Darwinists should be willing to debate
My dear friend Philip Darling and I agree in his opposition to teaching evolution as fact. We, the people, are not to be blamed for that fiasco. Somewhat less than a century ago Dr. John Dewey became the head of the education system in the United States. One of his manifest goals was to remove God from the system. He has succeeded, but his help did not come from the folks like you and me, but from the Ph.D.s, lawyers of ACLU, our U.S. Supreme Court, none of whom were elected by the people.
Some people with Ph.D.s in science, mostly biological sciences have declared, on the basis of scant "evidence," that man descended from a hairy quadruped, which probably lived in trees. Some 125 years ago Charles Darwin wrote "The Descent of Man" in which he claims man descended from apes. The idea took hold and has changed little, if at all, since 1871. Not all those of our scientific community or intelligentsia hold to this theory. Those who do refuse to debate their theories with those who disagree, i.e. Dr. Behee Darwin's Black Box of the University of Pennsylvania and many others, including philosophers and lawyers. To me, a former engineer somewhat versed in physics, open and honest discussion is a means of progress and arriving at valid conclusions.
Belief in creation was declared a religious issue, and ACLU attorneys convinced the Supreme Court it violated our Constitution's "church/state" clause, hence should not be taught in public schools. Thus a lie becomes fact and truth becomes unteachable because it is a religion.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Jesus was crucified because he disobeyed the laws and traditions. Since he was the giver of the law, I felt it odd he was accused of breaking it -- by healing on the sabbath, touching the "unclean" lepers, and it is a fact that he talked with, associated with sinners and prostitutes. Read about it in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, especially John 8:1-11.
Perhaps it is not the law but who interprets it. Jesus narrowed the field when he said, "He that is not for me is against me," Matthew 12:30.