Intelligent Design Exposed

May 19, 2008

United Methodist Church: Evolution and Intelligent Design

Filed under: Uncategorized — idexposed @ 11:12 pm

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.

About these ads

16 Comments »

  1. Holy moly! And from KANSAS religionists too!

    Comment by Ski — May 21, 2008 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  2. >>>>> 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 | Reply

  3. Larry

    What exactly is the difference between the “Intelligent Designer” and God?

    Comment by Benajmin Franklin — May 22, 2008 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

  4. Also, Intelligent Design is not “faith-based”! ID consists entirely of scientific observations and scientific analysis.

    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

    As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

    No wonder ID is scientifically vacuous.

    Comment by idexposed — May 22, 2008 @ 4:17 pm | Reply

    • I am not a proponent of I.D. for 2 reasons, it fails to identify the designer and blindly accepts the assumptions made to create “dates” of fossils and rocks. As far as the fact everything we see is intelligently designed does one need a candle to see the sun? Not one shred of scientific evidence for transmutation has ever been found, evolutionists try and pretend it was never part of evolution to start with. If all we are talking about is Natural Selection and adaptation , a theory first penned in England’s top naturalist journal of the day iin 1835 – to 37 by the staunch creationist Edwin Blyth we have no argument, I have never met anyone that did not realize animals change over time to adapt to their enviroment. In fact without NS the creation model would not work. Natural Selection culls unwanted traits by allowing the animals without the desired traits for survival in a paticular enviroment to diie off thereby removing them from the genepool. That is a loss of genetic information ,evolution requires totally novel information never before seen in the biosphere.
      Every experiment ever made to demonstrate evolution has failed miserably so evolutionists just make up a new story that they were never meant to. Thousands of generations of bacteria have been created in the lab and nuked in every which way to create mutations at a much higher rate than expected in nature and guess what they evolved into? Suprise! Bacteria! Evolution is truly amazing.

      One has to choose to believe that chemicals ,against odds so far out that the 1 x 10 to the 50th considered the level of absurdity, the point at which it would never happen enen if given a 30 ba old earth is trillions of times more likely than the odds of chemicals spontaneously generating themselves in to “simple” life forms. There is no such thing as a simple life form, the least complex one we can imagine in unimaginably specifically complex. Then one has to believe that miraculously this one celled creature evolved by some unknowm imaginary process into a multi-celled creature then into some sort of sea creature which came out on the land and some of them decided to head back out to sea and amphibians became reptiles and then mammals or birds then monkeys and apes. What else could an ape like creature be than a monkey or an ape?

      Added up evolutionists themselves have come up with odds from a 1 x ten to a million to one 100 million to one.{Westar conference }. And of course you have to ignore the numerous frauds from the British Museums “losing” a 20 ton chunk of rock with a human skeleton inside to the numerous and outrageous frauds of the “Doctorer of Science” as he was known by his peers Earnst Haekel to Piltown Man to Piltdown Bird and all the deleberately misleading Lucy Dolls used to lie to school childre by showing them an ape with human eyes, lipe, feet, hands, even genitailia when the real apes ,Australopithecines {southern apes} like Lucy had hands fingers with much more curved , ape-like fingers than modern apes let alone humans and a locking wrist , they were aboreal apes , knuckle walkers.

      Comment by Frank Cox — August 16, 2013 @ 6:20 am | Reply

    • Dear Idexposed:

      I would recommend that you do what only 1 in a 1000 Americans have done, read the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere does it mention this wall of seperation between church and state, The popular belief that Thomas Jefferson wrote the amendment is absurd. He was the ambassador to France and was not in the country at the time and e-mail was yet to be invented. That statement was in a letter from Jefferson , a Christian despite progressive claims, to the Danbury Baptist association to answer the concern that kept them from supporting the feds , that there would be a State church for the whole country just as England had. Many of the individual states already had state churches, Mass. and Virginia were Congregationalist for instance and that practice is stiil allowed by the Constitution though in reality it could never happen.
      The conscripts of all the discussions and debates about the second amendment can be downloaded from the library of congress and it is clear the intents of the founding fathers for the federal government to never have the power to create a national church and in no way was it hostile to Christianity , it just did not hold one sect over another . But from Benjamin Franklin to George Washimgton and on down it was agreed that without a strong faith in the God of the Bible could our nation survive and look at where we are now that America has abandoned God’s word, we are on the bring of collapse and a loss of our standard of living and then our very freedom so many died to give us.
      There is no bigger lie today than that our forefathers were hostile to Christianity or wanted it kept out of government , the public square, or the marketplace , the exact opposite is true.

      Comment by Frank Cox — August 16, 2013 @ 6:42 am | Reply

  5. What exactly is the difference between the “Intelligent Designer” and God?

    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 | Reply

    • I.D. allows anything to be God. space aliens, your dog, neighbors cat , whatever. That is why I do not agree with it.The evidence for there being a supernatural being of supreme intelligence is obvious , D.N.A. for instance , Science knows of only one source of information, the willfull act of an intelligent mind, even secularist have a field of study called bio-informatiion. All of the combined intelligence of mankind cannot create a single grain of sand from nothing , much less D.N.A. which has to translate itself to exist and therefore had to come into being instantaneously.

      Comment by Frank Cox — August 16, 2013 @ 7:06 am | Reply

  6. 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 | Reply

  7. the public schools on our district can really give some good education to young kids. they have high standards ‘;*

    Comment by Flannel Sheets — December 3, 2010 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  8. LET US LIVE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE GUIDELINES.OUR OWN THINKING WILL NEVER MAKE US INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

    Comment by FUNGAI — August 12, 2011 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

    • Neither will being “good people” . Salvation is a gift we do not deserve. We try and refrain from sin out of love for the one who suffered and died for us , not to earn salvation.

      Comment by Frank Cox — August 16, 2013 @ 7:09 am | Reply

  9. I know this site offers quality dependent articles and
    additional material, is there any other site which gives these stuff
    in quality?

    Comment by Immigration Lawyer Romford — March 22, 2013 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  10. It seems that the only argument for evolution is that the majority of scientist believe it and any who don’t are not ” real” scientists. The truth is the history of sciencedocuments many time more failures the majority believed in than successful ones and many of the world[s best scientists are / were creationists. This would include Gallileo , Sir Issac Newton, Kelvin , Samuel Morse ,Louis Pasteur , Werner von Braun ,Robert Goodard {modern rocketry } ,Dr. Ben Carson {pioneered seperating twins cojoined at the head ,Dr. John Baunardner {world’s leading expert in computer modeling for plate tectonics ,created the Terra Programetc.etc. The majority of scientists believe in evolution but so what? If it was what it claims to be no biologist or geographer could funtion without believing it yet many thousands do , Even the first man to document what is now known as Natural Selection, Edwin Blyth, was a creationist. Odd as it may sound Steven J.Gould , the famous atheist/Marxist from Harvard documented with records opened to him by Darwin’s family that Charles lied about not reading Blyth’s paper some 25 years before he penned the “Preservation of Favoured Raced in the Struggle for Life ,a.k.a. “The Origin of the Species ” which odldy never taled about their origin.

    Comment by Frank Cox — August 16, 2013 @ 1:22 am | Reply

  11. I am a United Methodist and a former Southern Baptist Deacon. I do not believe in macroevolution; however, I do accept microevolution. As a Christian, I believe in the Holy Trinity and the Apostles’ Creed. I accept an Old Earth and Universe. I would say that I believe in the Intelligent Design Theory. Darwin is still on Trial; I have not seen any monkeys changing into something else. Could the Triune God create through evolutionary creationism. I believe it is possible; however, I do not believe he did.

    Comment by Charles E. Miller, Jr. BA in German, Old Dominion University; MA in Religion, Liberty University — August 23, 2013 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

  12. Mr. Cox, your last answer is very interesting. Good work and God bless.

    Comment by Charles E. Miller, Jr. BA in German, Old Dominion University; MA in Religion, Liberty University — August 23, 2013 @ 5:21 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: