Tension Over Intelligent Design

International Herald Tribune ^ | 10/31/2005 | Joseph Rosenbloom

[Diamond]

And note how the only word that's given in favor of the balanced debate is...from a Muslim group. That's no accident.

That design is no accident:^) And one can see that it was the first thing picked up on this thread.

Cordially,

[betty boop]

you don't' have a leg to stand on other than a definition of Creationist so broad that it includes everyone who isn't' an Atheist, including me.

I did not concoct this definition myself, to please myself. I used the accepted meaning of a word as it has been understood in the West since the 1840s (according to the OED). If anyone is performing innovations on language, I'd say it would be you, USCB, not me. FWIW

[Diamond]

Thanks for conceding the point. Other than the bit about creation of a unique soul, I know for a certainty that "biblical literalist" doesn't describe any Deist or Thomas Jefferson, so it is incorrect to say that the Founding Fathers were Creationists, when Deists don't believe in the Bible, and even self described Christians such as Thomas Jefferson were hardly Biblical literalists. Jefferson questioned everything and wrote his own version of the Bible.

These facts about TJ are undisputed. Essentially you have called me a liar because I preferred to use the word "creationist" in its radical, primary meaning, to refer to someone who believed in a Creator, as betty boop as shown:

creationism n. Theology. 1. The doctrine ascribing the origin of all matter and living forms as they now exist to distinct acts of creation by God. Compare evolutionism.

rather than the PC version from modern, liberal dictionary editors.

So when I responded to you, "He is a DEIST", it was not as though that didn't count, or that I was asserting that he was an orthodox Christian, it was specifically to say he and just about everyone else at the time, and most certainly orthodox Christians of one stripe or another, believed that that the universe was created by a Creator. I mean, what else was there at the time? There were probably a few atheists, and all the people who believed that the universe is eternal, but that is exactly the sense in which I used the word. The meaning of a word is not "stretched" or "lost" by using it in its primary, or more radical sense; it is lost by what C.S. Lewis called "verbicide", or, the deliberate destruction of words. You undoubtedly have the right to your preferred usage of the term, and so do I.

Cordially,

[hosepipe]

[ Fascinating insight, hosepipe! Thank you so much for writing. ]

Thank you Maam.. I've always appreciated your work too.. especially the stuff with Popeye..;)

I'm not much good in threads like this..
"Evos" are generally so very much smarter than I am..
They throw around terms that confuse me.. a good plot too if its done on purpose..

[Diamond]

...a chief tactic of the Progressive Left is to (mis)appropriate words and symbols for the purpose of undermining their "traditional" meanings, and to substitute meanings that are more in line with totalist, ideological goals...

Case in point; in Webster's Online look at what has been done to the definition of "marriage"

Cordially,

[hosepipe]

[A] It would prove that the Founding Fathers were not Creationists, some of them didn't believe in the Bible at all (Deists such as Franklin) and others were hardly Biblical literalists (such as Thomas Jefferson who eschewed all accounts of the miraculous whether from Greek, Roman or Biblical sources). ]

[B] You have nothing that can contradict the simple fact that neither Deists, nor freethinking Christians (as Jefferson called himself) were Biblical literalists and therefore neither was a Creationist. ]

[C] Laziness is no excuse for assertion without substantiation.]

---

A) Didn't belive that the bible was what?. 1) wholly true.. 2) partially true.. 3) a fabrication.. 4) A metaphorical account of real issues in places.. 5) beautifully written..
6) some other variation.. 7) a myth..

B) Maybe they would not have used the term creationist.. some of them.. but have preferred the term 'believer'.. When second guessing long dead people you can easily be WRONG.. both of us.. What is a literalist christian ?.. a snake handler.. one whom baptizes by fire with a blow torch ?..
If that is what you mean then you protest too much..

C) You make my point I see.. admitting it is rare..

[marron]

Hey, keep me on your ping list.

Thanks

[betty boop]

The meaning of a word is not "stretched" or "lost" by using it in its primary, or more radical sense; it is lost by what C.S. Lewis called "verbicide", or, the deliberate destruction of words.

Lewis was exactly right, Diamond. Thank you for making this point. The "Left" can hardly be trusted with writing dictionaries! It seems they have contempt for any word or other symbol whose primary or "root" meaning does not support their purposes. So they either change the meaning; or if they cannot do that, they heap contempt on the word...and beyond that, on that of which the word is a description... the vandals.... :^)

[Diamond]

There is wisdom in your remarks.

Therefore - be they Cromwell's Major Generals, Jacobins, Bolsheviks, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis, Islamists, or Christian Reconstuctionists (your "Wild-EyedTM Fundamentalist Christian, Creationist, Bible-thumping ignoramuses") - they are progressives.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.

And in which group would you classify the 124 faculty members of Iowa State University referred to in the article at the top of this thread who felt compelled to endorse a petition in August denouncing "efforts to portray intelligent design as science." "Unnamed in the petition, but the obvious target, was Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy." "Gonzalez has never taught intelligent design in his courses, according to the university." His crime? Co-authoring a book, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery".

I heard someone say on PBS, of all places, a couple of months ago that some day doctrinaire evolutionists will be viewed the way we view doctrinaire Marxists today.

Cordially,

[betty boop]

Jeepers!!!! Marriage = "A married couple without love"?????

[Diamond]

Even worse. Look at (2):

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Cordially,

[hosepipe]

[ Where are you getting this from? Please cite a reference. I've never seen any scientist claim that evolution implies either that man is wholly DNA or that man is not spiritual. ]

Ah.. this is the jist of the/your post, I think..

Of course they wont claim that.. If one species evolved from another including man (not proven to me) then Adam and Eve is a myth.. and the absolute "base" of scripture is flawed.. and if the base is flawed the rest is in jeopardy of being mere "literature" or even a "tall tale".. or even a yarn of wishful thinking for "simple" people to answer complex issues of this life..

The bible speaks of man/mankind being a spirit/spirits using an animal like body as transportation on this planet for "awhile".. watched over and even challenged(Satan) by another spirit(God) and or other spirits he/it designates.. The transportation is what evolution is all about.. The bible is about what the spirit(s) is about..

Apples and oranges really, Unless "the god of the bible" is mentally challenged like all his believers.. and posed a simple story for simple people.. You know a yarn that they could grasp.. Must be so.. at least for me..

The "Yarn" of evolution is way too convoluted for me.. but then I could care less where my transportation came from.. What excites me is the "Spirit".. will to, you, if ever you become bored of this Donkey rodeo.. <<- metaphor.. i.e. donkey = transportation, spirit = donkey rider..

Note**; Hmmmm, Wonder if god had a hand in democrats selecting the donkey.. nevermind..

[Diamond]

This is from Webster's 1828:

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

Can you imagine that definition being used in a school today?

Cordially,

[betty boop]

YIKES!!!!! No, I can't imagine the 1828 definition being used in the public schools today -- because the public schools are largely in the business of "socializing" youngsters into politically-correct channels.... It appears the vandals deliberately undermine the language thereby to undermine the culture.

[USConstitutionBuff]

I provided substantiation with quotations from Thomas Jefferson and referred to Franklin's autobiography, as well as supplied a Websters definition of a Creationist as one who believes in a literal account of Genesis.

It was you who intimated that you were too lazy to google for substantiation to the asinine assertion that the Founding Fathers were all Creationists; I have wasted too much time already with people who cannot understand simple English and think that words mean whatever they want them to mean at the time they use them.

Deists do not believe in the Bible. What point is your multiple guess idiocy other than a distraction from that point? Are you trying to assert that Deists believe in the Bible?

And I'm not second guessing 'dead people'; I am quoting them so that their words can speak for themselves.

[USConstitutionBuff]

creationism n (1880): a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usu. IN THE WAY DESCRIBED IN GENESIS — compare EVOLUTION

Deist do not believe in Genesis. The accepted meaning of the word 'Creationist' on this board and in general usage today is someone who subscribes to a literal account of Genesis.

Your definition is so broad that everyone except atheists would be included. Therefore the statement "the Founding Fathers were Creationists" is only true insomuch as they were no atheists among them. They were certainly not Creationists in that many did not believe in the Bible, and many Christians such as Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Bible as written literally.

According your half-assed definition of Creationist a Evolutionary Biologist who is a Deist is a Creationist. They would deny this as their work is on Evolution and they do not subscribe to Creationist literature, Creation Science, and would not find any friends on a Creationist website.

Is any of this getting through or am I talking to a brick wall?

Standing by for repetition without citation of the same regurgitated garbage in .....3.....2.....

[js1138]

Just for fun:


http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/creationist

[frgoff]

Darwin's Black Box is a bit more than philosophy. It's a pretty rigorous book and even gets into some fairly heavy biochemistry. You might want to read it. Behe has made some interesting observations, particularly when he cites the results of his search for papers on various evolutionary mehanisms.

[hosepipe]

[ Deists do not believe in the Bible. What point is your multiple guess idiocy other than a distraction from that point? Are you trying to assert that Deists believe in the Bible? ]

Which Deist.?... Labeling people absolutely is fraught with chance for error.. I believe in the bible .. literally in places and metaphorically in others (when metaphor is present).. and poetically or as prose in places where that teaching mechanism is present.. Some Deists approached the bible in exactly that way too, I surmise.. but not only Deists but non Deists too.. Looking for a silver bullet to disprove the Christian heritage of America should be a job left to those that despise Jesus and the statement of his life. Even if the Jesus "story" were a myth.. its been the best seller for as long as books have been printed in presses.. People like that "story".. includeing most founding fathers(by their statements).. Why?, becuase its deep, broad in scope, and the founding fathers were not idiots.. They knew freedom when they saw it..

Jesus makeing literally all religion (and other man made institutions) obsolete by his sacrifice, must have encourged them to do what they did.. Jesus rocked and the founders rolled..

Some belivers in God were not too smart, like Deists.. but they were still believers..

[USConstitutionBuff]

Mechanism which he cannot name?