Is ID science or religion?

antievolution.org ^ | Prof. Phillip E. Johnson

[Stultis]

I took the time in the past to find a Hebrew word for sphere. There isn't one. There is a word for ball, but it also implies a child's plaything. In Hebrew, circle is the best word to desribe the earth.

But even lacking a suitable single world, the sphericity of the earth could easily be conveyed by imagery. But all the imagery implies flatness instead. For instance in it's creation the earth is described as being "spread" out or "stamped" out or "pounded" out. It is never, for instance, described as being "gathered up". Likewise the heavens cover the earth like a tent. A tent covers a flat surface. Why not describe the heavens, for instance, to the rind of a fruit? Many such conveyances of the idea are possible, but none are used.

[Ichneumon]

["Creationists, generally being Christians, are, frankly, the biggest champions of the concept of absolute moral truth."]

They are the biggest champions of their version of absolute moral truth.

Advocates of "absolute moral truth" (or "absolute truth" or "absolute morality", etc.) never seem to notice that people's idea of "absolute" [whatever] is actually very *relative* to what holy book they decide to follow, or which sect's interpretation they adopt.

[101st-Eagle]

On dumbing down America:

Toward Soviet America- 1932 William Z Foster, page 316

“Present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy.” (method of education)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" “Present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy.” (method of education)"

So science is communism?

[furball4paws]

I am going to have to disageee with you concerning Astrology. After all, the gravity of Mars has some effect on you. It can be measured. Now, whether it will make you buy the Lexus instead of the scooter, is another question.

Astrology has been tested and has proven to be a wasteland, but that is much better than CR/ID which cannot ever be tested for anything without imploding.

So, I say, teach the controversy - Teach Astrology!!

The next great Public School Controversy.

[WildHorseCrash]

That's some interesting stuff.

The thing that I still don't understand is the mindset that says to ignore the most logical and consistent explanation of the text (i.e., that writers in the ancient Levant held beliefs that the earth was flat; a cosmological view one would expect from a people living at that time and place) in favor of an ad hoc and strained explanation.

Same thing with literal reading of Genesis, where you get the most ridiculous and impossible Rube-Goldberg-type explanations offered to justify the text ("vapor canopy," etc.).

Does it come down to the fact that they must figure out some way that the text is literally and absolute true, regardless of how bizarre and unsupportable?

[101st-Eagle]

I'm not a creationist but I will say you logic is all over the board.

[furball4paws]

"Does it come down to the fact that they must figure out some way that the text is literally and absolute true, regardless of how bizarre and unsupportable?"

Unfortunately the answer, for some, is "yes". The simple fact that the text must be twisted, sometimes bizarrely, just means that a 4000 year old sheep herder's text isn't up to today's knowledge base. I don't see that as a problem, but for the absolutists, any crack in their edifice means that the whole thing will collapse unless it is shown to be absolutely correct in everything.

I'd generally say that is a person who has a bad inferiority complex.

[PatrickHenry]

... the most ridiculous and impossible Rube-Goldberg-type explanations ...

Searching for the findings of modern science in ancient scripture involves the same technique that the Nostradamus buffs employ. When something happens (which they somehow failed to predict) they start flipping through the pages to find something -- anything! -- that can be spun to be a prophecy.

[js1138]

ID advocates seem to be typical guys -- eager to get to phase three without going through phase one and two.

[PatrickHenry]

ID advocates seem to be typical guys -- eager to get to phase three without going through phase one and two.

Can't fault 'em for that. But it ain't gonna work unless they pick on a girl of easy virtue.

[Dead Dog]

My point is simply attack the theory, not the theorist.

Darwin was a crappy naturalist, a terrible student, and eventually died a materialist. His theory stands or falls on it's merit, not his.

[WildHorseCrash]

(furball4paws): Unfortunately the answer, for some, is "yes". The simple fact that the text must be twisted, sometimes bizarrely, just means that a 4000 year old sheep herder's text isn't up to today's knowledge base. I don't see that as a problem, but for the absolutists, any crack in their edifice means that the whole thing will collapse unless it is shown to be absolutely correct in everything.

(Patrick Henry): Searching for the findings of modern science in ancient scripture involves the same technique that the Nostradamus buffs employ. When something happens (which they somehow failed to predict) they start flipping through the pages to find something -- anything! -- that can be spun to be a prophecy.

I agree with both of you that this seems to be what is going on here. It is kind of sad, in a pathetic sort of way.

Then I'll post this next question to the both of you (and anyone else who has an opinion): If, in fact, these people aren't ignorant, but are actively resisting learning why their current beliefs are wrong, then what is the purpose of continuing to dialogue with them? What can we, as conservatives and science-minded folks, hope to learn or accomplish?

[PatrickHenry]

If, in fact, these people aren't ignorant, but are actively resisting learning why their current beliefs are wrong, then what is the purpose of continuing to dialogue with them? What can we, as conservatives and science-minded folks, hope to learn or accomplish?

I don't dialogue with them. I post links and other information in response to nonsense, but there's no point in going further -- as these rambling threads can abundantly attest.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin was a crappy naturalist"

Hardly. He was well respected even before he proposed evolution. He was noted for his keen mind.

"a terrible student"

He was an average student, mainly because most of what he studied formally wasn't the science he loved. He was studying Latin and theology.

[Dead Dog]

I think we probably agree, for the most part. My point is that science cannont make any assumption as to why something is, only how. Presumption of the existence or non existence or God is not scientific. Arguing that complex order cannot have occurred randomly as a function of probability is an arguable hypothosis, equally valid of Darwin's unguided evolution.

What is fun, however, is watching the self-important chest puffers proclaim themselves enlightened scientist..while they defend their orthodoxy.

As for Materialism vs Spiritualism, they are philosophy, not science. They attempts to answer why, not how. Materialism (as the term has been used for the last century) is the twisting of the scientific method in order to apply it to philosophy, it has more to do with Marx than science. In fact it is Marxism. Science must remain indifferent to Spiritualism and Materialism.

[jennyp]

>Oh, creationists wish there were objective moral truth. But they agree (wrongly) with postmodernists that there isn't really any objective moral truth.

Fortunately for you, insanity is perfectly legal. The message of absolute moral truth is found all throughout the bible, preachers preach on it all the time, hell, even Christian rock bands sing about it (if you're interested, you can try the song 'Absolute' by Thousand Foot Krutch. They are the same style and similar skill as POD, which is also a Christian band, unbeknowest to many).

But do you believe that if there really was no God, that there would still be objective moral truth? Does the natural world provide us with objective criteria in which to judge actions as "right" or "wrong"? Or do you think that "if God is dead, then everything is permitted"?

[WildHorseCrash]

I don't dialogue with them. I post links and other information in response to nonsense, but there's no point in going further -- as these rambling threads can abundantly attest.

Fair enough.

[CobaltBlue]

You cannot deny that churches have declined in power, wealth and influence in the last 100 years under the sustained onslaught of Darwinist/Atheist teaching from the major universities.

I thought maybe it had something to do with that old saying, "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and to God the things which are God's."

Some organized religions long for temporal power. I recognize that.

The majority of Americans prefer that religions not have the temporal power such as that which you long for.

[jennyp]

ID is to science as Kwanzaa is to Christmas

LOL! That's a keeper!