Why Can't ID be Taught in the Classroom? - (Mar/16/2006 )
Thanks for saying that, you've just repeated the main error that non-Christians have in regard to Christian faith. Christian faith, that is, faith as it is expressed in the bible, can be translated as confidence, reliance or trust. It is the same type of faith that you exercise every time you sit down in your chair, or drive your car or bike onto a bridge. Christian faith is derived from a trust in the evidence presented in the Bible, not (as many suppose) a blind step in spite of evidence. To reply to your posting, Christian faith is precisely about keeping logic and rationality.
How's this for rational?
1. Christianity is either true or it's false. If it's false, it's a pretty pointless way to live. If it's true, it is the only way to live that isn't pointless.
2. Christianity's strength from its' first days has been based in the claim that Jesus was killed, buried and then raised to a new life. Either this is true or it's false.
3. For this to be false you have to show what happened to Jesus' body, because the claim of the first apostles was "Jesus is alive. He is risen from death.".
All I can ask you to do is to do the work yourself. Look at the Biblical evidence, even if you doubt it is true. If you need to, check out why we have more confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament than any piece of ancient writing. Don't simply accept the word of others that such-and-such is true or false.
Swanny, your case, then, is not that of Faith. It is of pointless points. Sorry buddy. Somebody has to tell the TRUTH.
..
The debate over free will vs predestination of events is a really huge subject, and is quite honestly beyond my powers of comprehension, not to mention the scope of this forum; go talk to a philosopher. It is usually discussed by those in the know as a paradox - an apparent contradiction. Note that word., folks, "apparent". If you think you have the simple answer to that question remember that there are lots of simple straightforward answers to complex problems... but they're all wrong.
. Also, you have made a basic error in the question of "omni*". Omniscience is not the same as saying "God wrote the script, and we're just doing what what dumb puppets do." God's omniscience derives, in part, because he is outside of time/space (remember, that's what "super-natural" is about!!). Same for omnipresent, and to a lesser extent, omnipotent. And God didn't "design" 21st century literary criticism, 21st century literary critics did!
It's also a pretty brave person who claims to know what's going on inside another's head, or who understands their motivations completely. I'd recommend you tone down your vitriol a bit.
Is he not raising a valid point? Or is that poetry?
OK, tell me what that expression meant to the first readers/hearers, 3500 years ago? That is, what is the original context? What was the cosmology of the ancient Jewish people? How does it fit in with the cosmologies of the neighbouring cultures? Personally, I see the passage as poetry, pointing out the fact that humans are mortal. We are of the dust of the earth, and we will return to it.
I think you'll find they are a small minority of evangelicals. Most of us don't think that way. At all. Ever.
I think that the simple fact that you have a problem with their "teaching" shows your cr*p detectors are operating normally. Just don't presume that they speak for all Christians, please!
V
What, you need an excuse for the pirate thing? Really vetticus, you surprise me.
..
Sorry, cellcounter, not really clear about what you're trying to say. Please explain.
OK, tell me what that expression meant to the first readers/hearers, 3500 years ago? That is, what is the original context? What was the cosmology of the ancient Jewish people? How does it fit in with the cosmologies of the neighbouring cultures? Personally, I see the passage as poetry, pointing out the fact that humans are mortal. We are of the dust of the earth, and we will return to it.
Anyway I don't understand why on the one hand you believe everything in bible is true and on the other hand you say I see some parts as poetry or even extremely specific and difficult to understand text. Or just ignore them (?). How do you know how to treat the sections as truth, poetry, or special-text? I remember worships where the priest said something like: "In the second Epistle to the Corinthians, St Paul expresses his theology of the Godhead. The Father is God of love and peace who awards this same peace to all those who have common understanding and are perfect and obedient. The grace, love and union of the Godhead will then be with us all." And so on, but lefts out that the god in an other part and in the bible writes this: 'God makes a wall fall on and kill 27000 of an army retreating from the Israelites' (1 Kings 20:30) or 'God kills someone for accidentally touching the Ark of the Covenant' (2 Samuel 6:6-11).
I know for this you have priests who learnt it and do bible exegesis and interpretation. So for the written truth you need a agent a mediator interpreting it and then explaining it to you...But with which standards? I guess every church and sect has its own.
And what about all the losses, misunderstandings, direct falsifications, translation errors, spelling errors in the history (it was first circulated by word, then written by hand...). How much truth is then left?
And finally free will (though moderen neuro-scientists also ask if we have it
):"A leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life. As a consequence, man is predestined before his birth to eternal punishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his own fate."
From: The Catholic Encyclopedia
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
but they do make the telly interesting.
so, why can't it be non-intelligent design? life is constantly being fixed as it goes along, evolving, if it were. there are constant mistakes, sickle-cell anemia, huntington's disease, cancer, etc. doesn't this seem to indicate that if life were designed, the designer wasn't particularly intelligent?
no, i need an excuse for my mother. she thinks i'm slightly mad.
V
dr hobbs and the godhead-personality thing:
in exodus 15:3, god is a man of war... in roman 15:33, he's peaceful. (but i guess that's the transition from old to new testament).
also, is psalms 145:9, god is good to everyone, and is merciful to everyone. in jerimiah 13:14, god has not pity, no mercy, and wants to destroy everyone.
it's not just the god of the bible with multiple personalities.
moses (aka charlston heston), was according to the book of numbers 12:3 "very meek".
a few verses later, Numbers 31:14, he "was wroth". in fact, keep on reading to verse 17 and 18, and moses wants every male child killed, and all the women killed. he does let the female children be kept for slaves. that's a pretty big jump in personality.
but who was the father of joseph (the non-biological father of jesus).. in matthew 1:16, jacob begat joseph. but in luke 3:23, heli begat joseph.
and just one more, according to proverbs 4:7, "wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and get understanding"... but is ecclestians 1:18, "for in much wisdom is much grief: he that increases knowledge increases sorrow"... and then again in 1 corinthians 1:19, "for it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
V
HOMER: Hey, I got a question for you. "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"
NED: Well sir, of course, he could, but then again... wow, as melon-scratchers go that's a honey-doodle.
HOMER: Now you know what I've been going through.
Sorry to diverge from the current debate, but seeing as the topic is actually about ID, and as ID is based on the Xtian belief system, the only part of the bible we need to be concerned about is Genesis. We of course know that parts of the bible are wrong/inconsistent and others can't be interpreted literally without context.
Part of the problem is that the vocal minority who are the ones getting the air time on the news etc and the ones really pushing the issue to be taught in schools, do literally interpret the bible, including genesis. Case in point - recently my wife and I had a series of visits from Jehovah's witnesses (not the ones making the noise, I know, but a similar ethic) who were trying to convince us that in biblical times people really did live for 900 years (Methuselah, I think) based on other passages in the bible. Now, we know from archaeological studies and forensic methods etc that people from the times mentioned in the bible mostly lived to be 40-50, and that they often based their lives around lunar cycles so 900/12 = 75, which would be quite old, but not outside the realms of human existence. Hmmmmm coincidence? I think not!
Anyway, to get back on thread topic: The issue in my eyes is that, as has been stated many times before, ID is not a theory, it is a belief and as such can't be proven or disproven by scientific method.
Despite this I don't have a problem with the teaching of it in science classrooms so long as it is made clear that ID is not a scientific theory, and is an alternative view of how life came to be, out of line with current scientific thinking.
why not teach what we know...
we know we found these fossils.
we know the fossils are x old.
we know that the fossils have x genes... etc.
then go on to say, if you want to believe something else, that's ok.
if you want to believe that there is a grand plan, that's ok.
if you don't want to believe there is a grand plan, that's ok.
id requires faith, science requires facts. why teach faith in a classroom? i think that should be kept for home.
V