Creation vs. Evolution

[redrover]

God knows how to spell Shepherd, even if refrigerator magnet makers do not. Anyway, those dogs are better described as Alsatian Police Dogs, not German Schleppers.

Isn't 'humankind' the preferred term? Shouldn't 'he' be rendered as 'He'? Is God male? Whom does he date? Does he have a long hose? A cell phone? His own web site?

Did you mistake me for intelligent life?

 

[H2Andy]

Well, Jefferson and most of the founders were Diests

well, the good thing about diests is that if one doesn't work for you, you can try another

 

[agilis]

Did it seem as though I had? Take your time, think it through.

 

[boulderjohn]

Well, Jefferson and most of the founders were Diests, which by today's standards is close enough.

Washington for sure was a Deist. The trouble we have with a lot of the information from that time is intentionally inaccurate biography. Washington's first biographer, Parson Weems, wanted to inspire the youth of America, so he invented many details of Washington's life for that purpose. Two of the most famous stories from his life are pure fabrications by Weems: cutting down the cherry tree and being observed in private prayer at Valley Forge. Incredibly, both stories were revealed to be lies more than 150 years ago, yet they are still repeated in children's stories today.

Relating directly to this thread, historians generally agree that Washington attended church for the sole purpose of maintaining a public image. In other words, it was a political necessity.

 

[Thalassamania]

Not as much a political requirement as a social and business one. Remember that Sunday church in 18th century America was a major social occasion, if you wanted to find someone, do business, or just relieve boredom, that was one of the only ways.

 

[AXL72]

thought german shephards were a result of evolution, not 8th day or 7th day playdo making by God?

focus people

 

[boulderjohn]

I have long observed that in any group or movement, there comes a time when the balance shifts to the extremists in the group. I have witnessed many occasions myself when I am in a meeting and someone expresses an extreme position with passion. I look around the room, and I see uncomfortable looks on faces denoting "I am not comfortable with this. It goes too far for me, but I don't want to speak up and bring that passion down on me." I have frequently looked into my own soul at such a time and had the same response.

I think we saw it in the last decade in the Republican party, and in the previous decade in the Democratic party. The passionate minority becomes the voice of the organization, and they sweep everyone along in their fervor. Eventually, enough people start saying, "You know, this really isn't right," and the pendulum begins to swing back again.

Historically, there have been several such moments in American religion. The most famous of these are called "the Great Awakenings," which pushed an extreme version of Christian thought on America for what eventually turned out to be brief time periods. The First Great Awakening (1700's) is most famous for producing the Fire and Brimstone preacher Jonathan Edwards. Look up his most famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" for a sample of the theology involved there. The second Great Awakening took place in the 1820's, and its excesses spawned a powerful counter-movement that included the new version of the Unitarian church and the transcendentalist movement, with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.

Another Great Awakening came later, and it produced the anti-evolution movement that led to the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee. That movement, too, died out.

My guess is that in another hundred years, historians will be referring to another such time period in this decade.

 

[AXL72]

ummmmm, boulderjohn, your point is what? That Shakira and Britney Spirs @$$e$ will be talked about as the next great movement?

 

[boulderjohn]

ummmmm, boulderjohn, your point is what? That Shakira and Britney Spirs @$$e$ will be talked about as the next great movement?

I think the current anti-science, anti-thinking fanatacism will fade away before long.

 

[patymeboy]

I think the current anti-science, anti-thinking fanatacism will fade away before long.

The problemb here is that a lot of people with very limited scientific training have a little bit of knowledge and with this they they fancy themselves to be educated. Most people in the third world enjoy the benefits of technology that far exceded that pf the kings of France, however these Hotentots and their compatriots here in America who read the New York Times, could hardly hold their own if they had the opportunity to discuss science with Luie the XVl.
In the same manner, I hardly think I could find many passengers on a 747 able to explain clearly to me why the plane they are riding is able to stay in the air. What we have today is a scientific debate conducted by a bunch of intelectual freeloaders who applaud the demigogery of atheism in the name of science and at the same time deride the pitiful attemts of Christians to counter this demigogery with religious bigotry. These same fools know less about religion than they think they know about science. And so the old adage is perhaps true. Never discuss religion and politics. I might add with people who are bent upon the invinciblity of ignorance.