5 of 9 people found the following review helpful
Geisler- rock solid as always.,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Creation and the Courts (With Never Before Published Testimony from the "Scopes II" Trial): Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom (Paperback)
Dr. Geisler very thoroughly explains the creation/evolution debate as it actually played out in the courts, vs. how it has been explained by the inflammatory headlines and stories in the major news outlets, and by activist atheists with straw man arguments against the "religious fundamentalists waging war on science."
One very interesting thing I learned was that Dr. Geisler's critical and ACLU-demolishing testimony to the court in the 1981 Arkansas/McLean trial wasn't even transcribed until AFTER the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. The transcription was sent to Dr. Geisler for his signature five years afterward. I'd love to hear the real reason for that.
No matter what side you take on the issue, Geisler makes very good sense and very important points that must be addressed when considering whether schools should be allowed to teach about the possibility of a creator. Carl Sagan stating that "The universe is all there is, all there was and all there ever will be" on video tape before a class full of kids is every bit as much of a religious statement as "I believe in the God of the bible." Science cannot tell us all that ever was is, or (especially) ever will be. But the concept of a first cause for an event like the Big Bang is logical and sound reasoning.
Geisler points out that believing that a creator exists or existed is not in itself religion. Only when you commit yourself to believing in a specific ultimate (like the God of the bible) does it become religion.
Before you make any judgements against that concept, please read it in his words. He is a much better writer than I am.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 22, 2011 2:16:35 AM PST
T. Lawry says:
Did Geisler mention that he told the court that UFOs are agents of Satan? See Science, 1 Jan. 1982 p. 33-4. Also the wikipedia article on Geisler gives a reference to the San Francisco Chronical.
Posted on May 3, 2012 8:58:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 3, 2012 8:59:01 AM PDT
Omer Belsky says:
The "Arkansas/McLean" case did not go the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case that ruled that Creation Science was anything but was "Edwards v. Aguillard", which was a Louisianna case. So what difference does it make when the testimony of Dr. Geisler was transcribed?
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2014 6:05:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 26, 2014 6:09:05 AM PST
Felix the cat says:
LOL! Taking a quote out of context doesn't give you credibility with people that are informed. Yes, you can get a chuckle out of the dimmest light bulb so can anyone else.
Wikipedia is a left propaganda tool. I guarantee you they HATE Christians and jump on anything to ridicule them even if it is not true.
There are NO UFO's! There is no evidence of them. To believe there is is ridiculous and that is all Mr. Geisler was pointing out.
Satan always uses lies to distract. Obama doesn't know a lie from the truth. While he isn't Satan, he sure is a wannabe follower. His legacy is one of lies and evil.
Posted on Nov 6, 2015 12:10:07 PM PST
"Dr. Geisler very thoroughly explains the creation/evolution debate as it actually played out in the courts, vs. how it has been explained by the inflammatory headlines and stories in the major news outlets, and by activist atheists with straw man arguments against the "religious fundamentalists waging war on science.""
Hilarious. Too bad for the creationists. The courts have rejected their pseudo-science.
"Geisler makes very good sense"
Shirley, you jest.
"whether schools should be allowed to teach about the possibility of a creator."
Hilarious. Not in a science class of course. "God did it" can never be scientific.
"is every bit as much of a religious statement"
Nah. That's just silly. Reality is a good defense.
"But the concept of a first cause for an event like the Big Bang is logical and sound reasoning."
Hilarious. And exactly which "god" performed that act about 1.38 billion years ago and which modern religion has chosen that particular "god" to worship?
"Geisler points out that believing that a creator exists or existed is not in itself religion."
Perhaps. But do you actually believe that that "creator" actually did anything? If so, why has science failed to find any "evidence" of such actions?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›