ENCODE is a project that has been studying DNA since the Human Genome Project (HGP) laid out the entire sequence for humans. Results have just been published by The ENCODE Project Consortium, "An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome," Nature 489 (Sept. 5, 2012): 57-74 on the latest research concerning the function of DNA in the areas between genes. They have found at least 80% of DNA to be functional, from a previous estimate of 5% to 10% (a pretty big miss). Before, many scientists insisted that most of DNA was junk, accumulated through totally random mutation of genes. Francis Collins himself, leader of the HGP, used junk DNA as an example of materialistic biological evolution. I'm generalizing by putting all scientists in a lump, but let's face it, we don't see many supporting Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory. However, though they are saying one thing, they must be thinking another, since they sunk about $200 million into the study. Why study junk? Because more and more small studies supported evidence that non-protein-coding areas had to do with gene regulation. They could no longer ignore it. They may even find that 100% of DNA is functional when they further improve their ability to detect activity.
The findings are described in a number of scientific journal articles. You can find much more at a website arranged by Nature called the Nature ENCODE Explorer. It has various threads to help you, as it says there, to "Access the collected papers by exploring the thematic threads that run through them, such as DNA methylation, RNA and machine learning."
Most evolutionists want you to believe evolution is totally materialistic, without any Divine guiding hand. This affects our school textbooks and even what they want parents teaching their children. Researchers now think there are 4 million switches in DNA for gene regulation to form parts of the body and get it to work. Billions of years sounds like a lot of time, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the probability of all this coming together by chance. Changing one's mind can be very difficult, but on the other side is an amazing world of wonder.
One down-side to this research is that human embryonic stem cells have been used for it and are continuing to be used for further discovery. If there are other ways to learn about these things I would challenge scientists to use their ingenuity to find them. That is a discussion the whole country (and world) needs to go into.
Even without the use of human embryonic stem cells, we are seeing more of the complexity of DNA and the cell. May more and more of us praise the Lord, through Jesus Christ, for His wondrous, amazing works.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Happy Summer or Winter
Hi there. Hope you are having a nice summer (those of you in the northern hemisphere). I wish a nice winter to the folks down under (not just Australia).
2019 Update: I previously had some instructions here for printing out the booklets, Heaven's Passport and Creation Science for Biology. But that was a long time ago and would probably not be applicable any more. I still feel these are good booklets for edification and evangelization. I see them as a way to approach and teach people about the subjects. So I hope anyone interested will read them from the blog, either online or downloaded. I do print them out once in a while to distribute, but anyone interested in doing that themselves would have to work out their own printer settings for booklets. Thanks for your interest.
2019 Update: I previously had some instructions here for printing out the booklets, Heaven's Passport and Creation Science for Biology. But that was a long time ago and would probably not be applicable any more. I still feel these are good booklets for edification and evangelization. I see them as a way to approach and teach people about the subjects. So I hope anyone interested will read them from the blog, either online or downloaded. I do print them out once in a while to distribute, but anyone interested in doing that themselves would have to work out their own printer settings for booklets. Thanks for your interest.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Penance Peace
I went to a reconciliation, formerly known as penance, service last evening for our area deanery. I did not look forward to going, and apparently I'm not the only one who feels that way. The priest who gave the homily (who I think was Fr. Thomas Brown at Sacred Heart) said most people put this service on par with going to the dentist. The thought of spilling the beans about yourself to another person, known as confession, is not pleasant.
And yet before I even got to the confessional, I felt a greater peace than I have in a long time. The priest talked of a God who loves us enough to keep Himself on a cross until He died, and that was powerful. Often in Lent I think of Christ's journey to the cross, but last night I focused on what it took for Him to stay there. He could have easily shown the people who mocked Him that He was indeed the son of God and could come off. They would have been proven wrong in an amazing way.
But Christ kept His focus on the long-run, just as He had His whole life. He put aside the majesty and splendor He could have had in the short-run. He saw not only the people in front of Him, but all mankind. He gave us all a chance at future life with Himself and the Father and Holy Spirit.
When someone like myself becomes wrapped up in news stories of political fighting and even fighting within the Church, one can get angry and accusatory. But we pay a price in all that when we lose our own peace and best focus. I was really glad I went to the penance service to start concentrating where I should--on Christ's life, death, and resurrection to His present life where we can meet and know Him.
And yet before I even got to the confessional, I felt a greater peace than I have in a long time. The priest talked of a God who loves us enough to keep Himself on a cross until He died, and that was powerful. Often in Lent I think of Christ's journey to the cross, but last night I focused on what it took for Him to stay there. He could have easily shown the people who mocked Him that He was indeed the son of God and could come off. They would have been proven wrong in an amazing way.
But Christ kept His focus on the long-run, just as He had His whole life. He put aside the majesty and splendor He could have had in the short-run. He saw not only the people in front of Him, but all mankind. He gave us all a chance at future life with Himself and the Father and Holy Spirit.
When someone like myself becomes wrapped up in news stories of political fighting and even fighting within the Church, one can get angry and accusatory. But we pay a price in all that when we lose our own peace and best focus. I was really glad I went to the penance service to start concentrating where I should--on Christ's life, death, and resurrection to His present life where we can meet and know Him.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Maafa21
I just found out about a movie which theorizes that the abortion industry even today is an extension of the eugenics movement. It's called Maafa 21 and you can get to information on the website HERE. The term "eugenics" was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In the 1860's, he applied Darwin's theory, in which survival of the fittest supposedly brought about all evolution to superior beings, to humans. He believed the Caucasian race was superior to any others. What is more, others started getting on the bandwagon and pushed for population control, warning against feeble-mindedness and inability to rise above poverty. Only intelligent, talented people were to marry each other and produce a better and better race. The movie documents many articles written by famous eugenicists of their day. The creators of the movie ask why the percentage of minorities stay the same. Are people of color being encouraged to keep their numbers down?
The scientists in the past believed the Negroid races were inferior to the white because of evolution. Many believed that the African came from the ape and the white person from the African. And even as recently as 2007, James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, seemed to assume the same, considering remarks he made. He was quoted in The Times of London as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent and had to apologize, reported by Randerson and Truscott, "DNA pioneer apologizes over race row," The Guardian (Oct. 18, 2007).
The eugenics movement is now being linked to the abortion industry in the United States. The claim the movie Maafa 21 makes is that the mass sterilization that became prevalent in the early 1900's is still at work today, though it might not be "forced" as it was early in the movement. A good article, though, about forced sterilization is at a George Washington University web page. It is by Edwin Black, "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics," History News Network at GW (Sept 2003).This quote comes from the article link:
The scientists in the past believed the Negroid races were inferior to the white because of evolution. Many believed that the African came from the ape and the white person from the African. And even as recently as 2007, James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, seemed to assume the same, considering remarks he made. He was quoted in The Times of London as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent and had to apologize, reported by Randerson and Truscott, "DNA pioneer apologizes over race row," The Guardian (Oct. 18, 2007).
The eugenics movement is now being linked to the abortion industry in the United States. The claim the movie Maafa 21 makes is that the mass sterilization that became prevalent in the early 1900's is still at work today, though it might not be "forced" as it was early in the movement. A good article, though, about forced sterilization is at a George Washington University web page. It is by Edwin Black, "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics," History News Network at GW (Sept 2003).This quote comes from the article link:
Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.This article also claims that only after eugenics became well-established in the US did it become part of the Nazi psuedo-scientific justification for genocide. It is interesting that the 2008 movie with Ben Stein, Expelled (YouTube trailer HERE), made the same connection to Darwin's theory, eugenics, and the Nazi's. Expelled exposed the current prejudice in academia against any theories which oppose Darwinian evolution.
I have not seen the entire Maafa 21 movie yet, just the first few sections. I hope to watch the whole thing eventually. And I think we must be careful in blaming abortion on this one factor alone. Statistics show a large proportion of non-white women have abortions, as described on a web page of abort73.com HERE. But there are things going on other than elite eugenicists doing clandestine operations to sterilize women as was the case before. Let us not forget the culture has changed so that sex is a constant temptation for young people who do not then want the ensuing responsibility. Also, sex crimes and even human slavery are increasingly parts of our abortion problem.
In fact, one thing the narrators of the Maafa 21 movie have not addressed is the apparent lack of responsibility related to unmarried, teenage pregnancy. I’m sure this factor, with its link to poverty, is a concern for many liberals. There is not always a sinister motive for those who approve of abortion, and in fact these persons can sincerely desire the welfare of African-Americans. They want the females to have more freedom to continue education and have a secure job before they have children. They want the children to be in a home with higher income and better chances for them to make it as well. This is why some African-Americans also see abortion as a freedom of choice issue. The narrators do themselves no favors when they mention welfare in a way that seems like an entitlement that African-Americans are owed. That is not likely to win a lot of sympathy in these days of huge national debt.
However, the movie makes some good points. I think many liberals have never even thought of the angle of genocide or been informed of it. As the movie points out, the press avoids this side of the argument against abortion. Not everyone believes a fetus is a full human being, which muddies the issue.
It does not hurt to examine the mindset of those who set up abortion clinics in poor and usually minority-race neighborhoods. Are they really there for the good of the people involved? Do they want to encourage responsibility or do they want to help people run away from it? Can human life be equated with money and the economy?
The creators of the Maafa 21 movie would contend that, just like latter-day eugenicists, those advocating abortion don't want more of the minority around. I understand the desire to see others be responsible with their own lives and those of their children. But though life without responsibility can be very tough, responsibility has no chance at all without life.
The creators of the Maafa 21 movie would contend that, just like latter-day eugenicists, those advocating abortion don't want more of the minority around. I understand the desire to see others be responsible with their own lives and those of their children. But though life without responsibility can be very tough, responsibility has no chance at all without life.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Re-Evangelization All Over Again
In one of the recent newsletters of Our Sunday Visitor (Jan. 15, 2012), a column by Msgr. Francis Mannion (pg. 19) answered questions about the reality of hell. Now, he believes there is one. But he also says that anyone who has loved or been loved will not end up there. He said he heard this idea "about 1970" and has believed it since then.
It doesn't surprise me this idea circulated in the 70's. All you need is love, right? This has been a pervasive idea among Christians. Of course love is a wonderful reality, an amazing characteristic of our Divine God. But we must also remember that Jesus Christ came to Earth for our redemption because of our sins. He is our true hero, for He overcame a terrible ordeal to win the victory. And he asks us to believe in Him so we may have everlasting life with Him (John 3:16 NABRE).
The idea that all religions are the same is called "indifferentism." Evangelicals kept free of this ideology for a while, but mainstream Protestants and many Catholics subscribe to the idea that one spiritual path is as good as another. Some theologians subscribe to "universalism," in which we are all acceptable. A part of this group may say this is due to Christ's redemptive act which included everyone, but some would not even go so far as to say we needed Him, but that God simply loves all of us and we are all just on different journeys to the great universal oneness of love we will all eventually experience. However, indifferentism is not new and was mentioned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832. He quoted St. Augustine from an even earlier time (born 354 AD): “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit is the form, if it does not live from the root?” (20. St. Augustine, in psalm. contra part. Donat.)
A Church document called "Nostra Aetate" (proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in 1965) says though there may be some parts of truth in all religions, the whole Truth culminates in Jesus Christ. If you know Him, there is no reason to follow another religion. To me, Christianity is a combination of being able to read the Truth in the Scripture and experiencing it with Christ.
Love is a wonderful thing, but many people have loved some people and hated others. Criminals have loved. Did past tyrants and dictators love their children? Probably, at least to some degree. Are they prepared for or worthy of heaven? Remember, heaven is perfect.
There must be a way we are able to be righteous in heaven, and we are told how that can be. The Apostle Paul tells us: 20...no human being will be justified in His sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. (Romans 3:20-23 NABRE),
John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called for a re-evangelization of the Church. I went through a time of doubt and even disbelief myself, influenced by these kinds of theology I have mentioned. Yet it is really worth thinking about the afterlife. The more I read the Bible and prayed, the more I believed you really do have to believe in Jesus Christ, that He was God, and that He came to save us from our sins to enter heaven. God the Father made Him the center of our lives and our hope, and He truly is.
People say a good God would not let people who never heard of Him go to hell. It is God's business how to handle that and should not be used as some excuse to not believe. Christians have faith that God is just, and things would not come out right if there was no justice. But He is also merciful. Each human being who has heard about Christ and has the opportunity to learn must work on their own soul to believe. Hopefully, they will come to do so, and then can help others do the same. The idea that we don't need to believe in Christ to get to heaven, which in my opinion is implied by Msgr. Mannion, is the very reason we need evangelization and re-evangelization.
It doesn't surprise me this idea circulated in the 70's. All you need is love, right? This has been a pervasive idea among Christians. Of course love is a wonderful reality, an amazing characteristic of our Divine God. But we must also remember that Jesus Christ came to Earth for our redemption because of our sins. He is our true hero, for He overcame a terrible ordeal to win the victory. And he asks us to believe in Him so we may have everlasting life with Him (John 3:16 NABRE).
The idea that all religions are the same is called "indifferentism." Evangelicals kept free of this ideology for a while, but mainstream Protestants and many Catholics subscribe to the idea that one spiritual path is as good as another. Some theologians subscribe to "universalism," in which we are all acceptable. A part of this group may say this is due to Christ's redemptive act which included everyone, but some would not even go so far as to say we needed Him, but that God simply loves all of us and we are all just on different journeys to the great universal oneness of love we will all eventually experience. However, indifferentism is not new and was mentioned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832. He quoted St. Augustine from an even earlier time (born 354 AD): “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit is the form, if it does not live from the root?” (20. St. Augustine, in psalm. contra part. Donat.)
A Church document called "Nostra Aetate" (proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in 1965) says though there may be some parts of truth in all religions, the whole Truth culminates in Jesus Christ. If you know Him, there is no reason to follow another religion. To me, Christianity is a combination of being able to read the Truth in the Scripture and experiencing it with Christ.
Love is a wonderful thing, but many people have loved some people and hated others. Criminals have loved. Did past tyrants and dictators love their children? Probably, at least to some degree. Are they prepared for or worthy of heaven? Remember, heaven is perfect.
There must be a way we are able to be righteous in heaven, and we are told how that can be. The Apostle Paul tells us: 20...no human being will be justified in His sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. (Romans 3:20-23 NABRE),
John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called for a re-evangelization of the Church. I went through a time of doubt and even disbelief myself, influenced by these kinds of theology I have mentioned. Yet it is really worth thinking about the afterlife. The more I read the Bible and prayed, the more I believed you really do have to believe in Jesus Christ, that He was God, and that He came to save us from our sins to enter heaven. God the Father made Him the center of our lives and our hope, and He truly is.
People say a good God would not let people who never heard of Him go to hell. It is God's business how to handle that and should not be used as some excuse to not believe. Christians have faith that God is just, and things would not come out right if there was no justice. But He is also merciful. Each human being who has heard about Christ and has the opportunity to learn must work on their own soul to believe. Hopefully, they will come to do so, and then can help others do the same. The idea that we don't need to believe in Christ to get to heaven, which in my opinion is implied by Msgr. Mannion, is the very reason we need evangelization and re-evangelization.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Why Not Drop Out
I had been reading selections from various Christian blogs for a while, mostly linked from the New Advent website home page HERE. New Advent seems to have some process for going through various blogs and and giving choices from about 30-40 posts, some of which are new and some that have been there a few days. I didn't usually read more than 2 or 3 in a day, but I often read the comments for the blogs. (Although now I am getting more into writing my book again, so I will probably not do it as much anymore.)
Many commenters ask how people can still be Catholic, with all the problems we have had. Many times this refers to the sexual predator crisis, but also has hit upon prejudice against women and other problems. In the last month, more scandal has broken. A report by Philip Pullela, "'Monsignors' mutiny' revealed by Vatican leaks," Reuters, Feb 13, 2012, says that a highly-placed Vatican official was transferred out of the Vatican to become an ambassador in Washington because he was allegedly trying to clean up corruption. Supposedly contracts were given out of cronyism instead of the best bid. It is also rumored that a right-hand-man of the Pope is trying to manipulate the number of Italian Cardinals so that another Italian will be voted in as the Pope in the next election. Does this sound like the leaders really care about the flock?
It's not really surprising that people ask why we put up with it. Actually, many don't, and leave the Church. Look at Europe--a great many have left. In Latin America, many are going to Protestant denominations. The problem is, there are human failures that come through in other denominations also. We believe the Roman Catholic Church was the first Church, starting with the Apostle Peter in Rome. And compared to some of the past popes, we're actually probably not doing so badly at the moment (I'm not referring to the popes right at the beginning but for example right before the Reformation when they were trying to sell passes to heaven).
Remember, much love and care comes in the name of Catholicism. We have had hospitals, missions, schools, all meant to help people and improve their lives. These are usually unsung, everyday commitments to follow Christ as well as we can.
Still, to try to hide the bad is to make things worse, as is easily demonstrated by the predator priest fiasco. Many who belong to the Church believe that evil does exist. And evil is very bad indeed. It does not affect only those Church members who have been accused in the news or people who have landed in jail. It can get its hands on any of us. It delights in embarrassing the faithful. It makes every effort to do harm in the worst possible of ways. People can point and shake their heads at how awful things are with the Church. But if they don't recognize sin within themselves, they are the ones who are the worse for it. Because then they don't seek help. If they would think about it a little more deeply, they would realize that the evil they see means that evil exists. We are back with one of the reasons to be in the Church in the first place.
Those in the Church to seek help can find it. Christ died for our sins, and we can go to Him, and only Him, to find redemption.
It is true that while in this life we need to keep trying with all our effort, including prayer, to stay on the right path. Unfortunately, we have trouble with that. We are human, and evil doesn't quit. It keeps trying to get us to the wrong road. It is too often successful. But there is no where like the Church to remind us, when we enter it and kneel within, that something very important is at stake. Then we pray for strength to go on.
Not everyone is in the Church for the right reason. They may have been born into it and decided they want to stay for power, social reasons, pressure from family or whatever. But those who sense God's presence know how overwhelmingly greater He is than any trouble that comes. They know Christ's gift to us of everlasting life, if we only believe in Him (John 3:16 NABRE), overcomes any evil we face now.
Many commenters ask how people can still be Catholic, with all the problems we have had. Many times this refers to the sexual predator crisis, but also has hit upon prejudice against women and other problems. In the last month, more scandal has broken. A report by Philip Pullela, "'Monsignors' mutiny' revealed by Vatican leaks," Reuters, Feb 13, 2012, says that a highly-placed Vatican official was transferred out of the Vatican to become an ambassador in Washington because he was allegedly trying to clean up corruption. Supposedly contracts were given out of cronyism instead of the best bid. It is also rumored that a right-hand-man of the Pope is trying to manipulate the number of Italian Cardinals so that another Italian will be voted in as the Pope in the next election. Does this sound like the leaders really care about the flock?
It's not really surprising that people ask why we put up with it. Actually, many don't, and leave the Church. Look at Europe--a great many have left. In Latin America, many are going to Protestant denominations. The problem is, there are human failures that come through in other denominations also. We believe the Roman Catholic Church was the first Church, starting with the Apostle Peter in Rome. And compared to some of the past popes, we're actually probably not doing so badly at the moment (I'm not referring to the popes right at the beginning but for example right before the Reformation when they were trying to sell passes to heaven).
Remember, much love and care comes in the name of Catholicism. We have had hospitals, missions, schools, all meant to help people and improve their lives. These are usually unsung, everyday commitments to follow Christ as well as we can.
Still, to try to hide the bad is to make things worse, as is easily demonstrated by the predator priest fiasco. Many who belong to the Church believe that evil does exist. And evil is very bad indeed. It does not affect only those Church members who have been accused in the news or people who have landed in jail. It can get its hands on any of us. It delights in embarrassing the faithful. It makes every effort to do harm in the worst possible of ways. People can point and shake their heads at how awful things are with the Church. But if they don't recognize sin within themselves, they are the ones who are the worse for it. Because then they don't seek help. If they would think about it a little more deeply, they would realize that the evil they see means that evil exists. We are back with one of the reasons to be in the Church in the first place.
Those in the Church to seek help can find it. Christ died for our sins, and we can go to Him, and only Him, to find redemption.
It is true that while in this life we need to keep trying with all our effort, including prayer, to stay on the right path. Unfortunately, we have trouble with that. We are human, and evil doesn't quit. It keeps trying to get us to the wrong road. It is too often successful. But there is no where like the Church to remind us, when we enter it and kneel within, that something very important is at stake. Then we pray for strength to go on.
Not everyone is in the Church for the right reason. They may have been born into it and decided they want to stay for power, social reasons, pressure from family or whatever. But those who sense God's presence know how overwhelmingly greater He is than any trouble that comes. They know Christ's gift to us of everlasting life, if we only believe in Him (John 3:16 NABRE), overcomes any evil we face now.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
IC--Irreducibly Connected
The Indiana Senate passed a bill, SB 89, to allow the instruction of Creationism into the classroom (AP article on Fox News HERE). The Discovery Institute, which is the foremost think tank for Intelligent Design Theory (sometimes known as ID), condemns the bill, reported by Robert Crowther II, HERE. The ID proponents think evolution should be taught, but also that persons should be allowed to bring up flaws in the theory. The Creation in question is probably that called Young Earth Creationism, in which some people believe God created the Earth around 6 to 14 thousand years ago.
I disagree with the Discovery Institute. I think we should have long ago come to the realization there are irreconcilable differences between Americans when it comes to our various religions (or lack thereof) and science.
Though the Discovery Institute has been the victim of abuse by the leaders of today's scientific community, they are willing to heap abuse on an even more vilified group, the Young Earth Creationists. They may not intend to be demeaning, and perhaps are even trying to help. But they are not very farsighted if this is the plan.
Our country is based on freedom of religion. We are getting far afield, acting as though we believe it was founded on scientific political correctness. Please remember, not all scientific theories are right. Albert Einstein at one time believed the universe had been eternal, without a beginning. He even fudged a calculation to make his math fit his theory. But he was proven wrong by astronomers, primarily Edwin Hubble, who confirmed that the Universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning, now called the Big Bang. Why is this a lesson that never seems to sink in?
If the Discovery Institute had been around when Einstein theorized the Universe was infinite, are they saying children had to be taught that's the way it is because Albert Einstein said so? This is when the Creationist children would have believed the Universe had not been infinite, but they would be faced by authority figures who taught something against their own faith. And then later Einstein was proven wrong. Are we to say evolution is right, except it's OK to question it? The people at the Design Institute are themselves pandering to the politically correct scientific culture. If evolution is only one of various theories, it should be presented as such and the beliefs of others should be acknowledged from the start.
Though I talk here of whether a theory is correct, it is a separate but even more important matter that some Americans believe it is correct. As long as the religion of the person includes Creationism, it is a matter of freedom of religion. Catholic bishops are recently incensed over an attempt by the government to impose insurance rulings on Church institutions. They say it goes against religious freedom. But where are they when the government has walked all over other denominations in demanding that evolution and only evolution be taught in the nation's public schools?
The Discovery Institute often presents the argument that the Supreme Court has already decided that Creationism is to be kept from the classroom. But there are hundreds of thousands of people marching every year in Washington DC to reverse the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade in which abortion has been made legal. Writers from the Discovery Institute grouse regularly over the decision of US District Judge John Jones in the Dover PA trial about introducing ID into classrooms (TalkOrigins description HERE) but hold as unchangeable the Supreme Court decision to keep Creationism out. Maybe they have their reasons in their own agendas. They regularly talk about the Old Earth and fossils of millions of years old. Perhaps they are unwilling to stretch their abilities in order to consider others with different points of view, such as Young Earth Creationists.
"Irreducible complexity" is a phrase coined by one of Intelligent Design's proponents, Michael Behe. It is time to recognize that many people's belief systems are irreducibly connected to science. Faith forms our biology theories as it forms our laws and political systems. Young Earth Creationists unabashedly start right from their Sacred Text and go from there, as at Answers in Genesis website HERE. This is something the laws must reconcile, and not just collapse under the pressure of anti-religion groups who claim this teaching would be unconstitutional. The government enforces anti-religious views on students in the classroom--those whose mothers are unable to home-school them, that is. This is a large part of our population which is treated thus.
I know that to bring Creation Science into the classroom would be messy. People don't like it when they have to cope with other people's conceptions of truth. For example, those who believe in evolution don't want to think about design. But who are the intelligent ones? The persons who can understand only one point of view, or those who can see a variety of possibilities? Isn't that what scientific exploration is about?
I disagree with the Discovery Institute. I think we should have long ago come to the realization there are irreconcilable differences between Americans when it comes to our various religions (or lack thereof) and science.
Though the Discovery Institute has been the victim of abuse by the leaders of today's scientific community, they are willing to heap abuse on an even more vilified group, the Young Earth Creationists. They may not intend to be demeaning, and perhaps are even trying to help. But they are not very farsighted if this is the plan.
Our country is based on freedom of religion. We are getting far afield, acting as though we believe it was founded on scientific political correctness. Please remember, not all scientific theories are right. Albert Einstein at one time believed the universe had been eternal, without a beginning. He even fudged a calculation to make his math fit his theory. But he was proven wrong by astronomers, primarily Edwin Hubble, who confirmed that the Universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning, now called the Big Bang. Why is this a lesson that never seems to sink in?
If the Discovery Institute had been around when Einstein theorized the Universe was infinite, are they saying children had to be taught that's the way it is because Albert Einstein said so? This is when the Creationist children would have believed the Universe had not been infinite, but they would be faced by authority figures who taught something against their own faith. And then later Einstein was proven wrong. Are we to say evolution is right, except it's OK to question it? The people at the Design Institute are themselves pandering to the politically correct scientific culture. If evolution is only one of various theories, it should be presented as such and the beliefs of others should be acknowledged from the start.
Though I talk here of whether a theory is correct, it is a separate but even more important matter that some Americans believe it is correct. As long as the religion of the person includes Creationism, it is a matter of freedom of religion. Catholic bishops are recently incensed over an attempt by the government to impose insurance rulings on Church institutions. They say it goes against religious freedom. But where are they when the government has walked all over other denominations in demanding that evolution and only evolution be taught in the nation's public schools?
The Discovery Institute often presents the argument that the Supreme Court has already decided that Creationism is to be kept from the classroom. But there are hundreds of thousands of people marching every year in Washington DC to reverse the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade in which abortion has been made legal. Writers from the Discovery Institute grouse regularly over the decision of US District Judge John Jones in the Dover PA trial about introducing ID into classrooms (TalkOrigins description HERE) but hold as unchangeable the Supreme Court decision to keep Creationism out. Maybe they have their reasons in their own agendas. They regularly talk about the Old Earth and fossils of millions of years old. Perhaps they are unwilling to stretch their abilities in order to consider others with different points of view, such as Young Earth Creationists.
"Irreducible complexity" is a phrase coined by one of Intelligent Design's proponents, Michael Behe. It is time to recognize that many people's belief systems are irreducibly connected to science. Faith forms our biology theories as it forms our laws and political systems. Young Earth Creationists unabashedly start right from their Sacred Text and go from there, as at Answers in Genesis website HERE. This is something the laws must reconcile, and not just collapse under the pressure of anti-religion groups who claim this teaching would be unconstitutional. The government enforces anti-religious views on students in the classroom--those whose mothers are unable to home-school them, that is. This is a large part of our population which is treated thus.
I know that to bring Creation Science into the classroom would be messy. People don't like it when they have to cope with other people's conceptions of truth. For example, those who believe in evolution don't want to think about design. But who are the intelligent ones? The persons who can understand only one point of view, or those who can see a variety of possibilities? Isn't that what scientific exploration is about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
