Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[MindBender26]

The vast majority of Biblical scholars do not think these people lived almost 1000 years. At most, these was a confusion of months for years.

[Thatcherite]

If the first 10 words of the Bible do not express TRUTH, then the rest of the book cannot be trusted.

You do realise that every time that you create that dichotomy you are telling everyone who is interested in the physical evidence that the entire Bible cannot be trusted, because the literal interpretation of those words is certainly false, to anyone who cares to inspect the physical evidence (as are ludicrous fables of the world ecology being saved on a wooden boat).

It doesn't matter to me, I'm an atheist anyway, but I know of Christians who have become atheists because of the precise dichotomy that you propose. At least one posts on these threads.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh, you're not a literalist. Sorry. Then there's no reason to believe the earth is 6000 years old.

[MindBender26]

Such confusion clearly shows how stories can be come changed over the years.

If you wonder if a Biblical story could be changed over a span of (tens of) thousands of years of human memory, ask 12 people what happened at an event last week and you will get at least 6 different stories.

[drlevy88]

The "vast majority of Biblical scholars" are lukewarm

[Right Wing Professor]

I agree completely. The remarkable thing about oral history is that any grain of truth at all remains in it.

[CodeToad]

""we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says""

Where is it logical that anything supporting a religious belief is a bad scientific theory or is unconstitutional, yet, anything that bashes religion, specifically Christianity, is fair game? Attempting to distance religion from the people is nothing but an attack on the people.

[drlevy88]

A graph of the reported lifespans vs. the narrative timeline shows a roughly consistent level up to the Flood then an asymptotic decay. I thought these ignorant shepherds didn't like to play games with numbers.

[js1138]

It doesn't matter to me, I'm an atheist anyway, but I know of Christians who have become atheists because of the precise dichotomy that you propose. At least one posts on these threads.

I have certainly lost all respect for the personal honesty and integrity of many FReeper posters. I suppose it's mutual, but I fess up when I'm caught making a mistake.

[Matchett-PI]

"The real debate is not over science, which is concerned with the observable, but over whose underlying metaphysical view one accepts: materialism vs. some form of theism. .."

Backed up by Darwin, himself:

"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838

[MindBender26]

>Oh, you're not a literalist. Sorry. Then there's no reason to believe the earth is 6000 years old.

?

Since neither God nor Jesus would expect us to literally and unquestionably place our faith in what men have passed down in remembered stories for thousands of years, I chose not to do so.

God did not write the Bible. Man, with all his faults did. God did the acts. Man tried to remember them, and record them, but did so with all the expected errors we find in everything Man does over thousands of years. But that's OK. God forgave them.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Depends on (1) the product, (2) the level of control you exercise over that product, (3) the manner in which you acquired control over the product, and (4) the machinations you employ to extort a given price and/or prevent others from offering the same or alternative products."

It makes no difference as to 1 and 2. As to 3, as long as no force was initiated, there is no problem. Number 4 is only possible with government force behind you. My selling my product at whatever price I wish in no way prevents another from selling the same or an alternative product at whatever price they wish. If a buyer prefers my product/price, why should I be punished because another company isn't efficient enough to compete? The other company has no entitlement to success.

"If the foregoing were put into the form of questions, we have, as a deliberative civilization, decided that each question has an acceptable answer that will encourage economic growth and prosperity. We have also decided that each question has an unacceptable answer that will discourage economic growth and prosperity."

The collective doesn't get to vote away property rights.

[From many - one.]

I presume you don't mean the Catholic version.


Why would I have a problem with the commandments?

As I said, it is treating the Bible as a biology textbook that I have a problem with.


Incidentally, worshiping the Bible is hubris and idolatry and leads to things like the Galileo fiasco.

[From many - one.]

Or play the kid's game "telephone"

[SalukiLawyer]

Give a specific example of such a real world proof with full analytical rigour applying to any physical or chemical law or theory of your choice

What we know about physics and chemistry and, yes, biology, can be used to produce reliable results that can be measured, observed and put to effective use in the world. Why in the world would you demand "an example of real world proof with full analytical rigour applying to any physical or chemical law or theory of your choice"

If the answer has been crickets, perhaps because the challenge makes no sense.

Do you still fail to understand the difference between observable facts and the inference from those facts?

Like I said, I'm a rhetorician, not a scientist. When it comes to the "science" of global warming, rampant heterosexual transmission of AIDS, the biological basis of homosexuality, the dangers of nuclear energy, the destruction of the rainforest or any other junk science, I can't keep up with the journals, the math, the proofs and all the other folderol of junk science.

It's just easier to (1) identify the agenda of the proponant , and (2) note how argument from examples is preferred to even poor enthymemes, and the complete absence of the kind of logical "rigour" you demand from others.

Here's the only reason I get interested in this debate. While I am sure everyone on Free Republic who favors the theory of evolution is simply a disiniterested scientist with no thought that the issue bears on questions of God or culture, it cannot have escaped your attention that Evolution has been used by some as an engine for destruction of religious faith.

And if you want to talk about challenges, how about this one: Please explain to me, an intelligent layman, just how a fossil of a reptile with a vestigal wing is evidence that lizards evolved into birds? In particular, I am interested in the logical steps that go into the connection between the vestigal wing and a survival benefit to that unfortunate freak. I have brought this up more than once here, and, I , too, have gotten only the sound of crickets as an answer :-)

Since I am not a scientist, I am even prepared to stipulate to any actual evidence you want to use. Let's just concentrate on the logic, shall we? The worst that could happen would be that I learn something new.

I am not a biblical literalist. I don't believe Genesis is a scientific treatise. At different times in my life I have been non-Christian and even anti-Christian. My opinion of evolution has not changed, however.

[YHAOS]

"Hell, I'm taking cheap shots at a young man who is running the family business. (his daddy started the church) and I don't have to justify his operating expenses. I think they are sitting on his wife's finger."

Just about everyone knows that the 'young man' was selected to replace his daddy's ministry. Let's see; he was selected by whom? The congregation of the church, you say? Offended you weren't consulted first, before the decision was made? Yes, daddy started the church, but that's not what I asked you. I asked how the church came to be. And yes, of course, you aren't obliged to respond, anymore than you are obliged to justify the church's operating expenses. But, that makes your comments mere unsupported allegations, otherwise described as slander, rumor mongering, derogation, or, sometimes, calumny. And, typical of that style of discussion and debate, you close with an additional calumny.

[P-Marlowe]

I presume you don't mean the Catholic version. Why would I have a problem with the commandments?

Here, pick a version:

Exo 20:11

(ASV) for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(CEV) In six days I made the sky, the earth, the oceans, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That's why I made the Sabbath a special day that belongs to me.

(Darby) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(GB) For in sixe dayes the Lord made the heauen and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seuenth day: therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(GLB) Denn in sechs Tagen hat der HERR Himmel und Erde gemacht und das Meer und alles, was darinnen ist, und ruhte am siebenten Tage. Darum segnete der HERR den Sabbattag und heiligte ihn.

(GNB) In six days I, the LORD, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the LORD, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.

(KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(LITV) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.

(MKJV) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.

(MSG) For in six days GOD made Heaven, Earth, and sea, and everything in them; he rested on the seventh day. Therefore GOD blessed the Sabbath day; he set it apart as a holy day.

(RSV) for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

(WEB) for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.

(Webster) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath-day, and hallowed it.

(YLT) for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.

[JohnnyM]

"God did not write the Bible. Man, with all his faults did"

Then how can you trust what they wrote about Jesus? How can you even know that He existed and was not some myth? He rose from the dead, walked on water, healed blind men, and turned water into wine. Things reason and science say are impossible.

JM

[From many - one.]

You nearly got me with that one...I was starting to compose an answer when I saw who posted it. ;->

[P-Marlowe]

Incidentally, worshiping the Bible is hubris and idolatry and leads to things like the Galileo fiasco.

And denying the truth of his Word is not a good idea either

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalms 138:2 KJV)