21 Nov 06
Originally posted by KnightWulfeWhat does a day mean?
How you can pick the parts of the Bible that you like and discard others?
Example - Creationism. The OT clearly explains the origins of the world and its age, yet you discard this (well, many of you do) and embrace this "Intelligent Design" theory. How can you do that? I dont get it.
Is the flood symbolic, as in other parts(even Jesus) used?
21 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeIntelligent Design Theory does not require any particular theological foundation as far as the science of it goes.
How you can pick the parts of the Bible that you like and discard others?
Example - Creationism. The OT clearly explains the origins of the world and its age, yet you discard this (well, many of you do) and embrace this "Intelligent Design" theory. How can you do that? I dont get it.
Opponents of Intelligent Design Theory are eager to link it to Christianity. But as far as the science of it goes, no particular faith or religion is indorced by it. And that is what ID is - a science theory.
Someone on Evolution Verses Creation Website (not the name chosen by the poster) asked repeatedly which religion was explicitly indorced by the Intelligent Design Theory liturature. I was impressed at how difficult it was for the Evolutionists to come up with the specific religion that Intelligent Design Theory liturature indorced. And they knew it.
Saying "Well but So and So is a Christian" or "But Christian organizations support the teaching of ID" is not sufficient to prove that the liturature of ID is indorcing Christianity. But some Evolutionists want to believe that only THEY are interested in doing science. They want to convince themselves and the public that anyone not persuaded of Evolution is not interested in doing science but is only religious.
Secondly, there is a very vocal group of Christians who believe that the age of the universe can be deduced from Ussher's chronology of the Bible's geneologies. Not all students of the Bible share this view. I for one would be among those who would say that we are simply not told the age of the universe in the Bible.
I think however that Intelligent Design is valid as an approach to biology regardless of the age of life on earth.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomLOL. He doesn't bother reading it. But he probably has a lot of morality based upon it which he uses regularly.
LOL
Watch for instance how he would insist that God does "bad" things. And ask him where he derives his concept of what is good and bad.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by jaywillThat's pretty disingenuous and you know it.
Intelligent Design Theory does not require any particular theological foundation as far as the science of it goes.
Opponents of Intelligent Design Theory are eager to link it to Christianity. But as far as the science of it goes, no particular faith or religion is endorced by it.
Someone on Evolution Verses Creation Website (not the name chosen b ...[text shortened]... elligent Design is valid as an approach to biology regardless of the age of life on earth.
ID is a position put forward by Creationists - all of whom are Christian - ergo ID is a Christian creation.
But even if you disassociate the Christianity, to claim it as a valid biological position is idiotic.
ID fails even the simplest requirement of a scientific model/theory, which is to have your work peer reviewed by other scientists. There is not one ID paper that has appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Let's repeat that becaues it bears noting: not one single ID paper has ever appeared in any peer reviewed scientific journal!
And let's not go into evidence, falsifiability, verification, predictive power, or any of a number of other scientific requirements.
The reality is ID is not an alternative to anything.
Believe it if you like - that's your prerogative. But don't claim it's science.
And don't think this is the rant of some evo-fanatic. I'm not. I simply think evolution is the best model we currently have that explains the nature of the variety of life on earth in a scientific manner.
Could it be replaced?
Sure. As any scientific model could be replaced when a better one comes along.
That's the nature of science.
Religious belief - of which ID is an asepct, whatever creed it follows - does not have this contingency. It is because someoen says it is - full stop.
That's not science and don't claim otherwise.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by jaywillGood and bad derives from the morality of early social groups - the same groups that used it when they finally got around to writing the bible.
LOL. He doesn't bother reading it. But he probably has a lot of morality based upon it which he uses regularly.
Watch for instance how he would insist that God does "bad" things. And ask him where he derives his concept of what is good and bad.
Don't claim the bible is some font of all morality.
It's simply a nice example of an early text which has morals in it.
Morals certainly predate the early Jewish civilisation.
21 Nov 06
2 edits
Amannion,
I do not think this is disingenuos of me or sneaky of me.
You know that there is plenty of disagreement about science and faith. The failure of some people to bring Creationism into the classroom does not insist that all other science minded or faith minded people were in agreement. It does not insist that the SAME people turned around and changed the name to ID and tried again.
I could say the same thing to you. I could say that all Evolutionists are philosophically commited Athiests trying to push thier Athiesm into every young person's mind in public school.
You'd have a fit if I claimed that. "No, No, their just interested in good science."
Well stop thinking ONLY Athiests are the ones interested in good science. What arrogance !
You think I'm being sneaky? I think you're sickningly arrogant.
I think we better have some mutual respect about science and education and not jump to generalities and "guilt by association".
21 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionSomeone can say "I have a better theory." But that is not all there is to science. Science can also say "I don't have a better theory. But here are the problems with yours."
That's pretty disingenuous and you know it.
ID is a position put forward by Creationists - all of whom are Christian - ergo ID is a Christian creation.
But even if you disassociate the Christianity, to claim it as a valid biological position is idiotic.
ID fails even the simplest requirement of a scientific model/theory, which is to have your work peer ecause someoen says it is - full stop.
That's not science and don't claim otherwise.
Detection of Insurance Fraud is a form of Intelligent Design. Forensic Criminology is another form of ID.
SETI and the detection of possible intelligent sources of extra terrestial radio signals is I think another form of ID.
You're scared to death of ID. It seems that you think detection of intelligent design in nature will be immediatly followed by having to report to Confession or something. I don't know what your hang up is.
You seemed scared of the implications of Intellegent Design. I think science should go in whatever direction the evidence leads. It is at least arguable that intelligence is behind the machinary of the workings of a cell for example.
That doesn't mean you have to report to Sunday School tomorrow.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by jaywillOkay, the Creation to ID link is pretty clear when you compare the names of Creationist and ID authors, so I'm not sure what you're on about there.
Amannion,
I do not think this is disingenuos of me or sneaky of me.
You know that there is plenty of disagreement about science and faith. The failure of some people to bring Creationism into the classroom does not insist that all other science minded or faith minded people were in agreement. It does not insist that the SAME people turned aro ...[text shortened]... ect about science and education and not jump to generalities and "guilt by association".
ID is the obvious son of Creationism.
On the teaching of science I have to claim a vested interest at the outset since I'm a science teacher.
I have no problem at all with either Creationism or ID being taught in schools - but it's not appropriate to teach it in a science class. Perhaps as a part of a religious education class, or perhaps as some social studies class, or perhaps even (and I've done this with some of my science classes in the past) as a discussion point on current debates (and on bad science).
I've no problem with ID or Creationism (although I personally think anyone that believes it is deranged) but I will not ever teach it to my students as good science, and I will fight to my dying day any attempt to do so in my school, state and nation.
You could say that evolutionary theory is linked with atheism and might be on the mark. I'm an atheist so there's one positive case for your suggestion.
Do I try to push my atheism onto my students? I know you're not suggesting this, but it's worth pointing out, I work in a Cathoilic school, so to be proselytising my own faith in opposition to that would be a bit much.
But this is sort of on a parr with the notion that some people have that homosexual people will somehow taint the young to become homosexual. That's laughable.
I'm not trying to turn you or anyone else into an atheist.
That would be crazy - I like a world where we all have different ideas - it makes forums like this interesting.
But don't tell me that ID is science - that I will not brook.
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by jaywillDon't worry.
Someone can say "I have a better theory." But that is not all there is to science. Science can also say "I don't have a better theory. But here are the problems with yours."
Detection of Insurance Fraud is a form of Intelligent Design. Forensic Criminology is another form of ID.
SETI and the detection of possible intelligent sources of extra t ...[text shortened]... cell for example.
That doesn't mean you have to report to Sunday School tomorrow.
Even if the existence of God were proved definitively tomorrow morning at 8.39am, I wouldn't be ironing my Sunday best.
You're very wrong about science by the way.
Science doesn't work by disputing existing theories without alternatives.
Scientists always have an alternative. If they don't then they shut up about it until they do.
I've got no real bug up my arse about ID. If they can offer an alternative to evolution I'm all ears. I'm not some sort of evolutionary evangelist. Demonstrate a viable alternative and I'm yours.
...
I'm waiting ...
21 Nov 06
I simply think evolution is the best model we currently have that explains the nature of the variety of life on earth in a scientific manner.
Could it be replaced?
If the earth centered solar system theory could be replaced so could macro evolution compete with a rival theory.
A science teacher once explained to me that the math to the earth centric solar system was really quite sophisticated. It may have been religiously blessed by Catholicism. But the math behind it was admirable. That is until Copernicus came up with better math.
Evolution may have the blessing of the government now. A rival theory could come up via better research. Don't sit there like an old queen assuming no one will ever be able to challenge present orthodoxy.