US school's new challenge to Darwin

[thevoice]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4248679.stm

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[RGKfit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The science teachers at the school refused to read the statement and some parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are suing.



[/ QUOTE ]

I could have bet you a million dollars that the ACLU would sue. I cannot emphasize enough how much of a horrible organization that is.

The ACLU must be stopped!

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty amazing these guys are still around and functioning. I heard today I believe it was on O'Rielly that they have all of an 18% approval rating!

[Jrdouglas24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Carol Brown and her husband Jeff both resigned from the School Board in protest.

They are both Christians but also believe in the theory of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

Compromising Christians are not real Christians! I pray they will learn this before it's too late.

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design has no physical basis. It is a matter of faith."

[/ QUOTE ]

This couldn't be further from the truth! This is ignorance at its finest.

That's cool that they mention Ken Ham though! He's the man!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, this made me /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif when I read it too. Let's see, so they are Christians but they don't believe in the Bible. So basically they believe in Jesus only if Jesus fits into their idea of who they want him to be. OKKKKKKKKKKKKKK, riiiiiiiiiiiiight. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[psaturn]

Hi Jeremy ! Nice pix !

Yeah...I cannot believe they will not accept the intelligent design theory...geee...

so...by pure chance we get a completely opposite gender creature called male and female without any intelligent design intervention so that when these opposites physically unite, they are able to produce progenitors that propagate their own kinds.

Suuuuure !!! That takes a much greater leap of faith, you know ?

And if those folks call themselves "Christians" they must not believe the Book of Genesis....

[Jrdouglas24]

[ QUOTE ]

And if those folks call themselves "Christians" they must not believe the Book of Genesis....

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!

What's up psaturn!

[NJIron]

Wow. It sounds like my position on evolution is a kind of litmus test to determine whether or not I'm a "real" Christian. After all these years of praying to Jesus and going to mass on Sundays. Wow.

Well, I guess Lent is a time for personal reflection and improvement, so you've given me something else to consider. Am I a "real" Christian?

I just can't help but wonder if Galileo's up there in heaven, shaking his head and thinking, "when will they ever learn?".

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. It sounds like my position on evolution is a kind of litmus test to determine whether or not I'm a "real" Christian. After all these years of praying to Jesus and going to mass on Sundays. Wow.

Well, I guess Lent is a time for personal reflection and improvement, so you've given me something else to consider. Am I a "real" Christian?



I just can't help but wonder if Galileo's up there in heaven, shaking his head and thinking, "when will they ever learn?".

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to tell us that you believe in evolution? Or that you are a christian?

I'm sorry, but sarcasm like that (and not backing it up) is not tolerated. So again, please explain, and also tell us why you brought up Galileo.

Either make a post that contributes, or don't make one at all, especially if it's just sarcasm.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't help but wonder if Galileo's up there in heaven, shaking his head and thinking, "when will they ever learn?".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, it is a sad recurring state. If you will study the subject you will find that history has repeated itself. The church allowed Greek philosophy to influence its understanding of cosmology, thus the church allowed heathen philosophy to translate the bible. Galileo actually was a biblical creationists, and tried to show the Greek influenced church, they were wrong. However, they were adament in their stand, as they allowed vein philosophy to dictate their understanding of the bible.

Much like today, many in the church are allowing evolution to translate the bible, instead of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, as the bible commands.

[NJIron]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I'm sorry if it came out that way. And I'm not trying to start an argument or a debate. I simply posted my thoughts after reading the thread.

I don't 'believe' in evolution. But I don't rule it out as a possibility, either. The impression I got from reading the thread was that "real" Christians could not believe that evolution was even a possibility. I never thought that my faith in Jesus Christ, or my practice of Christianity was not real.....given that we are all sinners and fall short in some respect.

I brought up Galileo only because his case is the most famous one I could think of involving religion and the advancement of scientific knowledge of our world. I trust that science will one day prove whether or not evolution occurred. Either way, I never thought the answer would have any impact at all on my faith in Jesus Christ.

[thevoice]

Science has already proven evolution is incorrect. When you hear a evolutionlist speak they start off with some science then leave science and enter wonderland where rocks turn into frogs and sea fish grow wings and fly.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
I brought up Galileo only because his case is the most famous one I could think of involving religion and the advancement of scientific knowledge of our world. I trust that science will one day prove whether or not evolution occurred. Either way, I never thought the answer would have any impact at all on my faith in Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your understanding of the facts is wrong. Read my post.

Moreover, that was sarcastic. The next time you have an issue with a mod or admin, you need to e-mail us, not act foolish on the site.

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't 'believe' in evolution. But I don't rule it out as a possibility, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, either you believe in the Bible, or you don't. If you believe in the Bible, and put evolution as possible, you have a problem. If you don't believe in the Bible, and still put evolution as possible, you still have a problem /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Namely to find evidence to support it. So far there has been none.

[ QUOTE ]

The impression I got from reading the thread was that "real" Christians could not believe that evolution was even a possibility. I never thought that my faith in Jesus Christ, or my practice of Christianity was not real.....given that we are all sinners and fall short in some respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you there. I don't go as far as saying that you can't be a christian and believe in evolution - however, I say that if you have problems then. To name a few - why do you believe in Jesus? Do you actually believe Jesus? Then why doubt His word?

I've talked to a priest who believes in evolution, and she admitted to me that I don't have those kind of problems in my faith as she would have.

[ QUOTE ]

I brought up Galileo only because his case is the most famous one I could think of involving religion and the advancement of scientific knowledge of our world. I trust that science will one day prove whether or not evolution occurred. Either way, I never thought the answer would have any impact at all on my faith in Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not religion - the church that only wanted power, and was BTW under the influence of the "science" much like evolution and the government today. It's the same thing.

And your faith in Jesus Christ - the question is, do you believe Him? Many people haven't really gone through the trouble thinking about it. I'm not saying I'm perfect or anything, I'm on the opposite end /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif It's just that if you believe in Jesus, I think you need, for yourself only, to look at the big picture, i.e. creation, fall of man, the flood, christ. If you mix in evolution, all of the Bible collapses (since the creation is the foundation), and also the need for a savior, Jesus Christ.

[William Ustav]

Also, evolution can never be verified or falsified, since the premises exclude it... It's not testable.

[NJIron]

/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif I feel like I just got whacked in the head with a 2x4....a little dizzy right now.

[William Ustav]

LOL! /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

That's all right, I just want people to reflect on the case more /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Have you read any of our Bible studies? They are a good place to start at! /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Jrdouglas24]

The main point that everyone is trying to get across NJIron is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to call yourself an evolutionist and a Christian. The Bible tells us how we were made, starting with Adam and Eve. If you doubt that part, then what makes you not doubt the other parts? If you believe in Evolution, then what makes you believe parts of the Bible, mainly the New Testament?

By the way, Jo Yu King used to be a big believer of Evolution until he saw all the flaws with it so you might want to send him a private message if you have any questions. They also go over a lot of stuff in the Indept Bible studies.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[EarlGrey]

Well, real scientists don't "believe" in anything. Real science cannot be interpreted as a "fact" or the "truth", but rather as what is "best known".

The theory of evolution is what it is, a "theory". It's just as "right" and "wrong" as the idea that God created the world in seven days. Who knows, maybe that "new design" theory is more "correct" than those two.

Human kind has struggled before against new ideas, and it seems to be in our nature to be split over almost all things. This is dangerous, as human history has shown.

Our perspective of the universe is changing every moment, and people have to learn to be respect ideas of others, and not sufficate them as they come forward, as for those who bring new ideas forward to respect the doubt and criticism of others. How else will we ever learn?

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
real scientists don't "believe" in anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how can they make any predictions on events that are unobservable and can never be reproduced in a laboratory?

For example, the origin of life or the cosmos. Neither are observable nor emperical. If faith is not added to the equation, no one can state anything.

Science indeed holds to axioms.

[ QUOTE ]
Darling, David, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996).
p. 49
“What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing.
“Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.”
p. 49
“You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Robert Jastrow, an internationally known astronomer, founder and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Professor of Astronomy and Geology at Columbia University, and Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College, describes science as ‘religion’ in the chapter where the following quotation is taken:

‘Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe? Was the Universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre-existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. An entire world, rich in structure and history, may have existed before our Universe appeared; but if it did, science cannot tell what kind of world it was. A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is.’10



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Wald, George, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955), 270 pp.
p. 9
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”

[/ QUOTE ]

How is the above statement devoid of faith based belief?

This same propoganda is being taught in public schools, at the tax payers expense. Yet, we must keep the bible out as we need seperation of church and state?

For example, comparative anatomy. If my axiom is "God created" I will believe comparitive anatomy demonstrates common design. If I believe in "macroevolution created", comparative anatomy will demonstate common ancestor.

The origin of, for example, the wrist bone structure is out of the realm of observable and emperical science, yet using pre-assumptions, we can make a hypothesis as to what the comparitive anatomny suggests.

This is the difference between origins science and operation science.

Origin science is based on one's personal axioms, ie, thier beliefs/religion.

Operational science is based on emperical and observational evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled ‘The New Antievolutionism’ (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.)1 These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science?, denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.

"...at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’
‘evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.’
‘I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics … should recognize … that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which—it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law—but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.’


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Professor Peter Medawar has had this to say about a fellow evolutionist, Karl Popper, 55


With his [Darwin ’s Descent of Man, published in 1871, the theory was complete: a new model of human origins had been constructed which could replace the fundamentalist Biblical one. Man was not a unique creation at the hand of God, but the product of a long evolutionary process; he evolved from the same humble marine ancestors as the rest of the animal kingdom.

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable scientific theories … This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accpeted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure.
Science Philosopher, Karl Popper.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
‘It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).’


Shallis M., ‘In the eye of a storm’, New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp. 42–43.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.’4

Micheal Ruse

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’9


[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
The theory of evolution is what it is, a "theory". It's just as "right" and "wrong" as the idea that God created the world in seven days. Who knows, maybe that "new design" theory is more "correct" than those two.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great, then you are not opposed to teaching both views to students in schools?

[ QUOTE ]
Human kind has struggled before against new ideas, and it seems to be in our nature to be split over almost all things. This is dangerous, as human history has shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, so why then is creation banned in public schools and only one view, evolution, is indoctrinated upon the students? Why is public education censored by evolutionists propoganda?

[ QUOTE ]
Our perspective of the universe is changing every moment, and people have to learn to be respect ideas of others, and not sufficate them as they come forward, as for those who bring new ideas forward to respect the doubt and criticism of others. How else will we ever learn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, we need to be open to scientific theories. Will you then join me in the fight to stop scientific censorship in school?

[EarlGrey]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, we need to be open to scientific theories. Will you then join me in the fight to stop scientific censorship in school?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt there is much I can do to help, as I am in Iceland.

The only thing that can help people see past their "narrow vision" is time and patience. You cannot fight a rock, but you can weather it down.

I support that all views should be "explored", or at least introduced, in schools.

When I was a kid in school it was mandatory to take a class called "Christianity". I found it weird because there was no class called "Islam" or "Buddah" etc. Here in Iceland we have a strong connection between the church (Lutherian state church) and our government. Nearly 90% of our population are in that church, so it makes sense to teach for the majority, although a limited number of people are strong believers.

But how does that broaden our horizon when we're learning about something that is relatively "close" to us. I'd rather liked to be taught about Islam or some other major religion. Maybe this is the reason between this big gap between the muslim world and the christian world.

Teaching 1 theory, 1 perspective, 1 understanding is dangerous, especially if it's relatively "close" to us, but that forces us not to grow. You may call it the "comfort zone" /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there is much I can do to help, as I am in Iceland.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can pray! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

With God there is always hope.

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that can help people see past their "narrow vision" is time and patience. You cannot fight a rock, but you can weather it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

With God, you can remove all mountains.

<font color="red">Matthew 17:20
20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.
</font>

The key is not to try to change the world on our own, but through the power of God's Love!

<font color="blue">1 Corinthians 13:2

2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
</font>

[ QUOTE ]
When I was a kid in school it was mandatory to take a class called "Christianity". I found it weird because there was no class called "Islam" or "Buddah" etc. Here in Iceland we have a strong connection between the church (Lutherian state church) and our government. Nearly 90% of our population are in that church, so it makes sense to teach for the majority, although a limited number of people are strong believers.

But how does that broaden our horizon when we're learning about something that is relatively "close" to us. I'd rather liked to be taught about Islam or some other major religion. Maybe this is the reason between this big gap between the muslim world and the christian world.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you may have the yearning to go on a mission trip. There is no better way to learn about another culture, than to literally go there and be surrounded in it.

[ QUOTE ]
Teaching 1 theory, 1 perspective, 1 understanding is dangerous, especially if it's relatively "close" to us, but that forces us not to grow. You may call it the "comfort zone"

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, often Christianity is reduced to one of the two commandments:

<font color="red"> 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
</font>

We see here two commandments from Christ, in which all the fulfillment of Christianity is dependent.

·Spiritual development comes from sowing seeds. There are two types of seeds that are sown in the two commandments of Christ.

<font color="red"> 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” </font>

<font color="red"> ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind- </font>

Often in the form of praying, studying, fasting, meditating, going to church/studies and tithing of finances for ministry and the church. The seeds reap a closer relationship with God.

<font color="red"> ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘But I tell you: Love your enemies’- </font>

Tithing of time, money and energy towards others. Letting Christ be revealed in us for all to see. (1 Peter 2:12; 3:15; 4:10;Galatians 6:10; Colossians 4:6; 1 John 4:7-13; Philippians 2:12-13; Psalms 18:20-28)

The seeds of fulfilling the second commandment reap Christ-like characteristics and fruits of the Spirit. Spiritual maturity.

<font color="blue"> 21He said to them, “Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? 22For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” </font>

Often conservative churches emphasize the first commandment, and focus on a personal relationship with God.

They teach people how to pray, and make sure they get to heaven, but do little to bring salvation to the world.

Salvation is not simply the forgivness of sins. That is the narrow view. God intends salvation to mean the literal kingdom of God to manifest on earth. Salvation FOR ALL from both spiritual and physical bondages and oppressions, not just those who go to the church and say the sinner's prayer.

There are thousands of verses regarding God's love for the poor, and our duty to love them. Yet, we've reduced the political agenda to gay marriage and abortion. Don't get me wrong, I and very much against both of those abominations, but let's be honest there are very few verses regarding homosexuality in the bible (and many more on pre-marital sex which is often swept under the table), and thousands on the commandment of God for the church to feed and serve the poor!

<font color="green"> 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

</font>

That is very powerful. You better believe the Lord is not joking concerning the church's duty to serve the poor!

God's desire is for us to bring the kingdom of God to the earth, literally,

<font color="blue"> 17 "Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.

The former things will not be remembered,

nor will they come to mind.

18 But be glad and rejoice forever

in what I will create,

for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight

and its people a joy.

19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem

and take delight in my people;

the sound of weeping and of crying

will be heard in it no more.



20 "Never again will there be in it

an infant who lives but a few days,

or an old man who does not live out his years;

he who dies at a hundred

will be thought a mere youth;

he who fails to reach [a] a hundred

will be considered accursed.

21 They will build houses and dwell in them;

they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,

or plant and others eat.

For as the days of a tree,

so will be the days of my people;

my chosen ones will long enjoy

the works of their hands.

23 They will not toil in vain

or bear children doomed to misfortune;

for they will be a people blessed by the LORD ,

they and their descendants with them.

24 Before they call I will answer;

while they are still speaking I will hear.

25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,

and the lion will eat straw like the ox,

but dust will be the serpent's food.

They will neither harm nor destroy

on all my holy mountain,"

says the LORD .

</font>

No poverty, no hunger, health for all, no violence, no oppression, no segregation by class or race. Children will be born with hope, not misfortune.

The church needs to manifest this agape love into reality through the power of the Spirit. That is the second commandment of Christ.

<font color="green"> 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”[ </font>

Many times, liberal churches emphasize the second commandment, "good will to mankind", but do not focus on the truth of the gospel of Christ.

<font color="green">13“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. </font>

They do not teach the narrow path, and generally make void the moral Law of God.

We can grow through walking in Love and demonstrating this love to the poor. Not through the preaching of vain doctrines and philosophies that only keep people in bondage.

<font color="brown">The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ . . . " (2 Corinthians 4:4) </font>

As Christians we are taught to honor and obey both commandments, not one or the other, but both!

Regarding evoltuion and creation, both are religious in nature. The former preaches the absence of God's presence in His creation, the ramifications of which are evident in the sufferings of this world, the latter preaches the love of God present and working in His creation.