Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[King Prout]

"three little maids from school are we" is a useful implement of torment

[Dimensio]

I know, and that's sad, but the fact is that it's very closely analogous.

So pointing out that "God belief" is not a short and concise summary of all religions in the world is analagous to being ignorant of air resistance?

If I were gullible enough to believe that, I'd probably be a liberal.

Citations to the contrary?

However, ID proponents are not among them. The way ID proponents are demonized on these threads is by declaring them nothing more than crevos in disguise.

And if you'd look at the very writings of ID proponents, you would know exactly why. They're called crevos in disguise because a number of them have admitted to being crevos in disguise. Why did Pat Robertson claim that the citizens of Dover should not call upon God in the face of a disaster? Why did members of the Kansas Board of Education state outright that their objections to evolution were religious in nature?

No, that's not right either. I don't reject the fossil record, while I do believe in God. It's entirely plausible to me that He might have used evolution to get where He was going.

And you won't find anyone on the evolution side who will take issue with this statement. Some will correctly tell you that this position is not scientific, but that's not the same as the position being false.

The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference.

Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim. The only one I've ever seen pop up regularly is Dawkins. And Dawkins talks out of his ass when he's talking outside of his field. The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny.

So, people who believe in God are cranks, are we?

I was referring to people pushing ID and other nonscientific nonsense in science classrooms, not God-belief. I made that quite clear by bringing up that as the specific subject before making the reference to "cranks". Why did you quote me out of context like that?

Sure He is. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but the fact is that many "scientists" are driven to paroxyms of hysteria by the thought that someone might just poke his head into a classroom and say, "And we think God was behind it all."

That would be because "God was behind it all", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.

[VadeRetro]

I used to hate that one but it grew on me after a decade or so. You have to know the words to enjoy the meter.

[dsc]

"So pointing out that "God belief" is not a short and concise summary of all religions in the world is analagous to being ignorant of air resistance?"

You're getting colder.

"Citations to the contrary?"

They're all over the place. Could you really have missed them all?

"a number of them have admitted to being crevos in disguise."

Haven't seen that, myself. Dishonesty being contrary to the principles of Christianity, it's rather difficult to credit.

"Why did Pat Robertson claim that the citizens of Dover should not call upon God in the face of a disaster?"

I don't recall PR ever claiming to be anything but a Biblical literalist.

"Why did members of the Kansas Board of Education state outright that their objections to evolution were religious in nature?"

Since ID proponents don't object to evolution, I fail to see how that bears on the subject.

"And you won't find anyone on the evolution side who will take issue with this statement."

Au contraire, mon frere. I have found scads who fly into screaming conniptions at the mere suggestion.

"Some will correctly tell you that this position is not scientific, but that's not the same as the position being false."

That's very rational.

Look, I agree that science classes shouldn't be converted into theology classes. But where is the pressing need for an absolute embargo on any mention, however brief, of a credible position taken by many intelligent people?

I could see scientists getting upset if there were a requirement to teach a great deal of theology, or to spend even five minutes per class on it, but whence this demand for a hermetic seal?

"Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim."

You must have walked through a door into an alternate reality of greater rationality. It sure is a lot different from this universe.

"The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny."

Again, that's your perception.

"Why did you quote me out of context like that?"

It wasn't clear to me. That's the way I read it. Now that you have corrected me as to your intent, I apologize for any offense my incorrect reading caused.

That said, I must ask again: Whence this desperate need for a hermetic seal? What harm is done by taking a minute or so during a semester to mention that some people think that God is behind it all?

"That would be because "God was behind it all", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such."

I don't recall presenting it as a scientific statement.

A semester is roughly nine weeks. A typical class might have three hours a week of lectures. That's 1,620 minutes. Is the scientific community so bereft of consideration for the feelings of its fellow citizens that they man the barricades and fight to the last man rather than offer a single one of those minutes for the expression of a statement that, while not scientific, has huge implications for the decision a scientist must make in the course of his work?

[nmh]

It's funny, I was going to add something about linking to a reply of mine that you insist on taking out of context but I thought, nah, surely he has better things to do with his time.

Wrong! If someone insists on trailing me around and fabricating situations ... they will have nothing better to do with their time than to drag up links skewed to give you some standing, since apparently in the real world you have none.

Here's something for you to do ... think for a change ... ponder this:

Prov.14:8

[8] The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.

I also don't see any takers on your childish lies. If anything people ignore you and quietly pity you as I do.

Try and have a nice day.

[nmh]

That's a fact that will never change.

As time goes on ... I see the delusion picking up ... and those opposed to God, less tolerant and shriller than ever. Of course many of those will claim to believe in Him but only selectively. Believing Christ died and rose from the dead is fine ... but the very idea that He created all we see and don't see, just as He also stated in the Bible, is not possible.

Never mind that the Hebrew checks out - 6, 24 hour days and on the seventh He rested - nope, can't believe Him when He states THAT. Never mind that the evidence ALL points to Him and because they can't support their position with legitimate science they are reduced to name calling.

The "gnashing of teeth" won't be out of regret but anger at being so wrong.

[Elsie]

Or are all of you FR creationists just going to jump in and cheerlead for a well-established liar because you don't dare admit that any creationist ever makes a mistake?

?

I'm a creationist, and I have made a mistake or two.

[Elsie]

You still have your RIGHTS endowed by the CREATOR that no TOE/scientists can take!!!!

That's just some words on paper that some men have thought up: kinda like the bible.

[RunningWolf]

because a mountain looks different in various weather conditions and from different angles and distances, that one must be looking at many different mountains.

Thats an apt analogy.

Also have you noticed the backwards inference that goes on here from these demented sorts?

It is much more important than what the evolutionists here say, rather than than what 'the theory of evolution says'. Now most of them slither away from what 'they say', like the demented methods back handed inference to what the 'theory says'. The ones that don't, I respect their integrity about their beliefs at least.

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

Thats what they are so afraid of. That one minute in a whole year will devastate the foundation of the cultish ideology.

Wolf

[Elsie]

Now, if you have any positive evidence for Intelligent Design it can be evaluated, but thus far the only thing I've ever seen is argument from incredulity, often based upon faulty claims of "irreducable complexity" that have already been debunked.

Often?

What about the OTHER times??

[Elsie]

That would be because "God was behind it all", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.

Is this somehow different from:

"Evolution is behind all modern day creatures", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.

[Elsie]

Dishonesty being contrary to the principles of Christianity, it's rather difficult to credit.

---

---

 

Yup:

 

Exodus 20: 16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

 

also...

 

Deuteronomy 5:20  "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

 

There's also these:

 

NIV Joshua 2:1-6

 

 1.  Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute  named Rahab and stayed there.
 2.  The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land."
 3.  So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."
 4.  But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from.
 5.  At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them."   <-- Big, Fat LIE!!!!
 6.  (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.)

 

NIV Joshua 6:17
   The city and all that is in it are to be devoted  to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute  and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent.

 

NIV Joshua 6:23
   So the young men who had done the spying went in and brought out Rahab, her father and mother and brothers and all who belonged to her. They brought out her entire family and put them in a place outside the camp of Israel.

 

NIV Joshua 6:25
   But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho--and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

 

NIV Matthew 1:1-17

 1.  A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
 2.  Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
 3.  Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 
 4.  Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
 5.  Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,
 6.  and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
 7.  Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa,
 8.  Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
 9.  Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
 10.  Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah,
 11.  and Josiah the father of Jeconiah  and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
 12.  After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
 13.  Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor,
 14.  Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud,
 15.  Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
 16.  and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
 17.  Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

 

NIV Hebrews 11:31
   By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

 

NIV James 2:25
   In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

 

Now.... what was your point again??

[Thatcherite]

Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim. The only one I've ever seen pop up regularly is Dawkins. And Dawkins talks out of his ass when he's talking outside of his field. The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny.

I know that Dawkins dislikes religion, and that he thinks that evolution makes religion unnecessary, but that is a long way from Dawkins asserting that evolution proves religion to be false. I am not aware that he has ever said that amongst his numerous anti-religion statements.

It is true that Dawkins talks out of his ass about politics however.

[Dimensio]

It's funny, I was going to add something about linking to a reply of mine that you insist on taking out of context

BWAHAHAHA!

I link directly do your own post in your own words in my exposure of you. Are you saying that you posted out of context? Of course you could try and explain how I took your words out of context, but you won't because you're a liar, and you know that you lied, so now you have to lie some more in a desperate attempt to cover it up. You have no shame.

I also don't see any takers on your childish lies.

Not surprising. Everyone on the evolution side already knows how dishonest you are, and the majority of those on the creationist side don't chastize their own, no matter how obvious the transgression.

[dsc]

"Now.... what was your point again??"

If you're going to operate on the intellectual level of a six-year-old, there's no point in even trying to have a discussion.

When people were hiding Jews from the Nazis during WWII, and they lied to the Nazis to keep them safe, do you suppose that made them dishonest?

There is a difference between pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding bus and pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus.

[nmh]

I'll let you have the last word since I know it is VERY IMPORTANT to YOU. BTW, I didn't bother to read your reply. If you must, carry on a conversation with yourself.

[tuesday afternoon]

West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Sun]

I don't know why the anti-ID folks are so afraid of something new. Science is always learning something new.

The Surface Of The Sun, The Photosphere And Solar Flares
--snip--
For forty-five years, I believed that the sun was a giant ball of gas as I was taught in school. Like everyone else, I was introduced to Galileo's observations of moving sunspots which laid the foundation of the gas model theory of the sun that NASA still promotes to this day. That model of the sun that I was taught in school was the framework I had always tried to work with. During all that time I simply could not fully explain the cause of the tumultuous eruptions from the photosphere that I was seeing as I studied these satellite images. The reason for that confusion turns out to be very simple. The sun is NOT simply a giant ball of gas. It has a solid surface beneath the visible photosphere.



--snip--
The reason for that confusion turns out to be very simple. The sun is NOT simply a giant ball of gas. It has a solid surface beneath the visible photosphere.
--snip--

Recent findings from the field of heliosiesmology demonstrate the existence of a double sided stratified layer, that is located just under the photosphere.
--snip--
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

[nanomid]

Anyone who self-cites without proper placement is an ass.
You appear to do just that.

If you wish to attempt to lecture me on epistemics, you need to show your properly cited work.