires a belief in an unprovable theory that on the face of it apers unlikely.IE: the usual arguments about the missing links the evolution of the eye being necessarily an all at once adaptation etc.

No, that wouldn't be an accurate statement either, since evolution doesn't meet the definition of a religion. Even if your assessment of evolution were accurate, it wouldn't make evolution a religion anymore than belief in the tooth fairy constitutes a religious doctrine.

The problem, however, is that evolution is not an unprovable theory. It can be tested, in fact it has been. Just as one needn't stick his hand into the Sun to determine its chemical composition, neither does one need to witness the evolution of an organism in order to deduce the accuracy of evolutionary theory. In science, the cause-effect relationship is exploited in that we determine a cause by examining its effects. Evolution has predictable and observable effects, so to say that it is unprovable wouldn't be accurate. For similar reasons, the idea of missing links in the evolution of the human eye is also an incorrect argument against evolution.

[JPPT1974]

Where remember that Jesus wasn't treated
Like a first class citizen despite who He was
And rather than acting like a king
He took the part and form of a servant
So bear that in mind.

[Project 86]

No, that wouldn't be an accurate statement either, since evolution doesn't meet the definition of a religion. Even if your assessment of evolution were accurate, it wouldn't make evolution a religion anymore than belief in the tooth fairy constitutes a religious doctrine.

The problem, however, is that evolution is not an unprovable theory. It can be tested, in fact it has been. Just as one needn't stick his hand into the Sun to determine its chemical composition, neither does one need to witness the evolution of an organism in order to deduce the accuracy of evolutionary theory. In science, the cause-effect relationship is exploited in that we determine a cause by examining its effects. Evolution has predictable and observable effects, so to say that it is unprovable wouldn't be accurate. For similar reasons, the idea of missing links in the evolution of the human eye is also an incorrect argument against evolution.

The U of M, always braining washing it's students. See where my hard earned tax money goes? ;)

[cory533]

The problem, however, is that evolution is not an unprovable theory. It can be tested, in fact it has been. Just as one needn't stick his hand into the Sun to determine its chemical composition, neither does one need to witness the evolution of an organism in order to deduce the accuracy of evolutionary theory. In science, the cause-effect relationship is exploited in that we determine a cause by examining its effects. Evolution has predictable and observable effects, so to say that it is unprovable wouldn't be accurate. For similar reasons, the idea of missing links in the evolution of the human eye is also an incorrect argument against evolution.


Micro evolution does occur and can be proved. such as animals coloration. breeding of dogs that sort of thing.
However Macro evolution (one species to another) has yet to be seen or proved. with all the fossil records the missing link in all species is missing. what a coincidence.
with literally millions of generations of trying there has still not been a species change in lab fruit flies. The problem with eyes is that the entire assembly MUST change at once for there is no in between organs that do what they do. light sensing organs in animals without true sight work on a completely different principle.
By Darwin's own criterion evolution has been disproved.
Believing that these things are missing from the fossil record and there are no surviving species Takes a leap of faith. As this is a belief system about the origins and nature of life this certainly does qualify as a religion in my opinion.
Cory

[arunma]

Micro evolution does occur and can be proved. such as animals coloration. breeding of dogs that sort of thing.
However Macro evolution (one species to another) has yet to be seen or proved. with all the fossil records the missing link in all species is missing. what a coincidence.

This isn't a required criterion in science. I'm not sure if the above information is even accurate, but "missing links" do not refute the theory of evolution. In fact, all the links that can be found only bolster the theory.

with literally millions of generations of trying there has still not been a species change in lab fruit flies. The problem with eyes is that the entire assembly MUST change at once for there is no in between organs that do what they do. light sensing organs in animals without true sight work on a completely different principle.

This also isn't correct. Without doubt the eye is an extremely complicated organ. But the belief that it has to evolve instantaneously is also not factual.

Believing that these things are missing from the fossil record and there are no surviving species Takes a leap of faith.

No...that's called interpolation.

As this is a belief system about the origins and nature of life this certainly does qualify as a religion in my opinion.
Cory

The fact remains that it doesn't meet the definition of religion, irrespective of anyone's personal opinions. Evolution doesn't require you to believe in any supernatural being, nor does it require you to believe in no supernatural being. It has nothing to do with religion, apart from redefinition of the word.

The U of M, always braining washing it's students. See where my hard earned tax money goes? ;)

But if it makes you feel any better, how many of us will you find who believe that all unbelievers are headed for hell unless they repent and put their faith in Jesus?

[cory533]

I apologize I did get one item wrong there are millions of separate experimental pairings of fruit flies not generations that number is only in the hundreds of thousands.
However there is still no evidence that evolution between species can or has happened at best it is an unprovable theory like intelligent design.
I still believe that if an unproven theory that is in opposition to the religious belief of a large portion of the population that itself becomes a religious theory if only in the context of the 1st amendment protection from one state sponsored religion.
cory

[JacobHall86]

Wow, what a misleading title.

And that is not persecution.

[mark kennedy]

Judge Cooper Rules Conservative Christians Second Class Citizens and Political Outsiders

http://www.rae.org/cobb.html

I took a look at the essay and it seems straightforward enough, if you reject Darwinism it benefits religion. Notice it has nothing to say about any evidence one way or the other for or against evolution. I've seen their so called evidence and it is ridiculously weak and what is more they know it. All they can really do is exclude God as any kind of an explanation period.

My friend, do you really think this harms the Christian faith? Let me tell you about someone you may not have heard of before, Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. He was prosecuted for, get this, atheism. He was burned at the stake because he did not worship the gods of Rome which cost the pagan merchants a lot of revenue.

They took him into their carriage and sitting next to him urged him by saying "What is wrong with saying'Lord; and 'Ceasar' and sacrificiting, and the rest of it, and thereby saving your life? At first he did not answer them, but when there did not leave him in peace he said, "I am not willing to do what you advise me" When he entered the arena there was such a tremendous uproar that nobody could be understood. When he was led forward, the proconsul asked him if he was Poly carp. This he affirmed. The proconsul wanted to persuade him to deny his faith, urging him, "Consider your great age," and all the other things they usually say in such cases. "Swear by the genius of Ceasar; change your mind, Say, 'Away with the atheists." Polycarp, however, looked with a serious expressoin upon the whole mob assembled in the arena. He waved his hand over them, sighed deeply, looked up to heaven, and said, "Away with the atheists." But the proconsul pressed him further, ans said to him, "Swear and I will release you. Curse Christ"

Polycarp answered, "Eighty six years have I served him, and he has never done me any harm. How could I blaspheme my king and Savior? (The Early Christians: The State, Society and Martyrs, Eberhard Arnold)


Darwinism is the religion of the state, atheists have seen to that. We don't need a sticker and we don't need the Courts to support our understanding of Genesis. The God who brought forth light from the darkness still shines in this present darkness as bright as ever.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

It's rather strange, I discussed briefly some of the molecular machines involved in the functions of cells in the thread you invited me to participate in. They have gotten strangely quite except for the usual ad hominem attacks.

Biology is supposed to be the study of life and when the light of life shown in the darkness, the darkness does not understand.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with science. They want the true and Living God to go away, they are chasing the wind.

Grace and peace,
Mark