The UMC seems to be in a pro-science mood when it passed resolution 80839
Evolution and Intelligent Design (80839-C1-R9999)
Add a new resolution as follows:
WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and State (paragraph 164, Book of Discipline, 2004, p. 119),
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.
Rationale
Creationism and Intelligent Design are appropriate topics in public education classes such as comparative religion, literature, or philosophy since scientific method incorporates critical thinking processes. All truth is God’s truth. The promotion of religion or any particular religion in the public schools is contrary to the First Amendment.
Holy moly! And from KANSAS religionists too!
Comment by Ski — May 21, 2008 @ 11:16 am
>>>>> Holy moly! And from KANSAS religionists too! <<<<<<
What? The Methodist church is national — it is not just in Kansas.
Also, Intelligent Design is not “faith-based”! ID consists entirely of scientific observations and scientific analysis.
Comment by Larry Fafarman — May 22, 2008 @ 2:56 am
Larry
What exactly is the difference between the “Intelligent Designer” and God?
Comment by Benajmin Franklin — May 22, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
ROTFL, you are so funny.
Please tell us how ID explains the bacterial flagella?
Oops… Silence…
That’s because ID is not based on scientific observations and analysis, other than to argue against a part of evolutionary theory called Darwinian theory.
When you ask ID Creationists to describe how ID explains a particular feature you either get silence or a Dembskian response
No wonder ID is scientifically vacuous.
Comment by idexposed — May 22, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Intelligent Designer is God placed in areas of ignorance to provide an ‘explanation’. In other words, poor theology at best.
Comment by idexposed — May 22, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
To those who question ID, or creationism. I am not a scientist. I am not a theologan. What I am is a servant of God, and His kingdom. Your Greek knowledge of the sciences is truely aspirational, but know this, regardless what you may believe to be true or applicable to the sciences, it can be refuted by a creation scientist, and in most respects have a more viable explanation than the humanist. Also, keep in mind, the world which we now live will be destroyed with a fervant heat, and will be created again. Therefore, all your current scientific accomplishments will have to be relearned. God makes fools of all humanists, and the second coming of His Son will be the ultimate mockery of all those who have persecuted Him.
My point is this. Don’t judge a believer for what he believes, for in the same way, God will judge you at the consumation. From what I do know about a cell, is that it is made of too many mechanical processes to ever have evolved from chemical soup. The DNA alone screams of ID, and is the testimony of the creation power of all mighty God. The truth of this matter is that both Creationism and Evolution are BOTH religions. Both are based on a theory. One that God creates, and the other of presumption created by secular man. One theory is painted through Spirit inspired scripture, while the other determined by circumstantial evidence that changes from one study to another. One theory isn’t allowed to change, even though there are many within the church who try. The other is changed daily to support a certain scientists findings. Creation proclaims boldly in a God who will judge humanity, and humanistic evolution screams for the sensorship of God, making man god instead.
Friends, you are fully capable of making your minds up on this matter. If you want to believe in evolution, then by all means believe. However, all I ask, is that allow both sides of the argument to be portraited by intellectuals. Again, I am neither a scientist or preacher. I am a follower of Christ Jesus, and believe in whatever He says… not man. So your arguments will not sway me for I know the Truth. As for bacterial flagella, let me ask you this. What came first, the tail or the cell?
Peace be with you my friends
Comment by K12SQUARED — November 30, 2008 @ 1:26 pm