Does Any One Care About G-d?

[sgallan]

Here you go....

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[sixpacktr]

Here you go....

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Admit it, you wrote the letter!

BTW, I agree that we should not be teaching ID in schools. We should be teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic and science, period. The problem, I think, comes in that some theories of science are taught as absolute truth, and I believe that to be wrong. I mean, when I was a kid, we were taught the THEORY of evolution, just as that, a THEORY, and I had no problem understanding it and moving on. I didn't (and still don't) see it as devil inspired or anything else. It is the best that man can do to figure out how we got here. I don't happen to believe it as presented, as I do believe that our HF created the earth, the universe, and us, and I taught my kids as much at home. That is where religious principles and doctrine should be taught anyway, is the home, not school.

Anyway, you gave me a good chuckle today. Thanks for that...

[prisonchaplain]

I have read so many nod, wink, "yeah right" dismissals of "Intelligent Design," so many insistances that Darwinism is fact, that the debate is closed, that I.D. is Young Earth Creationism repackaged (it's not)...yes, when it comes to science education, literalist Christianity, as well as any other religion that argues for divine creation of the world, is treated as a despised minority superstition.

I know of at least ten different creationalist theories. Including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which one would you suggest we teach? How about this one.....

Any of them--in a literature or sociology class. I.D. dares to explore origins in the arena of science. Att its simplest, the theory posits that the universe might have been designed, rather than coming together by random selection. You do not have to even be religious to see that as plausible--perhaps even the most plausible of explanations. Yet, in the scientific community, such speculation is heresy.

[AnthonyB]

I have two problems with evolution.

Firstly it has become to mean for many simpy mean non-thiestic creation. Evolution is however a set of theories that describe various means of adpatation of living creatures, it should have no religious connotations to it. The theories are not by themselves a bar to theism.

Infact I actually think the reverse. If a maker of a system is expert at his task he should be able to make a self contained system that will produce the outcomes that he desires without having to tinker with the system to ensure the desired outcomes. If any tinkering is needed then if he really knows the system and it is well designed the tinkerings required would be minimal and therefore basically undetectable.

If God is a powerful and knowlegeable as He says he is, and the creation is as perfect as He said it was, He should not need to step in and alter the system to produce what He wanted. If I find evidence that He has done so then, it shows either that He did not produce a very good system or that He does not really know how the system works very well.

Of course the exception to this is if the systems has free will (agency) objects in it, who are capable of varying the system by their own will (agency). The biblical record does show that God's intervention has been primarily aimed at the agents of free will and not the non-free will objects.

I do not expect to find that God needed to tinker with life to make it go the way he wanted as many creationist seem to feel the need to. If such proof existed it would merely show that God was not that good at creating. If no proof of his tinkering existed then it would merely show that He had done a very job of setting the system up and maintianing it without having to make drastic and major interventions.

My second problem with evolution is that people presume that it involves progress. It is about fitness for environment not progress as such. There is nothing within the theories themselves that would presume to place man or any other living thing at the peak of the universe. Infact fitness for environment may necessiatate the readoption of traits or physical adaptations that had previously been disregarged. Sometimes the specialization to a specific environment causes creatures to evolve themselves to extinction. Virsuses can even move gene sequences from on species to another. The simply forward growing of the tree of life is not part of evolution and people who hold to it are as naive in their beliefs as the creationist they often mock for credulity.

[Traveler]

I will even go so far as to say your only information on Secularists is what you have heard from the Religious Right, the Republican Right, or some organization of that kind. Whichever, I have no doubt whatsoever that you do not personally "know" any Secularists at all, or you would not have made that statement.

Elphaba

The name of a Secularist in Utah - is Chris Allen. If you want to talk to him personally and ask him - we worked together at Eaten Kenway.

Also I will give you a name of a teacher - Randy Bland - that was told that if he made any reference to religious material outside of the prescribed lesson plan that he would be fired. (this because he heald an position of high standing in the LDS Church).

I will give you a name of another former teacher - Wes Hall - who quit the teaching profession because of problems created with saying things like - This is what the approved texts says but I do not believe it.

So now I will ask you a question - Do you support the published stand by the ACLU concerning religion instruction and reference in public schools?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I have two problems with evolution.

Firstly it has become to mean for many simpy mean non-thiestic creation. Evolution is however a set of theories that describe various means of adpatation of living creatures, it should have no religious connotations to it. The theories are not by themselves a bar to theism.

Infact I actually think the reverse. If a maker of a system is expert at his task he should be able to make a self contained system that will produce the outcomes that he desires without having to tinker with the system to ensure the desired outcomes. If any tinkering is needed then if he really knows the system and it is well designed the tinkerings required would be minimal and therefore basically undetectable.

If God is a powerful and knowlegeable as He says he is, and the creation is as perfect as He said it was, He should not need to step in and alter the system to produce what He wanted. If I find evidence that He has done so then, it shows either that He did not produce a very good system or that He does not really know how the system works very well.

Of course the exception to this is if the systems has free will (agency) objects in it, who are capable of varying the system by their own will (agency). The biblical record does show that God's intervention has been primarily aimed at the agents of free will and not the non-free will objects.

I do not expect to find that God needed to tinker with life to make it go the way he wanted as many creationist seem to feel the need to. If such proof existed it would merely show that God was not that good at creating. If no proof of his tinkering existed then it would merely show that He had done a very job of setting the system up and maintianing it without having to make drastic and major interventions.

My second problem with evolution is that people presume that it involves progress. It is about fitness for environment not progress as such. There is nothing within the theories themselves that would presume to place man or any other living thing at the peak of the universe. Infact fitness for environment may necessiatate the readoption of traits or physical adaptations that had previously been disregarged. Sometimes the specialization to a specific environment causes creatures to evolve themselves to extinction. Virsuses can even move gene sequences from on species to another. The simply forward growing of the tree of life is not part of evolution and people who hold to it are as naive in their beliefs as the creationist they often mock for credulity.

Just a note about evolution being a theory - when you were conceived you started out as a single cell organism called a zygote. As part of “evolution” that single cell went through a process of mitosis that produced two cells as different from the original cell as they are from each other. From that single cell all the different cells that comprise you and who you are evolved by every definition and understanding of the term evolution.

Now if there is any other term that better describes what happens between conception and birth of a person – please tell me what that “Theory” is!!!

The Traveler

[sixpacktr]

Just a note about evolution being a theory - when you were conceived you started out as a single cell organism called a zygote. As part of “evolution” that single cell went through a process of mitosis that produced two cells as different from the original cell as they are from each other. From that single cell all the different cells that comprise you and who you are evolved by every definition and understanding of the term evolution.

Now if there is any other term that better describes what happens between conception and birth of a person – please tell me what that “Theory” is!!!

The Traveler

Well Traveler, I'd have to say that while your argument seems to be plausible, doesn't the zygote come from an egg and a sperm cell from two beings that are like what the baby is going to end up as? IOW, two dogs mate and make another dog, not another elephant. Two humans mate and a little person comes out, not a mockingbird. That is the problem I have with evolution. Two fish mated, and suddenly their offspring can breath air and grow legs. These become dinosaurs, which die out. Who the heck knows where mammals came from, but somehow they were warm blooded instead of cold blooded, grew hair, and bigger brains. And then Cheetah and Ms Chuckles mate come up with Adam's GGGGGGGGrandfather. It just doesn't tie together to me UNLESS HF had a hand in all of this and then made the mutation happen that was, in most ways, miraculous. Having a supernatural being that is all powerful and all knowing form man out of the dust of the earth is more plausible to me than the argument of evolution.

[sgallan]

It just doesn't tie together to me UNLESS HF had a hand in all of this and then made the mutation happen that was, in most ways, miraculous. Having a supernatural being that is all powerful and all knowing form man out of the dust of the earth is more plausible to me than the argument of evolution.

Perhaps, but evolution is what is considered the accepted science. To teach otherwise in an accredited secondary institution - within the science department - would lose a University it accredidation status. In other words, there isn't a single accredited College or University, in the country - with the best Secondadry educational system in the world - which teaches anything like creationalism within it's science departments. Now if they want to teach that within humanities, or religious studies, they can. But it isn't considered a hard science.

[mightynancy]

What offends me almost as much as the Lord's name being taken in vain is when people write L-ord or G-d. I understand, Traveler, that your intent is to allow others in countries where spelling the names of Deity is forbidden to use this site, but if it's forbidden then what are they doing here to begin with? It is disrespectful to use the Lord's name inappropriately. Just as using His name in vain is wrong, belittling Him by typing G-d is wrong as well. His name is God.

Going back a few pages for this...

Jason, try looking at this another way. You know how we speculate about our Mother in heaven, and how Heavenly Father has not revealed her name nor much about her at all, so as not to allow us to defile her name? My view is that when people type G-d, they are avoiding any chance of being profane with His name. They find it so holy that to write it in its completeness during such common usage would be disrespectful. I personally don't mind writing out His name, but can completely respect those who would use the equivalent of a reverent whisper when referring to Him in writing.

[a-train]

I think there has been a definite departure from reverence of God in the public forum of this country. Taking His name in vain is so common that I hear it among children. It is no longer edited from songs that are edited for radio. PG movies contain such.

If you ever watch that Extreme Makeover show where they build people new homes, they do it in almost every episode when the new home is unvieled. It has become completely normal.

-a-train

[Canuck Mormon]

My 8 year old son had started saying it last summer. The first time I heard it I corrected him. I took me a few weeks to finaly get him to stop. I haven't heard him say it since. The problem is that he hears his mother (my ex) say it all the time. But even during our last "parent conference", she said it once and immediatly appologised. I think that's progress. It won't stop being on TV until society changes it's view that it's OK to say.

[sixpacktr]

My 8 year old son had started saying it last summer. The first time I heard it I corrected him. I took me a few weeks to finaly get him to stop. I haven't heard him say it since. The problem is that he hears his mother (my ex) say it all the time. But even during our last "parent conference", she said it once and immediatly appologised. I think that's progress. It won't stop being on TV until society changes it's view that it's OK to say.

120% right CM. That is where we as a people can overcome evil. We don't have to have spastic fits everytime somebody does something we don't believe in. Rather, we just don't support it. If a movie has questionable content, don't see it, or, if it is during the middle of the movie, get up and walk out. Let the theatre manager know why you did. You may think it doesn't make a difference, but it does, it really does. Now, I'm not saying go to 'Debbie Does Dallas' and then walk out saying you are outraged. I'm talking about run of the mill movies where there is suddenly a sex scene, or they drop the f-bomb, etc. If enough people do this, things will change. Evil cannot endure light, just as light cannot abide evil.

If we stand up and be counted in nice, non-confrontational ways (Pres Kimball's example of the attendant that used our Savior's name in vain is great) we can change things, a little at a time, or a least our little corner of the world...

[prisonchaplain]

Just a note about evolution being a theory - when you were conceived you started out as a single cell organism called a zygote. As part of “evolution” that single cell went through a process of mitosis that produced two cells as different from the original cell as they are from each other. From that single cell all the different cells that comprise you and who you are evolved by every definition and understanding of the term evolution.

Now if there is any other term that better describes what happens between conception and birth of a person – please tell me what that “Theory” is!!!

The Traveler

Traveler you are confusing the aspect of Evolutionary theory that is so hotly contested. No reputable scientist, be they secular or fundamentalist, doubts that species adapt to their environments ("evolve" to circumstances). Rather, the debate is over the origin of species. Did our world come into being through random selection or was it designed? Did something "mold" the evolution of the universe, or did it all just come together helter skelter?

The scientific community seems fundamentalist, dogmatic, and very intolerant of the theory of Intelligent Design. As soon as there is any hint at a Creator, the reaction is almost jihadist. To teach the scientific arguments for design in public science classrooms would not be akin to introducing the Articles of Faith. Yet, this seems to be the scare-mongering of those opposed to I.D.

It just doesn't tie together to me UNLESS HF had a hand in all of this and then made the mutation happen that was, in most ways, miraculous. Having a supernatural being that is all powerful and all knowing form man out of the dust of the earth is more plausible to me than the argument of evolution.

Perhaps, but evolution is what is considered the accepted science. To teach otherwise in an accredited secondary institution - within the science department - would lose a University it accredidation status. In other words, there isn't a single accredited College or University, in the country - with the best Secondadry educational system in the world - which teaches anything like creationalism within it's science departments. Now if they want to teach that within humanities, or religious studies, they can. But it isn't considered a hard science.

And why is that? Why would it be heresy to teach the scientific arguments for Design vs. Random Selection? That's what this boils down to. It seems the scientific community is so afraid of religious influence, that it resorts its own dogmatism. After all, in the science classroom, there would be no discussion as to whether the design was done by a superior species, or by God.

[tiancum]

The other day, i went to a Christian club meeting before school. I understood another way that people use the Lord's name in vain.

Many of the prayers went like this.

Lord J... thank you L...J... for all we have L...J...We ask L.....J....that you bless us L...J.... with the strength to overcome and be your elect L...J.... Thank you L...J... for the ability L..J...to confess your name and be saved L...J...

Honestly, this was almost verbatim.

Many of the prayers were offensive to the spirit because of this or other things....I came away feeling sickened.

Another way i have found that people use the Lord's name in vain is when they close their testimonies. They say, in the name of thy son, JC, amen. He isn't our son....

It is probably that they are not thinking about what they are saying. that is the problem. I believe when we use His name, we should always do it consciously and concentrate on what we are saying. It is the most important time to "think" and not say idle words....words that mean nothing to us, or vain repetition....

On the other hand, one of my friends accused me of taking the lord's name in vain when i was hurt laying on a baseball field. I said, "Dear God, help me..." and then passed out. I remember that was all i could get out, and knew i needed to pray. maybe i was wrong...maybe not.

[AnthonyB]

The other day, i went to a Christian club meeting before school. I understood another way that people use the Lord's name in vain.

Many of the prayers went like this.

Lord J... thank you L...J... for all we have L...J...We ask L.....J....that you bless us L...J.... with the strength to overcome and be your elect L...J.... Thank you L...J... for the ability L..J...to confess your name and be saved L...J...

Honestly, this was almost verbatim.

Many of the prayers were offensive to the spirit because of this or other things....I came away feeling sickened.

Another way i have found that people use the Lord's name in vain is when they close their testimonies. They say, in the name of thy son, JC, amen. He isn't our son....

It is probably that they are not thinking about what they are saying. that is the problem. I believe when we use His name, we should always do it consciously and concentrate on what we are saying. It is the most important time to "think" and not say idle words....words that mean nothing to us, or vain repetition....

On the other hand, one of my friends accused me of taking the lord's name in vain when i was hurt laying on a baseball field. I said, "Dear God, help me..." and then passed out. I remember that was all i could get out, and knew i needed to pray. maybe i was wrong...maybe not.

Tiancum,

"Thy" means "your" , so "in the name of thy son" is just using archaic language to say "in the name of your son" Where does the "our son" idea come from.

[AnthonyB]

Perhaps, but evolution is what is considered the accepted science. To teach otherwise in an accredited secondary institution - within the science department - would lose a University it accredidation status. In other words, there isn't a single accredited College or University, in the country - with the best Secondadry educational system in the world - which teaches anything like creationalism within it's science departments. Now if they want to teach that within humanities, or religious studies, they can. But it isn't considered a hard science.

sqallan,

My objection is that evolution is not taught as hard science. How many people think natural selection is all that is going on, and not things such DNA/RNA trasnsfer through viruses et al. How many people believe evolution is about life "progressing" in a most almost metaphysical way and not just a set of neutral process that have no conception of what we call progress. How many people know that species can regress and re-assume traits that they previously had.

Evolution in my experience is not generally taught neutrally but rather as a means to denigrate and ridicule theism.

Little wonder that so many find it offensive to them.

I would have no problem with the evolutionary theories, as long as they do not descend to an enforcing of one metaphysical world veiw or denigrate other feilds and ways of knowing.

[prisonchaplain]

The other day, i went to a Christian club meeting before school. I understood another way that people use the Lord's name in vain.

Many of the prayers went like this.

Lord J... thank you L...J... for all we have L...J...We ask L.....J....that you bless us L...J.... with the strength to overcome and be your elect L...J.... Thank you L...J... for the ability L..J...to confess your name and be saved L...J...

Honestly, this was almost verbatim.

Many of the prayers were offensive to the spirit because of this or other things....I came away feeling sickened.

I'm not sure why you needed to be offended by that prayer. Not taking the name of the LORD in vain hardly means we must always be somber and rational. Rather, a survey of Old Testament discussions between God and his prophets/kings shows repeated passionate, often theologically incorrect prayers. God where are you??!! God I want to die!! God let the Ninevites die!

The repeated interjection of "Lord Jesus" or "Father God" or other such addresses during prayer can demonstrate familiarity and intimacy with God. Communion is not restricted to intellectual pondering, after all.

So...I won't deny the Spirit's witness, if that is what you are sure you experienced in your dismay. But, I would suggest that you were simply experiencing a different Christian culture.

[a-train]

"Thy" means "your" , so "in the name of thy son" is just using archaic language to say "in the name of your son" Where does the "our son" idea come from.

LOL! This discussion just took a hilarious turn. Anthony, what Tiancum is remonstrating here is when people in the LDS Church say 'in the name of thy Son' to the congregation and not the LORD.

At the end of an address to the congregation, they say 'in the name of thy Son..', when what they mean is: 'in the name of God's Son'...etc.

-a-train

PS, it hurts my ears too, but I know it is not on purpose.

[tiancum]

Tiancum,

"Thy" means "your" , so "in the name of thy son" is just using archaic language to say "in the name of your son" Where does the "our son" idea come from.

in a testimony, the primary audience (at least in the LDS faith) is the crowd. It differs froma prayer in that we are communicating to our brothers and sisters, what our father has told us, through his spirit. I did know what thy means, but that was not my point.

My point was that they were referring to the Lord as "thy son" and he is neither MY nor OUR son. It is simply common to say "in the name of thy son" in prayers, so they end testimonies that way too without thinking.

PS, it hurts my ears too, but I know it is not on purpose.

Ye same here.

[Traveler]

What offends me almost as much as the Lord's name being taken in vain is when people write L-ord or G-d. I understand, Traveler, that your intent is to allow others in countries where spelling the names of Deity is forbidden to use this site, but if it's forbidden then what are they doing here to begin with? It is disrespectful to use the Lord's name inappropriately. Just as using His name in vain is wrong, belittling Him by typing G-d is wrong as well. His name is God.

Going back a few pages for this...

Jason, try looking at this another way. You know how we speculate about our Mother in heaven, and how Heavenly Father has not revealed her name nor much about her at all, so as not to allow us to defile her name? My view is that when people type G-d, they are avoiding any chance of being profane with His name. They find it so holy that to write it in its completeness during such common usage would be disrespectful. I personally don't mind writing out His name, but can completely respect those who would use the equivalent of a reverent whisper when referring to Him in writing.

I would add something here - there are no copies of the ancient scriptures that have survived to our time that did not imploy my method of showing respect of divine titles by not writing the entire text. It is likely the most consistant treatment of any doctrine in all of scripture. I could address more on this subject but this is hardly the place to display such sacred pearls - for the obvious reasons.

Also mightynancy - There are few scriptures that address directly our Father in Heaven (beside our mother in heaven). The only names of the Father that we are allowed are the names Jesus took upon himself - few understand the meaning or importance of this.

The Traveler

[tiancum]

The repeated interjection of "Lord Jesus" or "Father God" or other such addresses during prayer can demonstrate familiarity and intimacy with God. Communion is not restricted to intellectual pondering, after all.

PrisonChaplain, i didn't know it meant familiarity PrisonChaplain. PrisonChaplain, I thought, PrisonChaplain that it was indeed a vain repetition PrisonChaplain that did not in fact convey, PrisonChaplain, resprect nor familiarity PrisonChaplain. In fact, PrisonChaplain, I found it a little more difficult PrisonChaplain to even follow what was being said PrisonChaplain. If, PrisonChaplain, the meaning gets diluted by too frequent of name usage, then PrisonChaplain, perhaps it is excessive PrisonChaplain. LOL wow even i got confused there.

It was excessive. And definitely a vain repetition.

[pushka]

I remember when I started attending the LDS church, that I was reminded of the need to be respectful to the words/names..Jesus, God, etc. I had come from a Roman Catholic background where it was often heard the cry 'Jesus, Mary and Joseph!' when something had gone wrong...I always found this amusing somehow. When I attended the LDS church I started to think more about what I was saying and making an effort to replace words with others, such as Oh My Gosh and Shoot...I still think about the LDS church whenever I slip up now and say what I used to say, especially if I'm in the company of anyone I perceive as religious...Christian or non-Christian.

Josie and Elphie, I loved your posts...Yes Elphie, I read every word of yours...all of them, and found them very educational. Over here in the UK our state schools have inclusive religion lessons, as the year progresses the schools make mention of the major Cultures' specific holidays (this even occurs in Roman Catholic schools these days) and try to celebrate in a way similar to that of that culture...for instance, the children (primary school) dressed up in 'Chinese' style clothing and ate Chinese style snacks at the Chinese New Year, and also made drawings to celebrate the occasion. This is repeated for other religions also, the only time I hear anybody complain is when they object to hearing about other religions than Christianity, even if their child is not attending a particular religion's school, and they may not even attend church themselves...very hypocritical in my opinion.

I have no objection to saying Merry Christmas or Eid Mubarak, whichever is most appropriate in the given circumstances...Our local Morrisons store has banners proclaiming Merry Christmas and Eid Mubarak outside it's carpark..My son is doing a local paper round and was told that if he placed a Xmas card with his papers one week, and knocked on the door to present the houseowner with the card, he would be tipped!! I suggested, since we live in a heavily asian populated town, that he might be wise to send both a Christmas and an Eid card, but he was afraid to do that in case he offended anybody!!! Such silliness, just as Elphie stated...once you hear something (a rumour) it just grows and grows till it gets out of hand and you're too scared to do anything!!

Just for Six:

http://www.venganza.org/

Hope you enjoy! :)

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Just a note about evolution being a theory - when you were conceived you started out as a single cell organism called a zygote. As part of “evolution” that single cell went through a process of mitosis that produced two cells as different from the original cell as they are from each other. From that single cell all the different cells that comprise you and who you are evolved by every definition and understanding of the term evolution.

Now if there is any other term that better describes what happens between conception and birth of a person – please tell me what that “Theory” is!!!

The Traveler

Traveler you are confusing the aspect of Evolutionary theory that is so hotly contested. No reputable scientist, be they secular or fundamentalist, doubts that species adapt to their environments ("evolve" to circumstances). Rather, the debate is over the origin of species. Did our world come into being through random selection or was it designed? Did something "mold" the evolution of the universe, or did it all just come together helter skelter?

The scientific community seems fundamentalist, dogmatic, and very intolerant of the theory of Intelligent Design. As soon as there is any hint at a Creator, the reaction is almost jihadist. To teach the scientific arguments for design in public science classrooms would not be akin to introducing the Articles of Faith. Yet, this seems to be the scare-mongering of those opposed to I.D.

You and I have learned that often people of different opinions stumble over how to communicate what is really different and what is a principal of agreement.

The reason I used a single cell evolving into a human is both important and critical. Evolution even continues after birth – we call it growth in some circles and it continues to bring changes in what we often call ageing. The point I tried to make is that evolution is a principle of truth that can be observed. So I have pointed out a clear example of something everyone can observe and that we should all be able to agree upon.

Now you talk about the origin of species. Species is not a Biblical or religious term. The scriptures speak of “Kind” and many in religion try to tear down understanding by insisting that Kind in scripture and Species in science speaks to the exact same thing. Also I have yet to meet any scientist that believes that randomness can be demonstrated ever in anything – yet this is the criticism of religionist of all of science. If religionists make no effort to understand and incorporate the truths of science – why should those that understand science make any effort to make sense of such religions?

But back to evolution. Once we have observed and seen evolution at what point do we say G-d performs his work? Let me ask a question – Is it possible that prior to G-d commanding life to reproduce after it own kind that the process changed? That prior to that commandment life did not always reproduce after their own kind? What ever kind is?

If science is ever able to alter one life form into another will we then be faced with the problem that man was able to do (learn to create) what G-d could not learn?

I believe the more we learn and the more we understand (including science) the clearer we will perceive and understand the things of G-d and that we live in a time when truth is more available than at any other time. I am amazed when someone close to G-d has difficulty dealing with new concepts that make sense of old questions.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

Tiancum,

"Thy" means "your" , so "in the name of thy son" is just using archaic language to say "in the name of your son" Where does the "our son" idea come from.

in a testimony, the primary audience (at least in the LDS faith) is the crowd. It differs froma prayer in that we are communicating to our brothers and sisters, what our father has told us, through his spirit. I did know what thy means, but that was not my point.

My point was that they were referring to the Lord as "thy son" and he is neither MY nor OUR son. It is simply common to say "in the name of thy son" in prayers, so they end testimonies that way too without thinking.

PS, it hurts my ears too, but I know it is not on purpose.

Ye same here.

I couldn't work out the connection, thanks for updates. I did think it odd that you didn't understand what "thy" meant. (My misunderstanding was a bit humorous really.)

[sgallan]

And why is that? Why would it be heresy to teach the scientific arguments for Design vs. Random Selection? That's what this boils down to. It seems the scientific community is so afraid of religious influence, that it resorts its own dogmatism. After all, in the science classroom, there would be no discussion as to whether the design was done by a superior species, or by God.

I told you why.... if you get your Christian God, then I get my Flying Spaghetti Monster. Voodoo folks get their theories. I get my Dragon. And anybody who can rationalize a certain aspect of science - using science to prove their case - also gets a say. I bet there are thousands of such ideas. At some point it is no longer science. Which is why if you do not teach the generally accepted science, not only as an institution, but as a professor, you can say good bye to your accredidation, or career.

Science within higher education has to meet certain standards. That is what makes us the best in the world. It is why we are communicating via the internet. Our life spans go up. And any number of things. To do anything otherwise pretty much kills off our science education.