Beyond the Fish Wars (Intelligent Design is Bad Theology)

San Francisco Gate ^ | 8/25/2005 | Rev. Jim Burklo

[curiosity]

We've seen the little symbols on the backs of cars: The "Jesus fish" and the "Darwin fish." The Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish. The Darwin fish eating the Jesus fish. It makes for entertainment while commuting, but this front of the culture wars won't be won or lost on the freeway.

The creationists realized that they were not getting enough traction in their bumper- sticker campaign against the theory of evolution. So biblical literalists have come up with a new strategy: leave the word "God" out of the public argument, and come up with one that sounds more scientific. It's called "intelligent design." President Bush has endorsed it as one of the theories of life's origins that should be taught in public schools.

But it isn't a theory at all. "Intelligent design" posits that the structure of life is so complex and delicate that it is unimaginable that it could have come into existence without having been designed by some intelligent force. Therefore such an intelligence must be responsible for it. But this is a conclusion that can be reached only by assuming that it is true in the first place -- a classic tautology, or example of circular reasoning, which has no place in science.

[A. Pole]

BTW, are you trying to mock objectivists with your tagline?

Yes, and other members of free market cult.

[curiosity]

Great minds think alike! Hope to see more of you on this forum.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers... Thank you so very much for this additional information!

[razorbak]

ANOTHER REVEREND RELEVENT WHO DESPARATELY WANTS TO BE NOTICED AND ACCEPTED BY THE SECULAR WORLD.

Note to the above apostate:

Jesus accepted and taught the account of Genesis as being literally true [such as Creation ex nihilo, Adam & Eve, Noah's ark, the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.]. If you don't believe what Christ believed, you're not even a Christian, much less a Christian minister.

[curiosity]

Jesus accepted and taught the account of Genesis as being literally true

Really? Can you cite some specific verses?

[JamesP81]

Yeah, like anyone who believes in God is going to get their theology from San Francisco.

Unless your a scientologist, of course.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Who's responsible for designing the "intelligent source"?

Her Mother.

[xzins]

Rev Burklo is a radical liberal as attested by his church's website which sounds like the First Church of the Inclusive Gay New Age.

Anyplace else on conservative FR this guy as a source would be laughed off the forum.

Am I supposed to take any of this guy's opinions seriously?

[curiosity]

See post #54.

[JamesP81]

One could go on and on, what we need are more questions being asked rather than the crude attempt to shoehorn all thinking into a box called "natural selection" by people who are barely removed from the religiousness of those creationists they scorn.

And that's what all this boils down to, ultimately. They teach evolution in school like it's some kind of fact, when the truth is that it's a theory, not a theorem. Now, I don't have a problem in principle with evolution being taught in school as long as it's taught that it's a theory, and not fact. Same goes for ID. Personally, I'm a young earth creationist, but I don't see any reason not to discuss various theories in a science class, as long as we are clear that they are unproven theories.

The problem you run into is interesting, and ironic. The bottom line is that evolutionists have more faith than me and most of my friends in the church. Amazing. They have more blind faith in evolution than some of the most fire and brimstone preachers I've ever met. Evolutionism is a religion. Period. And evolutionists act accordingly. And, hey, that's OK. This is America, where a man can have any kind of religion he wants. It isn't a crime. But if we're going to talk about an unproven theory of evolution in schools, I don't see why we can't talk about an unproven theory of creationism or ID. Seems fair enough to me.

[Alamo-Girl]

Am I supposed to take any of this guy's opinions seriously?

Now that I have read the articles of his faith - I also have no use for any of his theological opinions.

[xzins]

I'm not impressed with a radical liberal rejecting the Old Testament seeing he's already rejected the New Testament, morality, the resurrection, and the existence of God.

What do you think will happen if I post on the news forum a John Kerry article and insist it is a call to action for freepers?

Your article says that the entire purpose of scriptural revelation is to stand around saying "Wow."

Typical claptrap, liberal theological garbage.

[JamesP81]

Now that I have read the articles of his faith - I also have no use for any of his theological opinions.

Nor do I

[razorbak]

Mat 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mar 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

[curiosity]

Okay, okay, okay. I'll be careful to make sure I won't post theological articles by pseudo-Christians in the future.

I see people around here are more interested in the authors personal beleifs than the content of their articles.

[curiosity]

Uh, last time I checked, the story of Jonah is not in Genesis.

Nothing in Luke indicates Our Lord insisted on a global flood.

And yes, humans were male and female from the begining of our species. I don't see how this precludes evolution.

[xzins]

Knowing some democrat's position on Iraq enables me to determine his/her political views elsewhere.

This Burklo guy thinks taking fully gay, unrepentent members into the church is just fine.

That means he rejects historic definitions of sin and atonement. That means he has to reinterpret the creation stories.

In other words, he has an ulterior motive for concluding the evo debate in a "mythical god" kind of way.

And guess what...that's exactly what he's done.

Find me a conservative theologian who decides in an evo direction and I'll pay attention. Find me a liberal theologian who decides in a creation direction and I'll pay attention.

[Moral Hazard]

"I don't understand why so many "scientists" are so afraid of the idea of "intelligent design"? "

They're not afraid of it. They just don't take it seriously. To most scientists evolution has long been a settled issue and they've been building scientific evidence on top of it for over a hundred years.

[Moral Hazard]

"I my self am a CREATIONIST because I believe that the world wide flood existed and covered all mountains even (there is evidence that the Bible is based on fact, and scientists have found seashells on top of very high mountains :)!"

This reminds me of the dismissed juror from the O.J. Simpson trial who asked his opinion of the DNA evidence implicating O.J. said "a lot of people have the same blood type."