Not a hate-mail, but I don’t have a category for this sort:
I am not a scientist but I am a teacher (not in florida). I am a Christian and personally believe in intelligent design. However, I do not believe it is my place to force Christianity into the classroom either. I will live my life as a Christian and feel free to share my faith when necessary and unforcefully. Anyway, I don’t think anyone will get anywhere in this argument. First, even if there was a “Big Bang” where did the first big rock come from and what hit it? Even science can’t explain something coming from nothing. On the flip-side even Christians can’t explain when or how God began. All I know is that science can only explain so much and so does the bible. So, it’s faith in either God or Science. Faith that God did it or that science will discover it. I personally believe that science studies God’s creation including scientific laws. I also believe that there are some things in the Holy Bible that will better understood in the end. Even the gospels told of secrets that were not shared with the masses. Also, who can argue that evolution exists? That’s fact!!! The argument is creation v. just happening.
-tgilmer
In response to this post, where I called McCain a douche.
Whatever one might say about what this nation ought to be, the fact is that the nation was established as a Christian nation. To the Founding Fathers, this would have gone witout saying - and it is quite clearly the case from the language they used throughout documents of the period, including the Declaration of Independance.
It was also true, however, that by this time in history the hold of Christianity had been greatly weakened, especially amongst those that followed the ideas of the philosophes. The American intellectuals of the day were keen to find the hand of the Christian God in nature, and considered the pursuit of science and understanding religious truth as one and the same. Thus they considered the nature of God to be knowable by observation and personal reflection, and were so thoroughly disgusted by the European wars in the pursuit of one or another version of the Christian God’s word that they incorporated into the US Constitution an amendment making lawful the free expression of a person’s faith, whatsoever it may be.
McCain is not a “douche” for expressing a simple fact. Likewise, I suspect those who are so adamant about pressing home the freedoms of expression and religious choice as outlined in the first amendment would not be so nearly as enthusiastic in defending the freedoms expressed in the second - consider that just a hunch. Indeed, might I speculate that calling McCain a “douche” might have political rather than philosophical or ethical motivations.
-DrCruel
Recent Comments