Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…

ohh yeahhh…. i'm hoping they have to move this class to the large 600+++ student auditoriums due to the strong demand.

This is great! They wanted their nonsense taught in a classroom??? Here it is. Enjoy!

File ID under mythology! Great Job Mr Mirecki.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Prof Mirecki is half way to the proper class description. If he simply includes “evolution” in the title of his course he will find a rich smokin' smelly pile of material to fill his class. Mythology is right on.
“Where did we come from and how did we get here?” are questions that cannot be answered scientifically because they cannot be tested. We cannot go back in time. Nor can we conduct an experiment that lasts a million years. All we have is evidence subject to the mythological tendencies of the human spirit. Sing your songs, evolutionists, dance your dances, creationists. Stop using the term science prematurely. You haven't tested all that you claim.

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

Once again, Kansas students are the losers because of the arrogance of higher education. I agree with devobrun. All we have is evidence- evidence of what?
Science has not “proven” anything about origins. Anthony Flew, leading contemporary aetheist philosopher, says the evidence is leading him away from naturalistic interpretations of origins.

scottjp (Anonymous) says…

I am truely happy to be an alumni of KU. They are stepping up to the plate.

Calvert wants to know what Mirecki's scientific credentials are while he is a lawyer leading ID. What are your scientific credentials Mr. Calvert?
Do you not want ID taught with religion because it hurts you trying to prove it as science?
Do you not want ID myth to be taught with religion because it brings out the myth in religion? You can't have it both ways.

Again, thank you KU

jayhawk2000 (Anonymous) says…

We can't go back in time to determine the precise nature of our origins, but if I see a tree lying across the road after an ice storm I'm going to blame the weight of the ice, not some divine force or hungry beavers. And I'll be able to come to that conclusion without hopping into my time machine.

Maybe it WAS a gang of hungry beavers out on a rampage in an ice storm this one time, but when faced with evidence (say, divergence of species on the Galapagos Islands as was the case with Darwin) we should explain things more simply with specific, scientific theories rather than generalisations about a nameless, inscrutable divine being.

Time for a shave with Ockham's Razor, methinks. Any volunteers from the ID brigade??

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (Anonymous) says…

It seems childish and petty to me. This mythology class ranks right up there with “Freedom Fries.”

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

Mythology being taught as mythology. Brilliant.

Is that the sound of wacko religious conservative heads exploding?

neopolss (Anonymous) says…

“I think the guy is going to fall all over himself,” Calvert said. “I would love to go to his class and say, ‘Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?’”

“God made it that way.” That's using ID LOL.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

This is brilliant strategy! Kind of the “ying” to the “yang” of the ID/Evolution “trial”.

ladysilk (Anonymous) says…

This is almost worth going back to school for. I think I may sign up to take classes! Bravo!!!

craigers (Anonymous) says…

I just love how everybody seems to think they can explain our origins with evolution, that is what creationism is addressing. Not the gradual changes within species that we have all stated and believe is correct. I love how the solar system and all the planets being on their orbits just occurred by chance, like the earth being tilted at 23.5 degrees in order to provide proper distribution of the sun, the sun lights up our day and the moon oddly reflects the sun's light to keep our nights from being completely black. Oh yeah, completely looks like chance. As to people's objections of how we Christians feel about who get's to go to heaven isn't accurate at all. I didn't make this decision, God did. Don't be mad because you feel that you might be wrong, we have been over this before. The fact that they majority of the world will go to hell isn't an opinion it is exactly what Jesus told us would happen. I am glad that people view Christians as intolerant and unloving but when one of the scientific community steps out and just wants to slam all Christian ideology they praise him as being intelligent and correct in being an indignant bigot. Welcome to Lawrence.

tir (Anonymous) says…

Good for Mirecki and the KU School of Religion. I don't see this class as something that just “puts down” ID—I think it will help put ID into perspective, by discussing it as simply one of the many creation myths that have arisen over the centuries. Studying creation myths can tell us a great deal about the people and societies that believe in them. I think it sounds like a wonderful class and I hope a lot of people sign up for it.

billybeanbag (Anonymous) says…

I love this town, this school and this is a great use of academia's muscle.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Craigers -
Now astronomy is ID too? You just completed the argument why ID is not science. If you can apply the same reasoning to everything, then it is not science. “Is it just coincidence that 1+1=2? I think not! It could have just as easily equalled 3, but it was designed to equal two.” Your argument about the planets can apply to every one of the billions of solar systems — all planets have orbits, all planets have suns, most planets have moons that reflect light back…..what you have are the physics of gravity, inertia, light….

craigers (Anonymous) says…

My point is not to say that ID is science or Astronomy. Thanks for jumping to that conclusion. My point is that no matter if you understand the universe and all the natural things that go on, doesn't negate the obviousness of a creator. All the other solar systems have orbits too? No doubt does this call for some higher being putting them on this orbit. I don't see how arrogant people can be. For me to say that Jesus is the only way to God is intolerant and arrogant, but you are consider a man of the people if you show creationism as a myth and evolution the only way to explain our origins. Nobody sees the hypocrisy in this? I know you are smarter than that fossilhunter. You are bringing up all the cliched arguments against anybody that brings up a creator or ID. I am not talking math or science or anything like that, but the proof that this universe and all the other solar systems provides isn't a world created by chance, but by a creator.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

This class sounds great. Thank you Professor Mirecki. It is truly an example of the sort of thing that a university should be doing. Bravo.

Don't forget about the Flying Spaghetti Monster ID myth, may you be touched by his noodly appendage.

mason_powell (Anonymous) says…

It is interesting that Calvert's response has nothing to do with the actual class that is perhaps going to be offered. What does DNA and the primordial soup have to do with teaching a class about American mythology. There are classes about Chinese mythology and I don't see Calvert throwing a fit about that. If Calvert has questions about DNA then he needs to enroll in a biology course. Finally, these instructors are not teaching classes “in” religion, that is why a person gets religious training. Religious Studies teaches students “about” religion. American Mythology is fair game, as it falls into that category. Unless someone is going to tell me that religion has nothing to do with ID or creationism. People have no problem talking about the mythology of other cultures. Just don't talk about theirs, is that the rule?

feeble (Anonymous) says…

@ craigers

I take it you slept through History class during the discussion of Ptolemy and his epicycles. The irony here is quite profound.

badger (Anonymous) says…

I applaud this.

All faiths are on some level mythologies, and everyone who practices a faith does it because they believe that theirs is the correct mythology, or they would be practicing a different one.

Mythology does not have to be a derogatory term. It can also apply as a neutral description to a linked set of beliefs explaining how the world works together.

Religions are one form of mythology. Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, paganism, all of these are linked sets of beliefs offering metaphysical explanations for what is. There are varying degrees of evidence and proof for any of these faiths, and their mythology, because it's based in metaphysical and supernatural explanations, belongs with the study of the metaphysical and supernatural in Religion and Philosophy classes.

The evolutionary theory of the origin of life is also a mythology, one that offers a linked set of beliefs based in a physical explanation for what is. Because it's a physical and scientific study, it belongs in Science classes with the study of physical and natural phenomena. Just as you can take a Biology class and a Philosophy class without the two of them invalidating each other, you can examine physical and metaphysical explanations for what is without the ideas necessarily contradicting each other. You just need to keep separate what is addressing the metaphysical and what is addressing the physical.

He's not actually trying to teach that ID is wrong. He's exploring it as a philosophical topic, as it should be explored:

“Mirecki said the course would be capped at 120 students, exploring intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without a “designer,” presumably a god or other supernatural being.

The course also will cover the origins of creationism, why it’s an American phenomenon, and why Americans have allowed it to pervade politics and education, Mirecki said. He said several KU faculty have volunteered to be guest lecturers.”

It looks to be more a study of the concepts themselves and how they apply to modern American life, and how they affect our social framework. I think it sounds like an interesting philosophy class.

moveforward (Anonymous) says…

This is perfect! Yeah!?!?

I never had a problem with presenting the ID theory… just not as science. What an elegant solution! Way to go KU… now maybe our local school district can step up to the plate… they surely stretch into theology when teaching the philosphies of Descartes, Plato and Taoism.

planetwax (Anonymous) says…

“They don’t want their beliefs to be analyzed rationally. That’s what this class is devised to do.”

You can say that again and again!

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

I've warned before that those seeking to insert religion into government should be prepared for government to insert itself into religion. I guess that warning fell on deaf ears.

We'll see if the class is an honest evaluation of this sociological phenomena or whether its critics' fears of bigotry are proved out. But if some feel that the idea of such a class is “to slam all Christian ideology,” the critics' scientific ignorance pales in comparison to their theological stupidity as ID is not and never has been an element of Christian theology. Not understanding the difference is the equivalent of confusing a present with the present's packaging.

craigers (Anonymous) says…

wendt I am glad you can detect sarcasm and then turn it into saying I am an idiot. Thank you super intelligent wendt for pointing that out to me.

feeble, once again understanding something doesn't negate a creator. I might understand how a car, electricity, among many other things work, but does that mean that I can say that Henry Ford had nothing to do with automobiles? Or that Edison had nothing to do with the lightbulb? Absolutely not. That fact that you can understand and tell how something works doesn't negate it's need for someone that created it.

Since the world shows the proof for a creator then no man is without excuse saying he didn't know that God existed.

travis (Anonymous) says…

“I think the guy is going to fall all over himself,” Calvert said. “I would love to go to his class and say, ‘Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?’”

As attorney and managing director of an ID group you think he would have a better understanding of suspected initial pathways.

Correct me if I'm wrong but RNA is widely thought to have preceded DNA.

If you have seas of nucleotides that are freely binding together you will get larger molecules, if your component nucleotides are of the right set (which is assumed) RNA molecules will form.
RNA can act as a catalyst.
As soon as the mechanics for self-replication have formed in RNA as a product of random binding (this is the crucial step) you have the start of life.

Imperfectly replicating agents with limited resources means competition and evolution.

I imagined this years ago with little guidance and have since read it with more detail in biochemistry texts and Dawkins for example.

There are, of course, other explanations of the biochemical origins of life (and tens of thousands of explanations of supernatural origins as well). Just wanted to drop this in.

Nice excerpt from Dawkin's “The Blind Watchmaker”: http://print.google.com/print?id=dhqToCu… about visible evolution of RNA-replicase within a set of test tubes.

grimpeur (Anonymous) says…

craigers:

“Proof for a creator?” Such as?

It would be correct to say that understanding (of anything) doesn't negate the possibility of a creator. Of course, nor does it confirm the possibility of a creator. However, unlike ID/creationist/religion, science doesn't pretend to have proven or disproven anything about origins of universe or life on earth. Rather, science has provided many insights into the possible mechanisms of such beginnings and subsequent proliferation of life on earth, all based on observation of natural phenomena and experimental testing.

Creationists, however, have not done this, haven't provided any scientific data for their beliefs, and so are pretending that proof exists of such a creator, despite the fact that there is none. That's why ID will never make it as a science, and why it's perfectly suited to a mythology class.

craigers (Anonymous) says…

Obviously, you have chosen to reject the proof in nature and our own bodies.

CanadianPassport (Anonymous) says…

I think it would make sense to teach creationism in a mythology class, but not ID. Nor do I think ID should be taught in a science class. At this point, ID should only be taught in a politics class. If a biology teacher wants to address any holes in evolutionary theory, there is obviously more than one way to teach that; let them decide. Regardless of my opinion of the French, Ascot got it right with the Freedom Fries analogy. It's petty. This is just a hastily thought-up way to cash in on public divisiveness.

I don't understand why some Christians feel so threatened by the teaching of evolution. If you believe in any God, you believe that man was given his intellect so that he could use it. Some Christians have a very literal interpretation of the bible, others don't. Regardless, a Christian's salvation does not hinge upon any of the stuff in the ID debate.

dirtykaw (Anonymous) says…

Don't come running to John Calvert if God becometh angry and smites KU with a holy hurricane

BunE (Anonymous) says…

Woooooooowoowoooooowowoooooooo. This is not for you to ponder…God works in mysterious ways. The earth was made in 4004 BC. woooowowoooo. Your science and reason are no match for the power of scripture.

or something like that

Creationists are afraid to have the mysteries explained but man does not have the ability to just accept the status quo. Those who do are looked upon as lazy or drags on society. Don't be afraid. If the hypothesis is correct and god did design this big ol goofy world than that would change the face of science forever!

Let me put it words they can understand.

God is said to have bestowed man with its innate curiosity. It would be sinful not to let it follow its course. Science by its nature is critical of itself. Let the ID-ists step up and enter the world of scientific discovery. Wouldn't a god that created this amazing machine that is our body and the computer that controls it want us to use it to its fullest? I doubt that blind worship is the whole point of self awareness. Welcome into a whole new world of rigorous analysis. Maximizing one's potential seems to me to be a better vehicle for god's glory than wasting it.

Its what god would want. Does he have something to fear?

Also if the the majority of the world is going to hell than god is sort of a jerk.

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

wendt: Thanks for bringing in some common sense to this argument! It is crazy to see all these people who believe that a book (bible, koran, etc.) is proof of anything. If some guy claimed to be getting the “word of God” today, then we'd lock him up in a mental ward. It cracks me up to hear a Christian make fun of Scientology. Really, are alien souls really that much less believable than all sorts of stuff from the bible? I think religion is good in the sense that it teaches a set of morals and encourages people to not cheat on their spouse or kill people.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

This religion class can explore the roots of creationist ID “thought”, but CanadianPassport, who said that ID belongs in a politics class, is on to something.

ID creationism is a facet of a wider anti-intellectualism that has been a part of populist political thought for at least 150 years and probably longer.

It is part of a populist political reaction against professionals, experts, and academics that is prevalent in our political culture.

One need to look no further than denials of scientists about global warming and evolution, denials of “activist” judges, and Michael Brown.

BunE (Anonymous) says…

YWN, you are a dreamboat!

When the Idiots frame the argument we all lose!

grimpeur (Anonymous) says…

craigers:

“Obviously, you have chosen to reject the proof in nature and our own bodies.”

I'll repeat my question: What proof? What does it prove, and how?

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“I would predict that (Mirecki’s) effort will go down in history as one of the laughingstocks of the century,” said John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County.

“Calvert questioned Mirecki’s expertise, saying the teaching of intelligent design requires an extensive understanding of evolution and science.”

“I think the guy is going to fall all over himself,” Calvert said. “I would love to go to his class and say, ‘Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?’”

For anyone who considers themselves an ID person, this is not the guy you want representing you. Consider the question Calvert claims he would ask. As Travis pointed out earlier, the absurdity of this question clearly shows a lack of scientific understanding even from a layman's perspective. Calvert is “one of the laughingstocks of the century.” Notice how scientists defend evolution and attorneys and politicians defend ID/creationsism. The irony of the “expertise” statement is staggering.

I think it is amusing to watch Calvert and his cronies all hyperventilate over an elective course being offered by KU on mythology. This course which somehow “demeans” ID and makes “victims” out of ID defenders, should be the least of their worries. The scientific method is where their focus should be since it is responsible for destroying every argument that ID has tried to put forth.

craigers (Anonymous) says…

grimpeur, I see the complexity of our bodies and how they heal themselves when hurt, how the nervous system as well as the others work as proof of a creature. I dont' see the logic of concluding that the least likely option as being the right answer, ie evolution for our origin. I know some will counter back with how is a God more logical when you can't see him? I guess it depends on our lives. I have spent my life in church, but have seen miracles take place and that confirms the word of God for me, the proof that he is real. Therefore I can see that he is real and it is logical to see Him as the creator. As for nature, the way moisture returns to the sky to once again rain down and water the fields to allow them to grow and to allow us with water to drink since it is essential to life. If the earth was closer to the sun, then we would have a planet like Venus, uninhabitable for people, and if it were further away we would freeze. There are many other reasons that I see as proof and I realize that the application of evolution will explain some of the adaptations of our bodies among many other useful facts. However, it can't explain our origin. This world is its own proof. Please remember that I am not trying to advocate ID in the science classroom because I see that it doesn't fit into the scientific study parameters. I just don't see how people can so easily dismiss the idea of a creator. Christians are seen as feeling dehumanized by the thought of coming from an animal ancestor, but then those who uphold evolution consider themselves as too intelligent to believe in a creator. (This is merely an observation of most evolutionists I have encountered, not everybody on this post so please don't get angry)

jayhawktownie (Anonymous) says…

craigers-
Since when is something which we don't fully understand proof of anything? The purpose of science is to gain understanding of things we don't currently understand. Sure, there are some things in the natural world that are still beyond the realm of our scientific knowledge but you cannot use this as proof that there will never be a scientific explanation. Your reasoning shows a complete lack of critical thinking and exposes the weakness of the intelligent design position. Are human's supposed to give up the pursuit of knowledge and just say, “we don't get it, it must be the creator?” Please, come back to the board when you have something thought-provoking to contribute.

adky (Anonymous) says…

craigers:

What proof for a creator? Does it stand up to scientific testing?

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Proof that only you can see = ghosts

A self-proving hypothesis? Is that ringing telephone the Nobel Prize Committee calling (or is it just a self-ringing telephone)?

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Craigers,

Did the miracles you witnessed involve unicorns and faeries?

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. (4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.

4. Thomas Barnes, ICR Technical Monograph #4, origin and destiny of the earth’s magnetic field.

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of plonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. (10) This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

(10) Robert Gentry –creationn’s tiny mystery)

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

Man-made artifacts – such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past. (11)

(11) Carl Baugh, Ph d –why do men believe evolution … against all odds?

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

bankboy - huh? You're in over your head here.

grimpeur (Anonymous) says…

craigers:

Thanks for the insight into your view. I am familiar with your interpretation of the complexity of natural phenomena. I recognize that the “evidence” you posit suggests the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I used to think this FSM stuff was just silly talk, but now it's beginning to make sense.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Spankboy,

I agree with Fossil. What politico-religious website did you pull these references from? What peer-reviewed journals were these reports published in? What is “plonium”?

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Bankboy
“Man-made artifacts – such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past. (11)”
I've seen the “evidence” of all of these and they are all simply marks in rocks, or in the case of the hammer, corrosion on a piece of steel. No one outside of the young earth fundamentalist web sites gives them any credence. BTW, you forgot the Cretaceous “battery” too.

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

Actually it comes from the Creation Evidences Museum. Fossil, how am I in over my head? Because I've finally put up evidence that you do not know how to refute?

Nightmare,

I believe plonium should be plutonium. If you'd like to see the entire site I'll gladly give you the link.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientif…

At the bottom there are different areas to visit and you can go see the rest of the explainations. I won't waste the time putting it all up here.

Bob, no it's not on the radio.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Spankboy,

What peer-reviewed journals published this “work”?

The “Creation Evidences Museum”? Oh, this sounds like an unbiased, purely scientific organization.

It says “creation” in the name, ferchrissakes!

Spankboy, I think you have hit a new low of ridiculousness.

grimpeur (Anonymous) says…

bankboy:

You follow a good question with debunked dreck like this? “Dr.” Baugh's “alleged 'giant man track' from Glen Rose, Texas, regarded by most researchers as a carved print and considered dubious even by most creationists” is supposed to convince us that the overwhelming scientific evidence is all wrong? Hoooookay, bub.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/w…

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

I'm sorry what's wrong with having creation in the name? You should check it out. Maybe you'll learn something. If it had evolution in the name I'm sure you would jump right on it as being incredibly “scientific.” There is work in there by Nobel prize winners, scholars, all the lovely people you try and say have nothing to do with the evolution debate.

It would be ridiculous for you to ridicule it without even taking a look at it.

bennyoates (Anonymous) says…

Let's hope this will be a first step in rehabilitating the image of Kansas that has come to dominate the mass media in the last couple of weeks. Those of us who don't want to be lumped in with the ignoramuses on the school board and their followers have our work cut out for us. I'm close to graduating from KU with my Ph.D. and am bracing myself for the sarcastic remarks I'm sure to hear out on the job market.

avhjmlk (Anonymous) says…

Ah hah. bankboy has just shown us that ID is, in fact, no matter how hard they try to deny it, creationism wrapped in shiny paper.

And, craigers, you should also remember that the human body cannot always heal itself. What more proof could there be of the worth and importance of science and human intellect than, say, amoxicillin? Or, the use of electric shock (only during certain kinds of rhythms—scientists had to figure out which ones) to restart a stopped heart? That some children learn to read phonetically, and others through word recognition and pattern? That, when attempting to determine how a human body decomposes, the best animal to test on is a pig, because they decompose in a predictably similar way to the human body?

Whose to say that God didn't decide that, through Evolution, the first humans would come to be?

adky (Anonymous) says…

What a load of nonsense! Why do people insist on believing the stories told in a book written centuries ago, by scores of unknown people, and amended by thousands of others to support their own views? Wendt had the answer - fear. Humans have a wonderful ability to ease their fears by inventing fairy stories. If this creator was so great why doesn't he pop down and tell us all how he did it? Why do we have to have faith or listen to his message through conduits such as Pat Robertson? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it keeps folks happy, makes lots of $$$$ for church leaders and preachers, and maintains GW in power! Praise the Lord!

hobb2264 (Anonymous) says…

YWN,

“Oh, this sounds like an unbiased, purely scientific organization.”

How can you write that with a straight face? Science by definition is biased against any kind of “supernatural” entity. Everyone (bankboy, craigers and others) trying to convince people that science can prove God is doing so without any chance of winning. The rules are clearly stacked against you when the definition of science clearly excludes anything but “natural” explanations. Even if a god does exist, the existence (and effects) can not be verified by a system that automatically rules Him out.

Hong_Kong_Phooey (Anonymous) says…

You know, I think that the religious folk out there who want ID taught in the schools are afraid. They are afraid that if they were to recognize that by chance we evolved out of the primordial soup, the planets aligned, etc. then there really is “no one flying the plane” so-to-speak. This would mean that everything happens by chance and that they are in as much control over their lives as God would be. I think this scares the hell out of them. So, instead of realizing this, they cling to the bible and ID like a little kid to his woobie.

Mr_Christopher (Anonymous) says…

This is the greatest new development I have heard about. I hope the will cover ID methods such as the “Wedge Strategy” and “Teach The Controversy”

This is cool news, hopefully we'll see other universities offer similar classes all accross the country. Instead of Kansas being the laughing stock of science perhaps they will be the leaders in exposing Intelligent Design for what it really is.

I love you Kansas!

Mr_Christopher (Anonymous) says…

On emore thing… :-)

John Calvert said “I would predict that (Mirecki’s) effort will go down in history as one of the laughingstocks of the century”

Mirecki will go down in histrory as a hero! Kansas is now ground zero for honestly teaching the controversy!

Chris

hobb2264 (Anonymous) says…

adky,

“Why do people insist on believing the stories told in a book written centuries ago, by scores of unknown people, and amended by thousands of others to support their own views?”

Fear…yes, I agree. Also, besides the book of Genesis the authors in the Bible were first or second hand witnesses of the historical events that they wrote about. If you don't like the amended versions, you can always read the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

“Why do we have to have faith…”

Because God wants us to choose Him. And fortunately, we don't have to go through intermediates like Pat Robertson to get to know God. Jesus took care of that problem for us.