Well I was watching season one and came across an episode called "From Whence We Came" where the firm takes the case of a High School Principal who fired 2 teachers because they refused to teach Intelligent Design (Creation) along with Evolution in class. Evolutionist was the Plaintiff and Creationists were the Defendants.
It is amazing how even though the Creationists won (sorry for the spoiler) Evolution was still the real winner. Let me explain. When some one, be it a Christian, Jew, or any other belief that believes in a great creator, mixes the theory of evolution with religion, you still get a false religion.
I want to start with the etymology of the word "believe", because you have to believe in the theory of evolution as well as believe in God. This is such a debated topic that people lose focus of the outcome and focus on the means. Let me explain; Means are what people believe the "Facts" are, the outcome is what the facts prove.
Believe is a verb that comes from the Greek word "pistevo". The NOUN version of this word is "pistis" and is translated to English ....faith. (this is a long post waiting to happen on this topic.lol) To believe in Evolution, you have to have faith in it, in the Scientists that are telling you that their scientific studies and research is flawless. You have to have faith in the account of history you have been taught, in the teachers in the schools, in the text books they teach from.
Now, modern secular science tells you that you do not need faith in any of these things because they have facts or unquestionable scientific evidence.
Okay, let me get on to this episode so I can eventually reveal my thesis.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: Why can't you view Intelligent Design as a Science, Ms Turner?Roberta Turner: Because! There is simply no scientific data to support it. How are we to maintain any credibility as Science teachers if we say, "Gee! Despite all this data, there's also another possibility." Intelligent Design makes a mockery of Science. If you wanna teach it as religion course? Fine! But as a Science? It's simply preposterous.
This is a very good example of what most secular scientist make in their defense. But this ridicule can be turned around right back at her if one was to really study scientific history. People need to learn from history instead of making up new things. (Religion included).
Attorney Daniel Gellman: This case is all about politics. It's about getting religion back into schools. Creationism is religious doctrine; it is not supported by scientific data. I'm a Christian. My wife is a Jew. We have wonderful debates. And this country, as a whole should be more theologically literate, but it's not Science! What's happening here today is an attack on evolution. It's clever. Let's call it Intelligent Design. Let's not mention God. But, come on! The Supreme Court banned the teaching of Creationism in the public schools. They were right then, they remain right today, and my client's discharge was unlawful, as well in violation of our time honored tradition of separating Church and State. Of course we have a legitimate Cause of Action.
Shirley Schmidt: That was almost Evangelical. The Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of, or discrimination against any particular religion. But it was never meant to extinguish the notion of a Higher Power. I certainly believe in evolution. Who here among us, while watching the presidential debates could deny that we all come from monkeys. But, what's so wrong with suggesting, as a possible theory, that a Higher Power might have also played a part? As for Church and State, we go to war over God-given rights to Democracy. Let's face it. God is big here. We love God, and we as a nation have an overwhelming belief He had something to do with the creation of human-kind. But, teach that in a Science class? Perish the thought. Nobody here is trying to squash evolution, and I would agree with Mr Gellman, it isn't good Science to suppress information. But, I would ask the court, who here today is trying to do the squashing?
I want to break down some of the Daniel Gellman character's argument. "Creationism is religious doctrine; it is not supported by scientific data. I'm a Christian" This is where we start to see danger. This is something that is saturated modern Christian thought. Actually the literal 6 day 'young earth' creation model is very supported by scientific data, and evidence. It is always distorted and interpreted as something different by bias and brainwashing. Also he said " And this country, as a whole should be more theologically literate, but it's not Science!" Once again making "creation" in to a religious belief and Science some thing more 'real'. Then he flips the argument to a "bait and switch" when he says "What's happening here today is an attack on evolution."
Then he says "...and my client's discharge was unlawful, as well in violation of our time honored tradition of separating Church and State." This really gets under my skin because of the ignorance that most people have when it comes to the separation of church and state. I like what the Shirley Schmidt character says in reply, "As for Church and State, we go to war over God-given rights to Democracy. Let's face it. God is big here. We love God, and we as a nation have an overwhelming belief He had something to do with the creation of human-kind". But that still isn't even enough on that topic, Let me define what Thomas Jefferson meant but this phrase, Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state,"
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
In other words: The Government needs to stay out of the church's business and not vise versa like the secular humanists like to use it.
Now to my point.
This is what the Judge says as he awards the victory to the defendant.
Judge William Howe: It seems as long as you do it in the name of the Almighty, one is free to abandon not only common sense and Science, but also the facts. But I am also concerned about a secular society squeezing faith out of our lives. We've all witnessed the ridiculous lawsuits to stop Nativity scenes at Christmas, to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. God has always been a part of who and what we are as a nation. On our currency it reads, 'In God we trust.' The Declaration of Independence speaks of God. How we are created, endowed by our creator it references our Supreme Judge of the world and Divine Providence, God. And I'm sorry, anybody who has ever held a new born child in his hands must make room for the chance that a Higher Power exists. And it shouldn't offend you west Scientists to say, "Hey! We just don't know." I find the decision to include Intelligent Design along with evolution into the Science curriculum does not violate the establishmentcause of the First Amendment. I'm ruling in favor of the defendant. This lawsuit is dismissed.
Here is my Thesis: Even though the Creationists won the case, evolution was still the winner.
1. Every one here still believes in evolution (even the so called Christians)
2. Every one here thinks that Creation is religion and Science is fact.
3. No one wants to be accused of "attacking evolution"
=============
Okay, now here is my reformed thought on the topic.
I used to debate evolutionists. Not professional debates but friendly verbal debates and hostile internet debates. I would always declare my side, the evidence to support it (leaving out the Bible entirely) and stay away from logical fallacy. This was one of the things that lead me to having high blood pressure because the evolutionists would always win in their own minds. The Evolutionists would always change their evidence and say that real science is always changing. They also debase you and ridicule you especially if you have no credentials. They feel that only people that have recognized credentials can know the truth. Some one who has gone through the teachings for years and have mastered the theory. In my opinion some one who has gone through that much indoctrination has been brain washed anyway. After I reformed, and started studying theology instead of science, I find even more reason for me to believe in creation.
Since the creation, the creature has found ways to try and disprove the creator. Many pagan religions turn to nature to explain the supernatural by worshiping the creation instead of the creator. Here we find the same thing in the followers of the theory of evolution. Richard Baxter says "...that they study the creature before the Redeemer, and set themselves to physics, and metaphysics, and mathematics, before they set themselves to theology; whereas, no man that hath not the vitals of theology, is capable of going beyond a fool in philosophy. Theology must lay the foundation, and lead the way of all our studies". Today modern secular science, like it always has, tries to disprove God. I believe in the Sovereignty of God. He controls the actions of every creature. God controls the minds and hearts of men. We have theological and scriptural reference and proofs of this. I no longer debate people on evolution, I will tell them how it is, scientifically and theologically, but we need to look at it more as evangelizing instead of debating. If they do not have or want truth in their minds and hearts, all we can do is plant the seeds and walk away, not argue.
You can not mix the theory of Evolution with the theologically sound doctrine of Christ. You can mix science with scripture however, because the Bible is scientifically accurate and I believe that this will only be accepted by God's Elect, because the Scripture is written for them alone. . This is where most people get confused because of the secular propaganda, Evolutionists want you to believe that Evolution is Science and not religion. It is a religion, a religion of secular humanism. So they disassociate the word science from religion to help push their argument. They want you to believe that evolution is not a religion because it is based on facts, thus is science. In contrast they want you to believe that creation is a religion because is based on something that is not real, thus not science. This confuses many people even God's elect. That is why so many fall victim to the modern twisting of scripture introducing "Gap Theory" and "Day Age" Theory. The term is "Theological Evolutionist" and it is getting more popular in the apostate Christian churches.
The best way to win against an evolutionist, is prayer. If it is a loved one, or even just a friend, if they are Elect, then they will eventually come to reason if it be God's will.
I am long winded.. I am going to go watch some more Boston Legal.. lol
Jym
0 comments:
Post a Comment