| Author | Topic | | Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts |  Posted - 17 Nov 2005 : 03:51:19    
| Editorial Column by Leonard Pitts...
"Faith isn't a science class" ???
And the Lord did look with discontent upon the town of Dover in the province of Pennsylvania. For Dover was a wicked and prideful place and had turned its back on God. Its people had voted out school board members who tried to introduce intelligent design into schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
"And the Lord was wrathful and said, I will smite them with burning coals from the sky. Their fields I will make barren, their rivers I will cause to rise in flood, their football teams will lose, their sewers will back up, no one who lives there shall hit the Powerball. And I will help them not."
OK, so that's not in my Bible, either. But apparently, it's in the Rev. Pat Robertson's. Incensed at Dover voters for insisting that science classes teach science, he issued a dire warning to the town last week on his TV show, "The 700 Club."
"If there is a disaster in your area," he said, "don't turn to God - you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. … Don't ask for His help, because He might not be there."
Ah, Pat. Pat, Pat, Pat. Whenever there's a slow news day, we can always count on you to liven things up with your special wisdom.
I mean, wasn't it just a few months ago that Rev. Ridiculous put out a hit on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez? Two years ago that he asked viewers to pray for God to remove three justices from the Supreme Court? Four years ago that he linked the Sept. 11 attacks to the fact that organized prayer is not allowed in schools? Seven years ago that he warned Orlando of "terrorist bombs … earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor" for allowing a gay pride event?
He also said that Mouse Town could get hit by a hurricane, which was a really gutsy prediction, if you ask me. I mean, a hurricane, hitting Florida?
So this latest nonsense is right in line with what we've come to expect from our friend Pat. The only thing you can do is laugh - and try not to think about how many people lump you in with this fellow when you profess to be a Christian.
Point being, I believe there was a Designer. I also believe that's a matter for the pulpit, the class in comparative religion or the class in philosophy. It doesn't belong in science class, because it's not science. It's faith.
And please spare me the thousand word-for-word e-mails arguing, with eerie "Stepford Wife" uniformity, that "the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory."
Your humble correspondent was only a "C" science student, but even I get the fact that scientific theory involves a bit more rigorous reasoning than my personal theory that I can make my team win by wearing my lucky shirt and yelling at the television. Scientific theory requires conclusions based on observable, replicable and predictable phenomena.
To put it another way: Gravity is "just" a theory, but I don't hear anyone arguing with Isaac Newton. Or suggesting students be taught the "alternative" theory that we are held to Earth by invisible strips of Velcro.
Not that I want to give Kansas any ideas. At the same time voters in Dover were standing up for common sense, the Kansas State Board of Education was voting to adopt standards undermining the teaching of Darwin's theory. This is the latest step in the state's long, hard-fought campaign to turn out stupid kids.
See, the Pennsylvanians get what the Kansans do not: Teaching religion masked as science devalues both and ensures that children will be that much less prepared for college and the world beyond. I can't believe God requires ignorance, that He gave us brains he doesn't want us to use, or that intelligence and faith are mutually exclusive. Of course, I'm forced to reconsider that position every time Rev. Ridiculous opens his mouth. |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 17 Nov 2005 : 04:12:17
| Here are my thoughts about it...
Mr. Pitts,
I believe that you sir, first as an alleged Christian (since you appear to allude to yourself as one in your 11/15/2005 column “Faith isn’t a science class”) and secondly as a purported professional journalist, should hold yourself (and be held by other Christians and journalists) to a slightly higher standard regarding accusations and accuracy in your writings. First, as a journalist you should be ashamed of yourself. You sir, are metaphorically challenged. The last time I checked it's called "The Law of Gravity" not as you so ineptly stated “The Theory of Gravity”. You see in science once a theory is proven it becomes a Law. So it goes when a self-proclaimed "C" student in science becomes a journalist who doesn't do his homework. This justifies my next assertion that the common commode displays more evidence of intelligent design than the drivel that is your column. I'm real proud of a Christian who, in one statement says that he believes in a Designer and in the next says that there is no basis for that belief in science. From the forces that hold the atoms together in their respective elements (as exist in the aforementioned commode) to the cognitive mechanisms at work allowing us to verbally joust in print and then let's not forget the physical forces (defined by proven laws) that keep the planets from smashing into each other, I'd say there's plenty of scientific evidence to provide a firm foundation for my faith in intelligent design and it's Author. Moreover I would go so far as to say that Darwinism actually has less basis in science and in fact requires the baseless blind type of faith to which you apparently subscribe. My Bible instructs me to know how I ought to answer every man. Sorry if this is a little salty. In addition, I am astounded that a Christian (if you are one) would be so quick to depart from the Davidic standard of respecting and not attacking God's anointed (past or present) whether they are right or wrong. You do know the story of King Saul don't you? I am certain that you must be aware of the many people who have been clothed, fed, given medical care, blessed through Operation Blessing etc. due to God’s using Pat Robertson and his willing heart. “That your good works would Glorify God.” How many people in comparison have been fed, clothed or helped in a tangible way by your writing? I am not saying that you have no good works to your credit but I thinkest thou recent writings stinketh. Should we be so quick to attack with the pen and try to publicly assassinate someone's character when in a position of responsibility? If God's servants mis-speak I'm sure he is capable of dealing with them.
P.S.
It is only the truly ignorant who fear knowledge, debate or whether people will stereotype "you people" (Christians)just because of what one says or does. If God wants us to use our brains then maybe we should at least get to hear the arguments on both sides of an issue before using said brain to make up our minds for ourselves about which argument actually holds more merit. I think that there are many who resist Inteligent Design Theory because they are happy in their denial of the reality of God's existence (outside of a wink and a nod) fearing their own culpability for their sins. I find quite comical Mr. Pitt's obvious hypocrisy, saying he believes there was (notice past tense)a Designer yet he wants the "Random Mutative Accident" Theory taught in our institutions of higher learning all the while having the nerve to talk about common sense. The only topic that Mr Pitts seems qualified to speak on is ignorance.
Peace Out... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out |  |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 17 Nov 2005 : 16:49:50
| Capt. Blasto,
I must weigh in on your well written, phrased, and pointed letter to Mr. Pitts (A name well earned, I might add!). There have been may a time that I have wanted to write him in indignant response to his politically correct, liberally slanted, pious sanctimony that masquerades as journalism. But then I realize that it would serve no purpose in convincing him of his slanted reasoning and only give him more press than he already has.And, I must admit, that every now and then Mr. Pitts comes out with a reasonable contibution in his opinion articles, though he often ruins it right in the middle of it with some kind of liberal tritism, but hey, beggars can't be choosers.He is who he is.And his opinion columns are just that, his opinions.I guess what bothers you and I both, is how many people he influences with this stuff, but then he's just preaching to the choir.
And all though I have no great passion for Mr. Pitts, I don't share much sympathy for Pat Robertson, either. I respect Rev. Robertson, and he has done some mighty fine things for the cause of Christ, and I personally agree with what Robertson said about Hugo Chavez. But Rev. Robertson has been known to stick his foot in his mouth quite a few times.So has Jerry Falwell, and several others, who, though men of God, still suffer from "foot-in-mouth" disease.
This in no way is meant to downplay your indignace to Mr. Pitt's obviously accusatory column. I agree with your sentiment and think that was probably the best response to his nonsense, that nobody will ever probably read.
You see, I am never surprised when the world reacts like it does to Christians, people of faith in Jesus.Jesus Himself told us that these things will happen.As a matter of fact, there were naysayers amd pundits in Jesus' time, and that hasn't changed in 2 millennia.But the Kingdom still moves on.
Now I am not advocating a "stand around and do nothing" stance. I just think that perhaps we Christians do not always pick the best hill to "die" on, so to speak.I have talked with a scientist friend of mine (who is also a Christian)about the issue of Intelligent design vs. Evolution. While he agrees that what is taught in our public schools(evolution) is very bad science, and meant more for indoctrination rather than education, Intelligent Design simply does not have the proper scientific scrutiny to hold up, as yet, to be considered a valid scientific argument.
I support ID as something that should be pursued and thought out in the scientific arena, and I do believe that most evolutionary theorists teach evolution as fact and not a theory, and I even think that it would be wonderful to teach an opposing theory to students in our schools, but that doesn't seem to be the crux of the debate.The debate really falls into the notions of fear that is posesed by those who don't want any semblence of God in the public domain.Even if Intelligent Design passes scientific muster, it would not matter.Those who do not want to hear it will surround themselves with people who will tell them what thier itching ears want to hear.And we will be right back where we started.
So let Leonard Pitts rant.He is a nominal player anyway.It is we Christians who have the real power and authority, and Jesus told us that He has overcome the world.That Mr. Pitts makes fun of us, or tries to call himself one of us, doesn't really matter.In the end, Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats.There won't be any opinion columns then, will there?
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts | Posted - 17 Nov 2005 : 19:04:48
| I almost wonder if the stuff about Rev. Robertson was to get up to the word count for a proper column. While it was semi-justified, cutting it out would have had no impact on the intelligibility (such as there was) of his article.
The problem is that the true scientists are usually not the ones journalists are talking to. Most Quantum Physicists agree that based on their study of quantum physics, the world just couldn't have randomly happened. There's too much coincidence involved.
Not to mention the (already observed) fact that the theory of evolution is only a theory... perhaps it is repeated 'with eerie "Stepford Wife" uniformity' because it is something that can't be denied. Would you call the same volume of letters about how leaving milk out will cause it to spoil an 'eerie "Stepford Wife" uniformity'?
Like the great analyst George Carlin asked, "If we evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?" I bring this up because even though he raised the question in jest, its still a valid question. If we are the result of higher evolution, what evolutionary advantage results from having some (but not all) of a species advance?
I have to agree with the idea that ID is so vehemently opposed because a designer would mean somebody to answer to. Somebody who would/could hold you accountable for your actions be it God, Yahweh, Allah, or whomever; you would be accountable for what you said and did. Its the acountability part that scares people.
But then again, what kind of science do you expect from a "C" student? |
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Nov 2005 : 01:52:19
| Hi Anon,
Well said. I agree that there have been those rare instances that Mr. Pitts has written somthing that had some merit and I too have little sympathy for our friend Pat regarding that dreaded "foot in mouth" disease that we all suffer from from time to time. (Don't tell my wife I admitted that!) I started out irritated at the "Theory of Gravity" thing and then just kinda went from there. I felt a little bad and even almost hypocritical regarding the whole "attack" issue since I kinda followed suit, except that I realized that I have no public audience other than here.(echoing added for effect) Add to that the fact that I believe I can back up my case a little better than he while not mutilating basic concepts in scientific terminology. I must say that I really kinda disagree in one regard with your scientist friend though and wonder if his own position regarding ID Theory could be slightly tainted by all those years of indoctrination. Besides, we aren't proposing that it should be deemed the Law of Intelligent Design right? Just an opposing Theory. First the theory then the science then the Law right? Anyway when you lay the two "Theories" side by side and consider all of the facts about what conditions needed to exist for life to errupt from lifeless matter and the myriad complexities in every point and aspect of how things are organized and held in place through various "Laws" that have been defined by science, I think any rational mind would have to admit that Darwinism comes up wanting. This is what You and I would refer to as "common or not-so-common sense"
Thanks for your thoughts... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 18 Nov 2005 : 09:04:18
| Capt.
Wow! I believe this has been the most informative and active topic that has been opened.I like!You show yourself very well informed and thought out, and it is impressive.(I won't tell your wife that one either! )
In regard to my scientist friend (more specifically, he is a geneticist), I too asked him how he squared certain scientific claims to fact versus Scriptural claims, and his own faith in Christ. But I was satisfied with his answer, in the fact that scientific scrutiny always pulls toward the truth. In science, there are always unknowns, always variables, and until undisputable facts are proven, science always accepts what is known as truth.My friends claim to accepting scientific standards is in no conflict with his faith.Simply put,just because there are those with the scientific pedigree and knowledge, does not mean that they will accept the truth of Scripture, simply because they are human and have a personal animosity toward accountability.Many reject God as true, quite frankly, because they don't want Him to be true.And they are willing to use thier great knowledge to influence those who do not have that pedigree.
I asked my friend if he agreed with this statement: There are those in the scientific community, who have made up certain "facts", for the express purpose of influencing the debate on evolution, i.e.,"The Piltdown Man" as well as other hoaxes.He told me that he unequivocly agreed, but he also noted that it was the scientific community who, after further scrutiny,ultimately and wholly rejected those "facts" as hoaxes.Science always gravitates toward the truth.Scientists, however, are not always as accomodating, as they still have that old human nature, which rears its ugly head all the time.
I would be remiss if I did not point out,as well, that the Church's record for gravitating toward truth has had it's own bumpy rides.It was the Church who threatened ole Galileo with torture and punishment for his claims that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe.Isaac Newton kept secret his experiments in what was then called "alchemy", because it appeared like he was involving himself in "occult" practices.As it turns out, all that they were observing was natural phenomenae at work, though most folks did not have that understanding.And I am sure that those who believed that alchemy was an occult practice meant well, and desired only Godly things for the society.But those things were based on fear, not fact.
I believe that it is fear that ties both of these issues together.It is the one ingredient that manifests itself in both the secular and Christian thinking patterns.I realize that we as Christians ought not be given to fear,but many of our brethren (and sistern, lol)wallow in it.Fear breeds ignorance, and ignorance breeds confusion, and we all know who is the author of confusion. I believe, as you have shown us, Captain, that we must all get ourselves better informed, so as to be better prepared to deal with and debate those who are trying to appeal to people's ignorance. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Nov 2005 : 20:31:02
| Well said again... Axeman
I could not agree more. If the heart of a scientist is to find the truth then Truth he shall find. Science as a practice is honorable when done with a pure heart.
Full speed ahead Mr. Scott |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Nov 2005 : 20:36:29
| Oh.. By the way I think I saw a guitar discussion that has been quite informative.
Re-elect
|
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| | | Topic | |
 |
Media
