Pa. professor [Behe] to testify in landmark case [Dover evolution trial, 16 Oct]

The Wichita Eagle ^ | 16 October 2005 | MICHAEL RUBINKAM

[PetroniusMaximus]

***I would call one that tried to make Adam satisfied with an animal as a partner as not completely the human biological urge.***

Are you a person who thinks solely in terms of biological urges???

[js1138]

That's what I said. He made fun of him for taking words literally and missing the point.

And this story is frequently cited as evidence that we must thake every word of the Old Testament literally.

[WildTurkey]

Are you a person who thinks solely in terms of biological urges???

We all think soley in terms of biological urges. That is how we evolved into where we are now. It's all about biological urges.

[StJacques]

"From your explanation it is clear that "descent of man" needs to be clarified to show that man is a dual nature and that only one part shares biological descent. But scientific naturalism doesn't want to take this step. It prefers to only consider one side, the animal. The same goes for the science of nature in general."

You are correct cornelis. It is precisely the "dual nature" you refer to that the Pope addresses and he doesn't deal with the refusal of science to address anything other than the "animal nature" because he states that science, as materialist philosophy, is incapable of doing otherwise and hence, is limited.

[cornelis]

On another thread, then.

[WildTurkey]

"I would call one that tried to make Adam satisfied with an animal as a partner as not completely the human biological urge."

My omission. Should be:

I would call one that tried to make Adam satisfied with an animal as a partner as not completely knowledgeable on the human biological urge.

[csense]

I would expect that you would also redicule Mr. Behe, a Darwinian that believes in common descent over millions of years of evolution.

I'm not quite sure what this has to do with my post since I don't recall ridiculing anyone, but if this is what Behe believes then I would disagree with him...and if he were here, posting on this forum, I certainly would have no problem expressing that.

That said, I really don't have enough knowledge of the man to judge whether your representation here is correct.

[js1138]

Many threads.

[cornelis]

If they read the good book so literally, maybe we can cut a little slack for the others who read nature so scientifically.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"We all think soley in terms of biological urges. That is how we evolved into where we are now. It's all about biological urges"

That's how cows live - from one biological satisfaction to the next.

No wonder systems base on evolution end up treating people like animals.

Sorry, we were created for higher things than that.

[WildTurkey]

but if this is what Behe believes then I would disagree with him...

You would disagree with him? Since you would disagree with him on such a fundamental issue (evolution) then would you not consider him to be a non-credible witness for the ID movement?

[Matchett-PI]

"... there are many places where the specific details of events contradict themselves within its [the Bible's] own pages."

Contradictions? Nah. Only biblical illiterates believe that.

Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

Inerrancy and Human Ignorance Why We Could Not and Can Not Have Inerrant Copies and Translations of the Bible Only the original manuscripts of the Bible were produced inerrant (God-breathed in the autographs).

[Quark2005]

Where is your direct physical evidence that the resurrection is a fact?

There is none.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to. Reread what I wrote.

Either Jesus
1. took it literally and factually or
2. he was ignorant, or
3. he knew better and was playing to people's ignorance

or
4. He was using Parables to make a point, as He often did, and wasn't concerned with the specifics of natural history, because that wasn't the point He was trying to make.

People who are overconcerned with the literal specifics of ancient Scripture remind me more of the people that Jesus was angry with in the first place. I surely hope you don't literally hate your mother and father, as Jesus literally demanded in Luke 14:26, and see past the literal words to the deeper point He was conveying.

I don't think God is a liar either. He wouldn't place evidence that points to an 4.5 billion earth and the common descent of life on earth and expect us not to believe it.

[Quark2005]

...4.5 billion year-old earth...

Accidental snip

[js1138]

the methods of science are the product of many centuries. The only thing that doesn't change is the assumption that nature doesn't cheat, and the rules stay the same,.

[Quark2005]

Only the original manuscripts of the Bible were produced inerrant (God-breathed in the autographs).

Exactly. Much is lost in translation and the fact that the Bible has been translated and passed on by fallible human beings. The whole point which I'm trying to make.

I believe that God's Word is consistent with an accurate physical description of the natural world, contrary to what creationists want to believe.

[Dimensio]

No wonder systems base on evolution end up treating people like animals.

Explain what you mean by this. What systems are based on evolution. Be specific.

[csense]

Since you would disagree with him on such a fundamental issue (evolution) then would you not consider him to be a non-credible witness for the ID movement?

I don't know enough about the specifics Intelligent Design to know wether common descent is incompatible with it, but even if I did have an opinion, what difference would it make. I'm not an advocate for Behe or the ID movement, and you certainly seem to think that his reputation is pretty much worthless.

You might want to pick your battles with a little more thought since all you're doing is treading water here.

[WildTurkey]

No wonder systems base on evolution end up treating people like animals.

Explain what you mean by this. What systems are based on evolution. Be specific.

The whole world is bsed on evolutin and, yes, people are animals ...

[Gumlegs]

[1]What was the ad hominem attack you're accusing me of making?

That would be in this post to this thread: Interesting that the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott

The validity of a scientific theory does not stand or fall on the one's theism, or lack thereof.

[2]what was the logical fallacy you're accusing me of making?

That's a two-fer: The ad hom, quoted above, and the idea, also noted above, giving rise to the notion that the validity of a scientific theory is in some way affected by someone's belief in a deity.

[3]what was the quote you're referencing?

It would be much easier to list the quotes you've posted that aren't distorted, out-of-context, or entirely fabricated.

By the way, I'm not a "madame" in any sense of the word. Just FYI.