Protocol Online logo
Top : Forum Archives: : Evolution and Darwinism

Why Can't ID be Taught in the Classroom? - (Mar/16/2006 )

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

QUOTE (perlmunky @ May 20 2008, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (SGhost @ May 15 2008, 05:50 AM)
I would love to ask those ID proponents, who EXACTLY is the Designer?

If they answer the Christian god, I would come forward with another question: "Oh you mean that dude who said the first man is from clay and the first woman is from that man's rib?".

Intelligent design it may seem, it would make some sense that the designer would correctly explain how he made them.


But the bible isn't supposed the be taken literally! You are supposed to take the bits you like and leave the bits you don't. On a serious note, I would guess that you would be hard-pressed to get an ID proponent to commit to it being the Christian god, simply as this arguments reveals the 'theory' to be an attempt to get religious TRIPE into science lessons.

... or, perhaps, unlike some members of this forum, they understand what the words "tact" or "diplomacy" mean...

Bill Dembski, one of the most important ID proponents, wrote that he did not specify a name of the designer in order to not cause others to reject the hypothesis just because it uses a different "brand name" to their beliefs. Whether that's him being afraid of the opinions of others, or whether he's simply being diplomatic is arguable.

SGhost: Please don't be so disrespectful. Remember that the Genesis account was written down at least 3500 years ago; it's not the most intelligent thing to apply 21st century literary criticism to such a document, or to forget that there are many different styles of literature, including (as is the case here) poetry (perlmunky).
Perlmunky:
1> Christians are not actually at liberty to cherry-pick the bits of the Bible that they like. We (at least evangelical Christians) believe that all of the Bible is true. Having said that, we acknowledge that the Bible is written in different styles, not all of which were meant to be read literally. Poetry is not meant to be taken literally, but I don't think anyone would deny that poetry can say things that prose writing is incapable of expressing. Try reading the Song of Songs (also known as the Song of Solomon) literally, if you don't believe me!
In addition, other parts of the Bible are written in very specific literary forms, and it would be a) arrogant and cool.gif short-sighted to attempt to interpret those documents using different rules. Imagine if someone tried to interpret a scientific paper without using scientific methodology or jargon. Utterly meaningless! To correctly read and understand a scientific document, you need to use the rules for reading the style (and doesn't scientific writing have a definite style!!!).

2> I have no problem committing to the Designer being the Christian God.

-swanny-

how does that work (regarding taking the bible literally, but realising that some bits are poetry)?
there are so many parts that contradict each other (specifically the old testament, but even in the new)?
and unfortunately, the bible is cherry-picked.
and poetry has different meanings and different point's of view.
the issue with ID, is that it is a cover for fundamentaslist christians (ie, those who follow jeezus, tha gun totin' american flag wearin' hippy haten' dude with long blonde hair who'd vote republican).
it takes away from the evidence gathered about evolution, and turns it into a stage show.
thankfully, the FSM is able to make people think rationally... maybe.
do other faiths (ie those not x-tian) take issue with creationism? they don't seem to be in the press as much (rather, at all).

V

-vetticus3-

It is no use arguing about this matter.

An evangelical looks at it from the FAITH point of view, which is impenetrable to all logic, other than the logic that faith does not allow logic.

If you subscribe to SCIENCE, Faith has no meaning to you, at all, other than an interesting aspect to be studied about the human psyche, and eventually pin it down to something.

So, science will get there someday. Perhaps one of the scientists here will do that using this discussion as the starting point..highly unlikely glare.gif Let me have a beer.

-cellcounter-

QUOTE (vetticus3 @ May 20 2008, 12:35 PM)
how does that work (regarding taking the bible literally, but realising that some bits are poetry)?
there are so many parts that contradict each other (specifically the old testament, but even in the new)?
and unfortunately, the bible is cherry-picked.
and poetry has different meanings and different point's of view.
the issue with ID, is that it is a cover for fundamentaslist christians (ie, those who follow jeezus, tha gun totin' american flag wearin' hippy haten' dude with long blonde hair who'd vote republican).
it takes away from the evidence gathered about evolution, and turns it into a stage show.
thankfully, the FSM is able to make people think rationally... maybe.
do other faiths (ie those not x-tian) take issue with creationism? they don't seem to be in the press as much (rather, at all).

V

Vetticus, you must remember that ID (at least at the academic, as opposed to the popular, "tabloid" level) is about origins, not evolution. The chief protagonists do not deny evolution by natural selection, their concern is about the start of life (with, I suppose, an implication of a continuing design; implied but not required).

What New Testament contradictions are you thinking of? And what exactly do you mean when you say the Bible is cherry-picked? In particular, is the Bible any more cherry-picked than, say, a history of Ancient Rome, an analysis of Tennyson's poetry or the intrigues within the English monarchy?

As for the problem of "... taking the bible literally, but realising that some bits are poetry ..." I didn't say that we take the Bible literally. What I said was we believe the Bible to be true, that is, it describes things the way they really are. The Bible talks about the way people are, the reason the world and human societies are the way they are, and what God has done about it. The question of accepting things literally is something that a small (but highly vocal) minority of the Christian church holds to, and which the non-believing Western world has seized upon as a defining characteristic of all Biblical Christians. As an evangelical Christian I hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but I am in no way a fundamentalist (as that term has come to be used by various commentators). And I am pretty close to being offended by any implication that I am not rational, despite my unbelief in the FSM... glare.gif

-swanny-

QUOTE (swanny @ May 19 2008, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (vetticus3 @ May 20 2008, 12:35 PM)
how does that work (regarding taking the bible literally, but realising that some bits are poetry)?
there are so many parts that contradict each other (specifically the old testament, but even in the new)?
and unfortunately, the bible is cherry-picked.
and poetry has different meanings and different point's of view.
the issue with ID, is that it is a cover for fundamentaslist christians (ie, those who follow jeezus, tha gun totin' american flag wearin' hippy haten' dude with long blonde hair who'd vote republican).
it takes away from the evidence gathered about evolution, and turns it into a stage show.
thankfully, the FSM is able to make people think rationally... maybe.
do other faiths (ie those not x-tian) take issue with creationism? they don't seem to be in the press as much (rather, at all).

V

Vetticus, you must remember that ID (at least at the academic, as opposed to the popular, "tabloid" level) is about origins, not evolution. The chief protagonists do not deny evolution by natural selection, their concern is about the start of life (with, I suppose, an implication of a continuing design; implied but not required).

What New Testament contradictions are you thinking of? And what exactly do you mean when you say the Bible is cherry-picked? In particular, is the Bible any more cherry-picked than, say, a history of Ancient Rome, an analysis of Tennyson's poetry or the intrigues within the English monarchy?

As for the problem of "... taking the bible literally, but realising that some bits are poetry ..." I didn't say that we take the Bible literally. What I said was we believe the Bible to be true, that is, it describes things the way they really are. The Bible talks about the way people are, the reason the world and human societies are the way they are, and what God has done about it. The question of accepting things literally is something that a small (but highly vocal) minority of the Christian church holds to, and which the non-believing Western world has seized upon as a defining characteristic of all Biblical Christians. As an evangelical Christian I hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but I am in no way a fundamentalist (as that term has come to be used by various commentators). And I am pretty close to being offended by any implication that I am not rational, despite my unbelief in the FSM... glare.gif





QUOTE
In particular, is the Bible any more cherry-picked than, say, a history of Ancient Rome, an analysis of Tennyson's poetry or the intrigues within the English monarchy?
But only Bible professes truth, so no reason for such comparison.

QUOTE
And I am pretty close to being offended by any implication that I am not rational, despite my unbelief in the FSM...

I don't think anybody in right mind would say you are not rational in general, but when it comes to faith, you have no choice but to stuff logic and rationality. And I am sure you are not contending that. That is the nature of faith.

-cellcounter-

This is an article written by Mary Midgely, one of UK's foremost moral philosophers...
check this out .. anything new in what she's saying or are we just going round and round in circles?

-casandra-

QUOTE
the issue with ID, is that it is a cover for fundamentaslist christians (ie, those who follow jeezus, tha gun totin' american flag wearin' hippy haten' dude with long blonde hair who'd vote republican).
It's not funny because it's true. Actually it is funny. blink.gif

QUOTE
SGhost: Please don't be so disrespectful. Remember that the Genesis account was written down at least 3500 years ago; it's not the most intelligent thing to apply 21st century literary criticism to such a document, or to forget that there are many different styles of literature, including (as is the case here) poetry


Yeah but isn't God supposed to omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent (bugger it, lets do: export god = `ls | grep omni*`). He would have known/planned/run this conversation - and also have been aware of 21st century literature criticism - for he designed it!

Why should I, or anyone else, have to pussyfoot around ID? - lets not confuse tact with deceit, moreover what was it that SGhost typed?
QUOTE
"Oh you mean that dude who said the first man is from clay and the first woman is from that man's rib?".

Is he not raising a valid point? Or is that poetry?

-perlmunky-

QUOTE (swanny @ May 20 2008, 03:56 PM)
As an evangelical Christian I hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but I am in no way a fundamentalist (as that term has come to be used by various commentators). And I am pretty close to being offended by any implication that I am not rational, despite my unbelief in the FSM... glare.gif


in no way saying anyone here is not being rational... it's actually the opposite, everyone is very calmly stating their case. this is suspicious, why is everyone being so nice. glare.gif

it's just on the news, where the force behind teaching id are these, somewhat whacky, fundy types. ala the world is 7000 years old, and jesus rode on dinosaurs through judiah.

but by *these* people saying that the origin of everything is designed by one person, and all changes have already been accounted for, this null-ifies (if that is a word) evolution. doesn't this also mean there is no free will? if everything has been designed, then everything we do is already pre-determined, and so we're just like robots following a program (to self destruction?). how does a sane person, who thinks there was a grand design, account for free will?

re: cherry picking parts of the bible. [incoherent rant] i've been home and watching the televangilists for a couple of sunday's in a row now...oh yeah, they pick one verse that supports their arguments (in particular the send us some money, and you'll become really rich because of it), and totally ignore other bits. what ever happened to it being easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven? no, now it's all god wants you to live in a mc-mansion, and exploit child labour in third world countries to keep up appearances. god wants you to give these people a brand new BMW. what happened to the meek shall inheret the earth? not so meek now, meeky boy! [/incoherent rant]

if, and that should be in capitol letters, IF it were shown that there was a grand design, and the designer was (shakes magic 8 ball) barry the sky stomper, would x-tian people be upset? just because you got the designer wrong, but everything else right? is part of the id debate more about *who* designed it, rather than the argument that it was designed?

i don't know, i need sleep.

i like FSM because it gives me an excuse to dress like a pirate on sundays... and i like beer. i think that's pretty rational.

V

-vetticus3-

Though I thinks it's pretty much of a waste of time to debate on this, as there'll be never a consensus, two quotes. Perhaps it riles it up happy.gif



"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

"I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."
-Woody Allen

-hobglobin-

well, god created good and evil.
people (who believe in god) tend to forget the evil part.

V

-vetticus3-

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next