Search the Community

The Reunion of Faith and Science, Creation and Evolution​ By Exegesisme I do believe that Bible is a book about facts of body, emotion, soul, mind and spirit. Nowadays, a human understands bible in very narrow way which causes conflicts between faith and science, creation and evolution. This is false of human. To my understanding, Darwin was just unknowingly in the grace of God and found the real way through which God created everything. The only difference between the Bible and the theory of Darwin is that Bible is about the knowledge of everything, and the theory of Darwin is about the knowledge from human thinking in a very limited domain and on very limited facts in that domain. If we understand Bible with open mind, we can explain everything on Bible that today science can explain. However, the authorities of religions persist their explanations, which make all major conflicts between faith and science, creation and evolution. We should learn from Newton, do more job on the reunion of faith and science, creation and evolution, And do not learn anything from Kant, he was a man who was arrogantly to limit the domain of God, and to open the door for human demon.

I am glad to discuss with you both. I see a difference between you as following: Freddy​ : If anything , this system we have is as ideal as it gets. The only issues are always at the top. Of course accountability is difficult to execute at the top without having to much power in one hand. Moonlight Graham​: Capitalism is an economic system that takes advantage of the selfish side of human nature. What if an economic system were designed that was both efficient and that took advantage of the altruistic side of human nature? I agree with both of you, and have a theory (my own theory) to include your ideas. I am top-ism, which you can think as the name of my theory, which means always thinking for the being over top and transcending top, and refining any thing under top to the top and then transcending it to the being over top. Top-ism can be used for faith, any beauty under top can be refined to the top, and then believe a much more beautiful vision of it with the being over top. If see top as now, then under top as history, and over top as future. To Freddy, "issues are always at the top", so we need creatively to create the being over the top to avoid these issues at the top. You know, for a specific system, there is a specific set of issues which can not solved in the system, we need a new system to transcend the system and then avoid its specific issues all together. To Moonlight Graham, I admit there is altruistic side of human nature, and even in some relations this side is very strong. However, usually, the selfish side of human nature is more general and deep, and we can use the selfish side to explain the altruistic side, and we can not use the altruistic side to explain the selfish side. Therefore, I created a theory of morality firstly on human selfish nature , and around this core, let the selfish benefits and altruistic benefits grow alternatively. This moral theory with top-ism together, I hope that the creative evolution of human politics and in turn human society may speed up. ​

Well, you just knew that Texas would lead the way back to the stone age, with their ramped up emphasis on "Christian" education. Some of the highlights from the Texas Freedom Network reporton religious teaching coming in to public and charter schools in Texas: Instructional material in two school districts teach that racial diversity today can be traced back to Noah’s sons, a long-discredited claim that has been a foundational component of some forms of racism. Religious bias is common, with most courses taught from a Protestant — often a conservative Protestant — perspective. One course, for example, assumes Christians will at some point be “raptured.” Materials include a Venn diagram showing the pros and cons of theories that posit the rapture before the returning Jesus’ 1,000-year reign and those that place it afterward. In many courses, the perspectives of Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Jews are often left out. Anti-Jewish bias — intentional or not — is not uncommon. Some courses even portray Judaism as a flawed and incomplete religion that has been replaced by Christianity. Many courses suggest or openly claim that the Bible is literally true. “The Bible is the written word of God,” students are told in one PowerPoint presentation. Some courses go so far as to suggest that the Bible can be used to verify events in history. One district, for example, teaches students that the Bible’s historical claims are largely beyond question by listing biblical events side by side with historical developments from around the globe. Course materials in numerous classes are designed to evangelize rather than provide an objective study of the Bible’s influence. A book in one district makes its purpose clear in the preface: “May this study be of value to you. May you fully come to believe that ‘Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.’ And may you have ‘life in His name.’” A number of courses teach students that the Bible proves Earth is just 6,000 years old. Students are taught that the United States is a Christian nation founded on the Christian biblical principles taught in their classrooms. Academic rigor is so poor that many courses rely mostly on memorization of Bible verses and factoids from Bible stories rather than teaching students how to analyze what they are studying. One district relies heavily on Bible cartoons from Hanna-Barbera for its high school class. Students in another district spend two days watching what lesson plans describe a “the historic documentary Ancient Aliens,” which presents “a new interpretation of angelic beings described as extraterrestrials.” If we take a closer look at that first point about using the Old Testament version of racial origins, this chart from one of the education guides is on page 22 of the abridged report: http://www.tfn.org/s....pdf?docID=3422 ================================================================ I'm old enough to recall when I was young that Southern political and religious advocates of racial segregation used to pull that one about blacks being descendents from Noah's cursed son - Ham, as the reason why race-mixing couldn't be allowed. Are today's Texans smart enough to leave that one in the past? Or is what's old, new again?