Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
US doomed if creationist president elected--scientists
newsinfo.inquirer.net — A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.
cosmikdebris- 241 diggs
- digg it
- lee1199, on 01/06/2008, -12/+22To these creationists scientists are just the devil in disguise, they will not listen, they don't want to listen, they are not open to rational thought. They have been brain washed from birth with these fairy tales and had it drummed into them that they will burn in hell if they upset the benevolent one. All you can do is encourage anyone who is thinking of voting republican not to vote for "fire and brimstone Hukabee"
- JimmySpaza, on 01/06/2008, -19/+6I dugg you down because you assumed ALL creationists think and act alike...that scientists are the "devil in disguise".
Furthermore, you assume that ALL creationists have been brain washed at birth...as opposed to how many objectively look at the universe and conclude that God must exist. How do you account for the many creationists who used to be atheists and agnostics? How do you account for the many creationists who believe in God because of science, not in spite of it?
Your post smacks of intellectual arrogance when it insinuates that people who want to listen and are open to rational thought are going to have the same conclusions as you.- annonimality, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4"How do you account for the many creationists who used to be atheists and agnostics?" - How do you account for the many atheists and agnostics that used to be Christians?
- Infidelephant, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4JimmySpaza:
It's really rather simple. (at the risk of sounding "intellectually arrogant.")
If, when you look at the universe around you, and decide that it is all just too amazing to have happened randomly, that - by its very nature - presupposes that whatever created it that way would be REQUIRED to be even more amazing.
The next logical step would be to ask: "What/who created the Creator?" And how many steps must one climb to get to the top?
Creationism does NOT answer the question. It poses quantitatively many more ad infinitum.
If your answer is simply "The Creator has ALWAYS existed?" It's a cop-out that cannot be proven and only accepted by the dreaded F-word. (faith)
Creationism does NOT belong in science class until God comes down and makes it ABSOLUTELY APPARENT that he/she/it had something to do with it. Until then, I will stick to that which can be tested - without adding additional steps that don't answer any real questions - but only muddy up the waters and dumb down our meager attempt at understanding this vast, wondrous universe.
- Angostura, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Presumably the scientists are not attempting to talk to hardcore creationists, they are instead attempting to sway voters who are not hardcore creationist and who have not considered the risks of electing one.
- JimmySpaza, on 01/06/2008, -19/+6I dugg you down because you assumed ALL creationists think and act alike...that scientists are the "devil in disguise".
- MyBookie, on 01/06/2008, -2/+12I must be ignorant of the issues, but aren't all of the candidates creationists? Who was come out in support of evolution?
- brentinkc, on 01/06/2008, -3/+12I think the thing that's scaring people is that Republicans denounce evolution AND separation of church and state.
- pintomp3, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3all of them are christian, but only 4 have said they don't accept evolution. huckabee, paul, brownback, and tancredo.
- vuoto, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5At one of the GOP debates, I seem to recall the question asked if any of the candidates don't believe in evolution and ol' Huckelberree raised his hand. I understand he also prefers "intelligent falling" to the law of gravity.
- brentinkc, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Oh man, wish I could digg you twice for "intelligent falling".
Nice work.
- brentinkc, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Oh man, wish I could digg you twice for "intelligent falling".
- rejectpenguin, on 01/06/2008, -27/+35This article was front paged because:
[ ] Apple related
[ ] Ron Paul
[ ] Atheist related
[x] Anti Christian
[ ] Digg/Kevin Rose related- gbarberi, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2A little early posting that... aren't we?
Although, very likely that this will hit the front page.- doctechnical, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Again.
- spaceman84, on 01/06/2008, -6/+31Anti-Christian? How about pro-Science?
- Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -9/+1Semantics.
- BigW, on 01/06/2008, -3/+14*****. They have been and there are many, many Christian scientists. In fact there have been scientists in many different faiths. It is the height of intellectual arrogance to claim that scientists must not believe in God.
- Zarokima, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Science and religion are absolutely opposed. Science is all about logic and evidence, and religion is all about blind faith. Science provides questions and attempts to answer them, where as religion provides answers that must never be questioned. The term "religious scientist" is an oxymoron in this modern time.
- BigW, on 01/06/2008, -3/+14*****. They have been and there are many, many Christian scientists. In fact there have been scientists in many different faiths. It is the height of intellectual arrogance to claim that scientists must not believe in God.
- Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -9/+1Semantics.
- Leion07, on 01/06/2008, -2/+5I vaguely remember already seeing this on the front page...
- imightbewrong, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4digg used to be so much better
- terracottapai, on 01/06/2008, -1/+31754 diggs yesterday.
http://digg.com/politics/Scientists_say_US_doomed_ ... - DephexTwin, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Yes, but if it is pro-evolution, that makes it anti-Ron Paul... so it's a conundrum.
- vuoto, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3I don't think this is anti-Christian so much as it is anti-insane.
You would think that with all the trouble we're having with religious fanatics in the rest of the world, we'd have the good sense not to cater to the religious fanatics here at home.- Freetime000, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Your comment is redundant and an anti-christian response with twisted claims to the contrary. Fanatics? I say your response is that of a science theory fanatic. Theory meaning unproven. By the way neither side has been "proven" Evoltion is still classified as Theory.
- gbarberi, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2A little early posting that... aren't we?
- JimmySpaza, on 01/06/2008, -32/+6So, a relatively small group of scientists whine about creationists. These guys need to be the ones under scrutiny...for believing the ludicrous notion that human beings evolved from a bacteria over 2 billion years ago, randomly, without intelligent intervention, and without meaning or purpose.
- Dimensio, on 01/06/2008, -2/+15Do you have an argument of substance to offer?
- Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -1/+14So that means some colossal being in the sky, for whom there isn't even the slightest semblance of explanation, created everything as-is while also creating "false science" that uses physical evidence and logic to show that things didn't actually happen that way? Of course! It's so obvious!
- doctechnical, on 01/06/2008, -0/+15Your argument boils down to "I can't understand how this happened, therefore magic must be involved".
P.T. Barnum had a name for people like you. - annonimality, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Natural Selection isn't a random process. Learn up on Evolution before you criticize it.
- DrywallThief, on 01/06/2008, -5/+5Not to mention that a lot of these creationists are just flat-out dishonest. I don't want a deceived, stupid, or dishonest (or all three) person running our country.
- vuoto, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1I have a problem with electing a president who has wacky beliefs, and the belief that there's a bearded guy who lives up on the clouds qualifies as wacky. Not to mention that there's another candidate who wears magic underwear. No, I think "rational" is the least we can expect from a president.
- noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2"deceived, stupid, or dishonest "
You just described the majority of our recent presidents and the majority of our current candidates.
- Dantetheinferno, on 01/06/2008, -4/+8Or were this not digg, it'd read something like, don't elect ron paul.
http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/12/22/just-a-t ...- Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3An exception can easily be made for Paul since he's not seeking to further any religious/creationist agenda. He is religious himself, but his goals as a politician are not.
- pintomp3, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1his goals as a politician aren't religiously motivated? is that why he wants states to be able to tell women what they can do with their bodies, despite the right to privacy clearly outlined in the constitution? is that why he denies the separation of church and state in the constitution?
- DephexTwin, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Interesting spin.
- vuoto, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Dr. Paul has his own set of wacky beliefs, thank you very much. I'm still glad he's in the race though, because at least he's challenging the conventional wisdom that's been so destructive in US politics since Ronald Reagan.
- Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3An exception can easily be made for Paul since he's not seeking to further any religious/creationist agenda. He is religious himself, but his goals as a politician are not.
- Andareed, on 01/06/2008, -2/+14"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine."
- nicksauce, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Or the Stork theory as an alternative to sexual reproduction.
- bobartig, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2But Michael Behe, a "bio-physicist", and proponent of Creationism would like to "redefine" science to include pseudosciences, which is really to say make-believe. He has said, under oath during Intelligent Design related court cases, that he would want astrology and witchcraft if it meant creationism would be accepted as a 'science'.
In other words, Creationism is SO MESSED UP, that it has the power to bring fundamental christians and Pagans into the same interest groups. Of course, I'm not under the impression that wiccans and mystics are really that interested in having their alternative faiths viewed as a science to begin with. - vuoto, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1If the creationists have their way and introduce religious education through the back door of our public schools, we may be teaching astrology and witchcraft next. They're no less crazy.
- dukeeeey, on 01/06/2008, -5/+5can't evolution and creation co-exist peacefully ?
god created the big bang, the laws of the universe governed the rest
but really, whatever is the truth, it makes no difference to anything.- cybermort, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3not if you follow the word of the bible, torah or quran.
- nicksauce, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1It DOES make a different to things. Science has proven that species evolved over hundreds of millions of years, leading to what we have now. Many presidential candidates believe that the earth was created
- nicksauce, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1Err digg cut out my comment, allow me to finish. .... created less than 8000 years ago. Not only does this show a complete misunderstanding of science in an extremely scientific era, but also the inability to form rational thoughts and opinions based on evidence. Is that the kind of person who should be leading the free world? The kind who cannot form rational thoughts?
- gstep, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1"it makes no difference to anything"
I wouldn't just say that it makes no difference. I agree that both theories can exist and oppose each other because well, they're both THEORIES. It's funny to me that scientists still refer to it as theory, and then blast anyone who doesn't believe it. It's pretty hard to "prove" something that happened millions of years ago, but its also equally hard to disprove a creator. Back to my point though, this does actually matter. The existence of a creator opens up room for a heaven and a hell. And if thats real, then compared to just dying, its a hell of a difference.- Infidelephant, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2qstep:
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
IN SCIENCE, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
IN COMMON USAGE, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory - Andareed, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Creation isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis.
- Infidelephant, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2qstep:
- doctechnical, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2No, because faith overrides logic. If it didn't, it wouldn't be faith.
- annonimality, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2"they're both THEORIES" - Why the hell do people still use this argument? The word "theory" does not mean the same thing in a scientific context as it does in a common language context.
"its also equally hard to disprove a creator" - We also can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so by your logic we should consider the possibility that he exists. - vuoto, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1can't evolution and creation co-exist peacefully ? No, dukeeeey. No more than science and superstition can co-exist.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Sure they can. Evolution does not address how the universe was created...
- minorthreat, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3and the creationist believes we are doomed if a scientist is elected. Whats new?
- cl2yp71c, on 01/06/2008, -4/+2Anyone who is AGAINST evolution, is AGAINST innovation and productivity(science).
I'll be damned if a Republican comes into office.(Ron Paul excluded =D)- stormgren, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4Ron Paul doesn't support evolution.
Changed your mind yet?- cl2yp71c, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1He's nuetral in that sense,...."leave it to the states".
It's not like he's pushing his religion on to anybody.- Cwo655321, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Who is? I've never heard any candidate push their religion or lack of religion on anyone.
- Bartboy919, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1this says differently: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
- TheSwashbuckler, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2"I've never heard any candidate push their religion or lack of religion on anyone."
You should listen with your ears open next time...
- cl2yp71c, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1He's nuetral in that sense,...."leave it to the states".
- MrSilverblood, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ron Paul also say he believes in Creationism? That would be a "No" pretty much across the board for any Republican in this race.
- cl2yp71c, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Creationism isn't necesarily counter-evolution....IMO.
- DephexTwin, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1Actually, that's a fair point. But Ron Paul even went far enough as to say that he does not accept evolution as a theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw - TheSwashbuckler, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1The Biblical story of creation, taken literally, is indeed counter-evolution.
- DephexTwin, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1Actually, that's a fair point. But Ron Paul even went far enough as to say that he does not accept evolution as a theory.
- DephexTwin, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Nope, you are not wrong.
- cl2yp71c, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Creationism isn't necesarily counter-evolution....IMO.
- stormgren, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4Ron Paul doesn't support evolution.
- Mononuclear, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1this was on the front page not more than 2 days ago.
- artgon, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1This is pretty much a Democrat vs Republican issue, unfortunately.
- pintomp3, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1not really, most of the republican candidates haven't come out saying they don't accept evolution, only huckabee, paul, tancredo and brownback.
- doctechnical, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I couldn't disagree more. Anyone who says they're anti-creation/ID, who says they don't go to church, won't get elected dog catcher in the U.S. That's just a political reality.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1It is sad...
- londubh, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2It's too late. We are already doomed. We technically elected Bush and Cheney. Twice. Rove will become the surprise last minute Republican candidate and win. Cheney of course will be his VP and a thousand years of darkness will descend on us all.
- noahhoward, on 01/06/2008, -6/+1Honestly, what a person believes and how a person lead are two entirely different things, the second is what is important in a leader.
- Angostura, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Honestly, they are not two entirely different things.
- noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Really? Care to explain? My father doesn't believe in evolution, in your mind he must have led me to believe the same, right? Wrong, he led me to think for myself and learn.
In this election, Ron Paul, for example does not believe in evolution, however he also believes it is not his role to decide for the rest of us. His belief does not affect his leadership at all.- noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1I'll add that electing a person who is ruled by their beliefs is not the same as electing a person who has beliefs.
- noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Really? Care to explain? My father doesn't believe in evolution, in your mind he must have led me to believe the same, right? Wrong, he led me to think for myself and learn.
- pintomp3, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1what they believe effects how they will lead. we've already seen what happens when a president ignores evidence because it doesn't fit his beliefs or agenda (wmd).
- noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1What they believe can effect what they believe, that does not mean it will. Some people know that their beliefs are their beliefs and should not be forced onto every situation.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1What a person believes necessarily affects how they lead.
- Angostura, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Honestly, they are not two entirely different things.
- GreenDots, on 01/06/2008, -1/+147% of Americans do not believe in evolution?
Time for a purge. This 47% will further ruin your country.- Andareed, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Polls and surveys can be pretty deceptive.
- DukeMojo, on 01/06/2008, -5/+2http://digg.com/politics/Scientists_say_US_doomed_ ...
Buried once, and buried again. Sheesh. - terracottapai, on 01/06/2008, -2/+41754 diggs yesterday.
http://digg.com/politics/Scientists_say_US_doomed_ ...- annonimality, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2So what? Many of us have lives, we get out and have fun (especially on a Saturday). We don't always see every story that hits the front page.
- jaxontyler, on 01/06/2008, -3/+3Evolution and creationism has what to do with our foreign/economic policies?
- nicksauce, on 01/07/2008, -2/+3Creationist = Cannot form rational thoughts. Does not understand science.
What do science and rational thought has to do with foreign and economic policies? A hell of a lot. - annonimality, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3The belief that the Universe is 6,000 years old reflects negatively on a person's general level of intelligence. And of course intelligence has much to do with leadership.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1It shows they put faith over evidence. That's bad in any context...
- nicksauce, on 01/07/2008, -2/+3Creationist = Cannot form rational thoughts. Does not understand science.
- doctechnical, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Even more doomed than we were yesterday? Yipes!
- imightbewrong, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2which former presidents have been evolutionists??? clinton?? is that it??
- MrSilverblood, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2What's scary is 53% of Americans believe in Evolution, while 47% believe in Creationism. So here we have almost HALF the flip'n country that believe Evolution isn't correct.
That is eff'n scary...
I wonder how the rest of the world views this topic?... Anyone know of a site that'll point to data such as that? - SOS84, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3I wonder if JimmySpaza realizes how delusional creationists are? It is nothing more than mythology, plain and simple.
- halfemptyfilms, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1I think they got that wrong. The US isn't doomed, the scientists ("Us") are doomed---they make almost all their money on BS government grants, remember. When the government disagrees with them, they don't have work.
- gbrew56, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1"Leading scientists still reject God" - Only 7% of top scientists surveyed believe in God.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.h ... - Thundercracker, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1... you know thats fine... teach our kids intelligent design in public schools.... and have them wait till they all get to a university and realize that their bio professors really don't give a ***** about intelligent design
- Aticper, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Creationism is wrong. There is no ambiguity, no room left to argue. It is flat out, empirically wrong. As a matter of fact, it's actually ridiculous. The universe simply does not work like that.
We cannot afford to elect a president willing to further hinder research that contradicts his petty belief set.
We cannot afford to fall even further behind in biotechnology simply because it contradicts some people's petty moral issues about 'playing god'.
We cannot afford to elect a president willing to deny the sheer, undeniable fact staring him in the face in favor of gut instinct and comfortable delusions.
This is clear cut, this is simple. We cannot afford to elect a creationist. - Tryptomine, on 01/07/2008, -1/+0"Thank the Lord? ...That sounded like a prayer. A Prayer in a public school! God has no place within these walls! Just as fact have no place within organized religion!"
- JoelGoodsen, on 01/07/2008, -3/+3Um.... Doomed to what? No scientist quoted actually uses this word anywhere in this article... In fact, the quote by the scientist:
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments [smoking being hazardous to your health] either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn....
So, I guess his "scientific" conclusion is that if one believes in creationism, that they automatically don't believe that smoking is hazardous to your health? Oh, right... he said he was only "worried" that this might happen... I guess he has a little more um.... *faith* in other candidates...
Buried as neither journalistic or scientific...- Andareed, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1You expect something on digg to hit front-page without a sensationalist headline?
- borchard76, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2I am a Christian (all right, Mormon, if you _must_ insist that there is a difference, which there both is and isn't--Mormons accept that Christ was the Son of God, and believe that we are Christian because we believe it is through him and only through him that one may be forgiven of one's sins, while Christian's of other denominations insist that for some reason it takes additional beliefs to be considered Christian, which I find odd, but that's off topic), and yet I am not sure that there is any reason to doubt that evolution occurs, that the earth/universe is billions of years old and that many species on this planet have common ancestor. I also happen to believe that good education in math and science is essential to the success of this country. What's the problem then? I think that most other Mormons would agree with these statements. Especially those who are well educated, which is the norm.
- windandstorm, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Dr. Scientist!
- sax1johno, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1"We hold these truths to be self-evident that evidence is the truth and the rest is just speculation". . . or something like that.
The problem isn't with religion itself -- it's with the promotion of religion as a method of governance. The first amendment guarantees not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. The problem is not that the president is a Christian, but rather that many of the creationist candidates are planning on promoting a religious agenda as president.
There is NO physical evidence for creation ("the world around us" is not satisfactory evidence) and as such it cannot be promoted as a scientific fact, or taught as fact in public schools. It is not even a competing theory to evolution, because it does not have any factual support. If it were presented as an alternative theory (instead of a tradition), it would be laughed out of its first peer-review.
Just for the record, my personal belief is that we were all sneezed into existence by the great green arkleseizure, and that the coming of the great white hanky will prove it. . . yea. . . - jrtalon, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Christian != Creationist!! Catholics have never embraced biblical literalism and creationism isn't a tenant of the Catholic church. However, the church is extremely caution on responding to scientific theories due to the Galileo debacle so evolution isn't official recognized, but Pope PiusXII had this to say on the subject "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that … research and discussions … take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution." And Pope John Paul II said "a significant argument in favour of this theory [of evolution]." Finally scientific evolution is taught in Catholic school science classes (with no other competing theories, like ID or creationism) creation is taught but not in a science classroom and isn't mean to be interpreted literally. So please don't paint all Christians with the same brush regardng creationism and evolution. thanks
- crazywarthog, on 01/07/2008, -3/+1“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”
Vladimir Lenin- sax1johno, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2That's still a promotion of religion by the government. The problem isn't atheism, or christianity, or islam. . ..it's forcing it upon others.
- joelnewcomer, on 01/07/2008, -0/+0There are many great scientists (past and present) who are creationists (Charles Babbage, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Wernher von Braun,Humphry Davy, Michael Faraday, William Herschel, Johann Kepler, Joseph Lister and Isaac Newton just to name a few). So, if "there is NO physical evidence for creation" then why do you think these brilliant men believed in creation? Do you really think they were just brainwashed? Are you sure that it isn't evolutionists that are actually the brainwashed ones? Naturally, if you don't believe in God then you will not believe in creation, so you have to come up with something else to explain the origin of the world. But there are, in fact, scientists who don't believe in God but don't believe in evolution either. One such scientist is Dr. Michael Denton. "Dr Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D. is a molecular biologist at the University of Otago, New Zealand. He is not a biblical creationist. However, his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis has exposed thousands to the overwhelming scientific problems of Darwinian belief. Though he now describes himself as an ‘evolutionist’, he is more open-minded than most. He thinks that the design of living things probably implies creative intelligence. He has always been, and still is, adamant that Darwinism ‘does not give a credible and comprehensive explanation of how the pattern of life on Earth emerged’."
- joelnewcomer, on 01/07/2008, -0/+0To those who claim that Christian != Creationist let me quote Conrad Hyers: "The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic ... If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?" If you claim to be a Christian and claim to believe the Bible then how do you explain Romans 5:16 which says that death came by sin, if death occurred millions of years before the Fall of man? Jesus treated Genesis as though it actually happened. Jesus said, "‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). In these words of Jesus we find He teaches that Adam and Eve were created in ‘the beginning of the creation’—not billions of years after the beginning!"
- Freetime000, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Digg has become the forum for Christian bashing. You people act like Chrisitans are attacking you simply by holding to their beliefs, but in reality you attack Chrisitans non stop with vendettas. I do not see DIGG filled with Christians attacking evolutionists and calling them names caling them insane etc. You people are full of double standards. You act like a Christian hurt you real bad some how simply by believing in a higher power. Get off it. You impose your ideas just as much if not worse.
- pervezalammzn, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0fine :)
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by