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

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

[drlevy88]

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.

Somehow these got written down real well. The others didn't.

[js1138]

If God wrote these words on stone tablets, isn't it a bit odd that He referred to Himself in the third person. I thought that was an affectation of human monarchs.

It is particularly odd because in other places God uses the first person.

[From many - one.]

Unless I am mistaken, that's number three in the Catholic version. Whay are you so hung up on 6?

Did you read the rest of my post?

[Matchett-PI]

"...So what is the mark of genuine science? ..."

Here is the mark of what science ISN'T:

"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases. ......"

A lecture by Michael Crichton California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA January 17, 2003

[MindBender26]

>Somehow these got written down real well.

Thousands of years before writing existed?

It even goes to issues other than writing. Early man understood quantities as 1, 2 and many.

Then came 1-10 (fingers), then the advanced decimal system we now use.

But early Biblical stories refer to the ages people in the high hundreds, many centuries before either writing or numerical understanding existed.

[drlevy88]

The Bible versions got written down well, as the manuscripts of the bible, silly. If close variants were popping up all over the place, we'd be seeing them appear in, say, cuneiform writings. This requires a paranoia level conspiracy theory to believe.

[drlevy88]

And look what happens to the ages up to, and following the Flood. There isn't a step function in the ages; it's a plateau up to the Flood then a decay to the values we know today.

[From many - one.]

God's -word- is only a small part of the Bible...pretty much Sermon on the Mount, and 10 Commandments.

As has been noted, the explanatory phrases appear to have been added and speak of God in the third person.

I can't address this since I cannot read the original languages and, of course, can't get hold of the original texts.
The rest is commentary and interpretation.

[js1138]

It takes a lot of self sacrifice to love your neighbor as yourself.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I feel compelled to respond. I don't understand this at all. I have never understood it. What is more rewarding in life than promoting the common good? It doesn't mean giving up what you have. It means making the world a good place for everyone. If you have children you understand this instinctively. You can't look after the welfare of your descendents without promoting justice for everyone.

[xzins]

Are you accepting a biblical dating or are you accepting standard archeological dating?

Sumerian writing goes way back.

The issue of Noah and earlier is, of course, changed by whether or not we accept a cataclysmic universal flood. If so, then there are no records...even if they kept records.

If you accept a biblical dating scheme, then Shem lived into the Abrahamic times. First hand accounts could be written from an observer.

[Matchett-PI]

""God did not write the Bible. Man, with all his faults did" ~ MindBender26

"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." ~ JohnnyM

Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt
http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html

The Old Testament http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

The New Testament http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

[highball]

The Bible is much more than history or science. It is TRUTH. It is not "cleverly designed fables".

The Bible is not a science textbook. Nor is it natural history - it is inaccurate on both counts.

[atlaw]

I have to say, your vision of an ideal economic anarchy is both quaint in its miniturazation, and selective in its application.

In your vision, should individuals be insulated against liability for the debts they incur in doing business and the torts committed by the business entites they operate?

[music_code]

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.

Where does anyone get the idea that nobody wrote anything down starting from the time of Adam and Eve? Why is it assumed that the first humans created were dumb caveman-hicks by comparison to those of us who live today?

Your view about who wrote the Bible is itself based on a worldview that excludes the possibility of God revealing Himself to man in written word form to begin with. Why should anyone accept your worldview? It is merely your own biased opinion.

[music_code]

The Bible is not a science textbook. Nor is it natural history - it is inaccurate on both counts.

So you have an opinion. Now tell us why anyone should believe what you say. In other words, does your opinion actually line up with Truth?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have to say, your vision of an ideal economic anarchy is both quaint in its miniturazation, and selective in its application."

It's not anarchy in the least, it is the rule of law. Law based on property rights. I don't find property rights to be quaint. It's not at all selective, it is uniform. Everybody gets to sell their property at what they wish to sell at and buy only what they are willing to buy at. There is no guarantee though that a seller will find a buyer willing to buy at what the seller's price is, or that a buyer will find a seller willing to sell at what they are willing to pay. In order for there to be a just transaction, both parties must come to an agreement.

With antitrust, the government comes in and forces a seller to sell at conditions they do not wish to sell at. That is fascism. I prefer capitalism.

"In your vision, should individuals be insulated against liability for the debts they incur in doing business and the torts committed by the business entities they operate?"

As far as torts are concerned, that depends on how much that individual was involved in the crimes of the business. Businesses do not commit crimes, individuals do.

[highball]

The Bible is not a science textbook. Nor is it natural history - it is inaccurate on both counts.

So you have an opinion. Now tell us why anyone should believe what you say. In other words, does your opinion actually line up with Truth?

I do not pretend to be some sort of conduit to Truth. I'm only stating that a literal reading of the Bible, with its Young Earth cosmology, is not scientifically accurate.

I would never expect anyone to take my word for that. You wouldn't need to anyway - the evdence aginst a 6,000 year old Earth is manifest.

[atlaw]

You answered only part of my question. You left out any answer to the part that asked: "should individuals be insulated against liability for the debts they incur in doing business?" Should they?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You left out any answer to the part that asked: "should individuals be insulated against liability for the debts they incur in doing business?" Should they?"

That's not part of antitrust, which is what we were discussing.

Of course, antitrust is not about whether ID is science either. Why don't we just accept we don't fully agree on economics and stick to exposing the weaknesses of creationism and ID? :) I forget already how we got to antitrust to begin with. I should have stayed on the topic of the thread instead of letting myself get taken along on a tangent.

Regards.

[atlaw]

Actually, with the direction this thread was taking, the anti-trust discussion was a whole lot more interesting.

I guess we'll have to agree that we don't fully agree on anti-trust or the proper role of government in business regulation (the latter being, as I'm sure you are aware, the point of my question).

I'm sure you will agree with me, though, when I say it's kind of nice to converse for a while without being called a hellbound spawn of evilutionist materialism. : )