Methodist Church mislabels ID as "faith-based"
The National Center for Science Education reported,
Intelligent Design is not "faith-based" -- it entirely consists of scientific observations and scientific analysis. The Methodist Church has obviously been taken in by Darwinist propaganda.
The text of the resolution is here.
At its General Conference held in Fort Worth, Texas, from April 22 to May 2, 2008, the United Methodist Church adopted three resolutions relevant to the teaching of evolution in the public schools. First, and most directly concerned with education, the UMC expressed its opposition to "the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools," noting that "the United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and [s]tate" and that "[t]he promotion of religion or any particular religion in the public schools is contrary to the First Amendment."
. . . . .With over eight million members in the United States served by over forty-five thousand ministers, the United Methodist Church is the third largest religious denomination in the United States.
Intelligent Design is not "faith-based" -- it entirely consists of scientific observations and scientific analysis. The Methodist Church has obviously been taken in by Darwinist propaganda.
The text of the resolution is here.
Labels: Establishment clause (new #1), Evolution education (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/21/2008 08:55:00 PM
21 Comments:
> Intelligent Design is not "faith-based" -- it entirely consists of scientific observations and scientific analysis. <
The judges are wrong. The Methodist Church is wrong. There was no Holocaust. The Earth is Flat.
Sorry Larry. Just making an unsupported statement will not make it true.
Good point, Larry...
The Methodist legislation makes no sense, while atheists applaud such an endorsement of their science and the endorsement of keeping ID out of the public schools, another bill 80990 which was passed endorses creationism. Talk about shooting on both ends of the mouth or in this case the issue. It absolutely makes no sense, so much confusion in that so-called assembly.
ViU driveled,
>>>>> The judges are wrong. <<<<<
What "judges"? Only one judge, Judge Jones, ever ruled on intelligent design. His decision was not peer-reviewed by appellate judges. According to you Darwinists, peer review is a sine qua non for truth.
Judge Jones once said that peer review,
is needed to show that something's true.
But that's OK,
he didn't say
his Dover ruling was peer-reviewed too.
>>>>> The Methodist Church is wrong. <<<<<<
Some religions, e.g., Islam and orthodox Judaism (sometimes), do not accept Darwinism. So who is right?
>>>>> There was no Holocaust. <<<<<
I never said that there was no holocaust -- I only said that there was no "systematic" holocaust because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
>>>>> The Earth is Flat. <<<<<
I have already shown that the "flat earth" story is a colossal hoax --
The idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says.
Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical.”
>>>>> Sorry Larry. Just making an unsupported statement will not make it true. <<<<<
You are the one who makes unsupported statements.
> What "judges"? <
You are always criticising judges, you cretinic fathead.
> Only one judge, Judge Jones, ever ruled on intelligent design. <
Irrelevant.
> Some religions, e.g., Islam and orthodox Judaism (sometimes), do not accept Darwinism. So who is right? <
Those who accept science may be. These obviously don't.
> I only said that there was no "systematic" holocaust because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. <
Of course this has been shown to be absurd yet you continue to repeat it.
> I have already shown that the "flat earth" story is a colossal hoax <
So you no longer believe that the Earth is flat. Next thing you will be telling us that you no longer believe that meteors come from inside the atmosphere or that the moon landings were staged in Hollywood. Will wonders never cease?
Michael said...
>>>>>> The Methodist legislation makes no sense, while atheists applaud such an endorsement of their science and the endorsement of keeping ID out of the public schools, another bill 80990 which was passed endorses creationism. Talk about shooting on both ends of the mouth or in this case the issue. <<<<<<
80990 endorsed the Clergy Letter Project. I don't see how that endorsed creationism.
>>>>> So you no longer believe that the Earth is flat. <<<<<<
So all my general statements devolve into discussions about me. For example, when I say that arbitrary censorship on blogs and Wickedpedia is a problem, all you can say is that I was not censored or that I deserved to be censored. What an idiot.
Larry, there's a typo in your headline: it should read "Methods Church labels ID as 'faith'based'"
The United Methodist Church has been losing membership rapidly: from 60.0 members per 1000 US population in 1960, to 28.7 per 1000 in 2002-4. Meanwhile, fundamentalist denominations such as the Pentacostals have surged in membership.
Evidently the UMC is given to "theological liberalism" and thus is friendly to Darwinism. Most Americans are wise enough not to swallow Darwinism, which is the notion that all species were somehow produced by chance, competitive struggle, death, and slaughter.
Judge Jones' Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is also friendly to Darwinism; and it's also rapidly losing membership.
If the Darwinists want to know why fundamentalism has been growing in America, they might look in the mirror.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's absurdly ignorant to think that intelligent design is faith-based. As Larry points out, ID relies only upon the logical and mathematical analysis of scientifically established evidence.
Hence there are agnostics who play an important role in ID. One of them is DaveScot (David Springer,) who is one of the lead moderators of Bill Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent. He assumes that the intelligence is space aliens.
Recently DaveScot has been mocking the Judeo-Christian God as "the bearded thunderer." Yes, on Dembski's blog, even though Dembski is a devout Evangelical Christian.
ID simply purports to show that intelligence was necessarily involved in the production of some parts or aspects of living things. Christians prefer to assume that the intelligence was God; but many other interpretations are possible.
So, ignorant Darwin-fans, you can Google "bearded thunderer" and "uncommon descent" and see what comes up.
UMC resolution 80990 endorsed the Zimmerman Clergy Letter, which is an extreme and bizarre endorsement of Darwinism. It is nothing but Darwinist propaganda.
> So all my general statements devolve into discussions about me. <
Yes. Why do you make them that way?
> For example, when I say that arbitrary censorship on blogs and Wickedpedia is a problem <
And you can never give a valid example. All you can say is that you were arbitrarily censored which we have shown, is not true.
Why do you have to make yourself the subject?
The Zimmerman Clergy Letter absurdly declared Darwinism, the Darwinist form of evolution, to be "a foundational scientific truth." In fact Darwinism is nothing but an absurdly improbable hypothesis. (Zimmerman is a biologist who dogmatically believes in Darwinism.)
One of the signers of this Clergy Letter was none other than The Rev. Harold Hand, who is the pastor of the church that Judge Jones attends! So Hand is a wild-eyed true-believer in Darwinism:
A preacher named Hand: "It's Holy
To have faith in Darwin, and wholly!
So our Jones must decide
To take up his side,
And block all his foes, like a goalie!"
My gods, Jim's off his meds, Larry never takes his... this blog is running amock. We have Larry's usual insanity plus Jim's insipid poetry (worse than usual; off topic as always)...
< bill 80990 (!) >
Busy, busy!
“No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session...” is a quote lifted mirthlessly, not from a 1971 Times editorial but from a 105-year-old New York court decision [1 Tucker 248 (N. Y. Surr. 1866)]. Has been (falsely?) attributed to Daniel Webster or Ambrose Bierce.
< DaveScot (David Springer), who is one of the lead (oxymoron) moderators (five-alarm oxymoron) ... moron's moron >
Jim absurdly and incorrectly wrote: The Zimmerman Clergy Letter absurdly declared Darwinism, the Darwinist form of evolution, to be "a foundational scientific truth." In fact Darwinism is nothing but an absurdly improbable hypothesis.
First, before I tell you what's wrong with your statements (just about everything), what is the difference between Darwinist evolution and evolution?
The word "evolution" has long been properly used to refer to the rise of species in general by tranformation of other species, in a long process. Thus we speak of Lamarck's theory of evolution, Darwin's theory of evolution, Hoyle's theory of evolution, Behe's theory of evolution, etc. etc. The conventional or orthodox theory of evolution is similar to Darwin's and thus has long been properly referred to as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinist evolution", to distinguish it from theories of evolution such as Behe's and Lamarck's, which invoke different causes.
I believe in "evolution" in the sense which you can find in The Oxford English Dictionary Online, definition 8(a). I don't believe in Darwinism. Since I've made my views sufficiently clear for some time, ignorant Darwin-fans shouldn't expect me to debate them endlessly.
I should add that most American biologists have long been devout and dogmatic Darwinists; who thus rather deviously and incorrectly speak of "evolution" as necessarily synonymous with Darwinism. So when the Clergy Letter refers to "evolution" it is clear, in context, that it means Darwinism; and not "evolution" in any different or wider sense.
If our Darwin-fans succeed in educating themselves to some degree, it may be worthwhile to talk to them. Unfortunately, that hardly seems to be the case at present. I don't have the time.
Larry farfarman said...
80990 endorsed the Clergy Letter Project. I don't see how that endorsed creationism.
Larry, I tend not to disagree with little or no substance...80990 bill states as follows...
As disciples of Christ, we are called to be good stewards of God's creation. Accordingly, we call upon The United Methodist Church to adopt fresh ways to respond to the perils that now threaten the integrity of God's creation and the future of God's children.
That my friend is an "endorsement" of creationism in the wording of the bill.
Are you the type Larry that would have believed in the Earth being physically centered in the Universe as secular science produced a math formula that it was. Certainly the Bible didn't make such a claim but later on it was adopted by certain so-called churches, much like how evolution is now today.
Well it took 1,000 years to disprove the hypothesis when the first telescope was invented.
So Larry would you have believed in the Earth being the center of the Universe since it came from science rather than from the Bible?
Michael said,
>>>>>>80990 bill states as follows...
As disciples of Christ, we are called to be good stewards of God's creation. Accordingly, we call upon The United Methodist Church to adopt fresh ways to respond to the perils that now threaten the integrity of God's creation and the future of God's children.
That my friend is an "endorsement" of creationism in the wording of the bill. <<<<<<
Well, that's not biblical creationism. When people just say "creationism," usually they mean "biblical" creationism.
>>>>>> Are you the type Larry that would have believed in the Earth being physically centered in the Universe as secular science produced a math formula that it was. <<<<<<
What math formula is that?
>>>>>> Well it took 1,000 years to disprove the hypothesis when the first telescope was invented. <<<<<
Heliocentrism was proposed by Copernicus, who didn't have a telescope.
Post a Comment
<< Home