Thank you, Mr. Aregood
Disagreement can be agreeable
Thank you, Mr. Aregood
Now that's an intelligent design
I am flattered and grateful that a Pulitzer Prize winner like Richard Aregood reads me, even though he makes it very clear that we agree on every fifth Tuesday, around the 12th of Never.
Viva the First Amendment. But about Intelligent Design...I don't believe in it, necessarily. I just think that the evolutionary commandos who attack anyone who wants to see it taught in schools are, shall we say, disagreeable.
Comments (43)
Kudos, Chris, on getting the attention of a distinguished journalist like Richard Aregood. He seems very supportive when discussing the harsh letters that some "rigid" thinkers send to the paper. You seem to offend people on both sides of the spectrum...a mighty achievement. Brava!!!! 8-)
I never noticed that you were any kind of fundamentalist thinker on the issue of evolution. One can certainly have religious beliefs concerning the creation of the world (aka The Big Bang) without dismissing the science of evolution.
Being a science teacher, I may have been one of those "commandos" who could stand in the school house door not to let ID enter the science classroom. Not from a fear of religion but from a fear of diluting the science and confusing students.
But in a land of free speech, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Have I not said this all along??
— Magistra- BTW - it is nice to know that Aregood supports your right to express an opinion, even if he thinks that religious players like Tibow, whom you praise, are "annoying".
Maybe God has better things to do with her time than pick winners and losers in football, but who's to say that individual players don't get special strength from an active prayer life?
AND - somebody must be praying for the Eagles who have been resurrected from the dead.
8-)— Magistra - Chrissie. I just can't believe all this happened by accident. There was an architect and a builder who put this all in place. Thank God
— philtret25 - God told Richard to read your column. I typically use it for bathroom paper.— bushmciworlcomenron
- Well, let's see how long God allows you to remain on your throne of Hate.— sophistry
- I don't know what to make of this Pulitzer Prize Winner's remarks. However, he makes two glaring errors factual errors in his attempt to be clever, while putting down "religious" conservatives.
1. He obviously doesn't understand Intelligent Design, which cannot be accurately characterized as "the deliberate denial of science in favor of rigid biblical literalism". Perhaps he should bone up on the substantial science underlying the design theory, before assuming it is simply non-scientific creationism. Judging by his remarks, my guess is his understanding of the subject is restricted to watching Inherit the Wind. (1960)
2. He also writes that "many people of both genders are full of it." I would expect a Pulitzer Prize writer to understand that in journalism there are two SEXES, but (supposedly) several genders, which now include bisexuals, lesbians, and the "transgendered" in addition to heterosexual men and women. Again, this reveals he has a dated understanding of the language of modern (liberal) journalism, which is largely influenced by lesbian-feminist politics.
— retour - Retour - dear - you have your own misconceptions about Intelligent Design and also "gender".
1) ID is another word for "creationism". When the SCOTUS declared that teaching the religious doctrine of creationism in public schools is unconstitutional, its proponents did some semantic changes and voila, "Intelligent Design" appeared. But the concept is the same.
If you read the decision of federal Judge Jones in the Dover, PA ID case, you will see how there is no other conclusion than that teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolutionary science was INTENDED to be the introduction of a supernatural cause.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
2) You keep complaining about the term "gender" as if it means something other than a person's physical "sex". It does not.
All the categories you mention have to do with sexual orientation, not sexual characteristics. But even gays have characteristics that belong to only one gender, male or female. Transgender simply means that a person has their characteristics changed by surgical procedures.— Magistra - The First Amendment is a beautiful thing. Any ONE can say any THING. Few say anything worth reading.
Having just read the Aregood column, I find it trite. Tim Tebow is more inspiring than Richard Aregood.— PlumberJoe - Magistra, you misunderstand retour's criticism on the use of the word gender. retour is emphasizing "sex" would have been the better word to be used in that specific instance. And he is correct to say so.— PlumberJoe
- As both a religious person and a science teacher, I can believe in a supernatural origin of all matter, and at the same time understand and accept the concept of natural selection in the origin of species in the world. I go to the bible and Mass to learn about the former, but I go to scientific inquiry to learn about the latter.
I can agree with Thomas Aquinas that the intricacies of creation point to a grand design, but there are also plenty of examples where evolution is haphazard and even accidental. Certainly the end of species due to causes like the comet that struck earth and destroyed the dinosaurs is part of that accidental causation.
What also concerns me is that once religion becomes a substitute for science, any off the wall idea is acceptable, such as having earthquakes and hurricanes ordered by God to "punish" people for sin. To me such ideas are anti-religious and in fact blasphemous. But they fall under the same superstitious idea that God intervenes in nature on a regular basis and that science is not relevant.
To follow that logic is to destroy all hope of progress in education.
— Magistra - PJ, I do not misunderstand. Writers often use the word "gender" as a more polite expression of sexual characteristics. At least that is why I use it. The word "sex" has other connotations of course. Aregood is simply saying that both men and women can be dopes.— Magistra
- And PJ, I can also understand why some people like Aregood think that Tebow is annnoying when he displays his religious fervor on the sidelines. I read Christine's piece in Sportsweek and also understand that criticism of Tebow ignores the fact that his faith is also sincere and not posturing.
I think that if praying before a game gives Tebow a sense of confidence that adds to his "edge," then go for it.
I just don't think God is helping one team more than another like some fickle Zeus playing favorites in the Trojan War.— Magistra 
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
Popular Posts
About this blog
See Christine Flowers on Channel 6's "Inside Story" Sunday at 11:30 a.m.
Christine M. Flowers
Daily News Columnist
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: