Intelligent Design question

[Strings]

fistful: the reason ID gets equated to Creationism by so many people is that we don't hear ANYBODY but Christians pushing for it as a theory. If there were anybody of another religious group backing it, that would be different. Heck, from what you've described of it, sounds like ANY religion could endorse it. But it's only being pushed by (vocal) Christians...

[telewinz]

few Biblical scholars still take the Bible as literal truth.  The great proponents of the Bible and it's literal interpretation were also firmly convinced that the stars were holes in heaven and the world was flat.

Where do you get this stuff?  All pure nonsense.

I'm not talking your local minister or laymen or Sunday School, I'm talking Scholars.  These are people in universities who study the Bible AND history.  It's not a new field and it's readily available... to those with an open mind.

[280plus]

And now we've moved on to solipsism.

280 runs for dictionary...

comes back a little later.

Not quite. I think each of us validates reality. Not just myself. Time would not cease to exists just because I'm not here, it would just march on in everybody else's reality without me. Until such time (if you will) there is either no man left to track time or the technology is somehow lost to man and he continues on not marking the seconds etc as they pass by. There were and still may be, tribes that had/have no concept of tracking time. They just went/go through their lives without a single thought as to keeping track of what "time" it is.

At the beginning of time there was no time. Man created it.

[Perd Hapley]

few Biblical scholars still take the Bible as literal truth.

telewinz,

Maybe that part of your statement was a misleading exageration, rather than "nonsense."  However, if by scholars you mean professional academics in that field and by few you mean a minority, then you are unfortunately correct.  What is really wrong with what you said is your implication that Biblical literalism is some dying antiquarianism that intelligent people no longer believe.  THAT is pure nonsense.

people in universities who study the Bible AND history.  It's not a new field and it's readily available... to those with an open mind.

You mean those open-minded people who deny any Biblical accounts of miracles, on the grounds that miracles are impossible?  Those that, instead of studying the Bible, do their best to dismiss and butcher it?  Yes, I have heard of them.

As you only protest my characterization of your comments on Bible scholars, do you thereby admit that your statements about stars and the flat earth were utterly wrong?

[Perd Hapley]

280,

The question is not whether the event happens, which is most certainly does, but whether it makes a sound.

Until such time (if you will) there is either no man left to track time or the technology is somehow lost to man and he continues on not marking the seconds etc as they pass by. There were and still may be, tribes that had/have no concept of tracking time. They just went/go through their lives without a single thought as to keeping track of what "time" it is.

At the beginning of time there was no time. Man created it.

No, humans are aware of time by our very nature.  Even if we don't wear watches, we notice ourselves and others growing older, and we note day and night, seasons, etc.  Time is what keeps everything from happening simultaneously, so it's tough not to notice it.

[280plus]

The question is not whether the event happens, which is most certainly does, but whether it makes a sound.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If noone is there to witness the event, did it take place? Funny story and very true, I was walking through the woods alone one time and darned if a tree didn't fall and it did in fact make a sound when it did. It was a bit uh, call it thought provoking, on several different levels. Now how can I validate this event occuring to anyone else? I could show you the tree but that doesn't prove to anyone else that I witnessed it falling nor that it fell and that it did make a sound.  To everyone else but myself the event did not take place.

I understand we are aware of time passing. What I'm saying is man created the method of keeping track of it. He assigned it an arbitrary value and /or definition to a certain parcel of time as it passes and developed a method to use that value to what some perceive as to his benefit. If man did not exist there would be neither a concept of time nor that of an intelligent creator.

Going back to that, here is another tale I read once that caught my attention. It tells of a missionary who had wandered off into the desert with not even water searching for souls to save and counting on God to provide for him. Apparently this was quite common amongst missionaries. Anyhow he is near death and befriended by a kindly native who, beginning with literally nothing, creates a spear, kills an animal with it, starts a fire, cooks the animal, feeds the guy, finds and provides him with water. BUT before the guy begins to eat he makes the native wait while they thank God for the sustenance. The native can't understand why HE has to wait to eat the food HE provided to this helpless man to give thanks for the food to "some 'nother man" who is not even there and had nothing to do with it.

[Perd Hapley]

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled solipsism.

[280plus]

I still say the term doesn't apply to what I'm describing, but that's ok...

[Ron]

I just don't have the faith to believe in modern cosmology.

[Bemidjiblade]

I get tired of the old circular argument.  It was in our local paper just the other day.  Some editorialist essentially said:  "Creationism is not supported by anyone in the scientific community, aside from a handful of kooks."
By inference, these scientists are kooks because they believe in Creationism.
But their support of Creationism is invalid becuase they're kooks.

I've been following the culture war between antisupernaturalism and Christianity for a long time, and it can be summed up like this:  A Christian will propose some theory, and instead of dealing with the particulars of the theory, his opponent in debate will call him names.

Sigh.

I was 10 or so before my family finaly refused to buy me any more science encyclopedias.  I didn't even question evolutionary theory until I was 17 or so, so it isn't something I believe because I was raised to believe that way.  I used to be an proponent of evolution.  But now I'm a Creationist.

I'm not a Creationist simply because of the Bible (though that would be enough of a reason for me.)

I'm a creationist because I cannot reconcile the proven principle of Entropy with a theory of evolution.
I'm a creationist because the majority of fossilization I've seen seems to indicate rapid sedimentation instead of millions of years.
I'm a creationist because I've sat down with population growth equations and run the numbers, and 8 people in a boat a couple thousand years ago could EASILY be responsible for the world's population.  (see the above comment about mathematicians and creationists.)
I'm a creationist because when I can't figure out how salt-water creatures could have evolved in an ocean that would have been more freshwater than not over 50,000 years ago based upon observable rates of salt deposits into the ocean by the rivers of the world.
I'm a creationist because of relatively constant decay in the magnetosphere can only go backwards so far before the earths EM field would have rivaled a pulsar's, and it's sooner than when T Rex was SUPPOSED to have been bopping around the planet.
I'm a creationist because we keep pulling living dinosaurs out of places unchanged over what is supposedly hundreds of millions of years.  Cough cough Coelanth.
I'm a creationist because Evolutionary "theory" comes up with more and more incredible excuses for gaps in fossil records.  Protoavis is a favorite whipping horse of some creationists.

And I only started out moderately considering the theory.
The more I dig into it, the more I find myself supporting it.

Oh, and about the whole "no Bible scholar believes the Bible to be literally true" deal, I can only speak for myself.  5 of my 7 years of adult education has been studying the Bible, and 4 of them have been studying history.  And I must be atypical or something because I have no problem believing in the truth of  the Bible at all.

[Perd Hapley]

fistful: the reason ID gets equated to Creationism by so many people is that we don't hear ANYBODY but Christians pushing for it as a theory. If there were anybody of another religious group backing it, that would be different. Heck, from what you've described of it, sounds like ANY religion could endorse it. But it's only being pushed by (vocal) Christians...

I don't know if you're right about that, but if so, consider: Perhaps those of other religions are not concerned about whether their creation stories, or their sacred writings, are undermined by the dominant scientific theories.  

Perhaps some have decided that evolution comports with their tradition.  Some may have decided that their creation stories are not essential, and have abandoned them easily, keeping the rest of their religion intact.  These options do not work for Christians, as evolution contradicts the basis of our worldview (Hugh Ross not-withstanding).  Creation and the Fall of Man are central doctrines, which hold that death (at least for animals and humans) did not occur before Man sinned.  

Perhaps some have decided to ignore scientific theory where it contradicts faith.  This is where it gets interesting.  Having read a bit of the Koran, and perhaps I need to read more, it seems to me that it is primarily a book of sayings about morality and proper conduct.  These can be disagreed with, but not really proven or disproven.  This differs strongly from the Bible, which concerns itself very much with history, with real events.  It makes itself available to be proven or disproven by science or historical/archeological research.  So far as I know, the Bible is given high marks for historical accuracy (at least as ancient manuscripts go) and doesn't directly contradict the truth discovered by science - unless evolution truly happened.*  That's why it's a big deal to us.  Maybe other religions don't much care, as they're not based in fact and history anyway.  But that is just as I see it, not being a scholar of world religions.

*While many seem to think that miracles contradict science, this is just not reasonable.  If God exists, there is no reason to think He would not suspend His own mechanical laws from time to time.  Of course, moral laws are another story.

[Strings]

Interesting concept, fistful. Doesn't change the main sticking point for many: this is a theory espoused almost exclusivly by members of one religion (lumping ALL Christians together here). Wether other faiths aren't behind it because evolution "fits with their mythos" or not, this is a BIG reason why many won't give it a shot. Not to say I disagree with the theory: *I* don't have enough data to decide (for myself)...

 BTW: regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible: it gets even more accurate the farther back you trace it. Seems that, every time it's edited, it looses a bit (duh). You should read a translation of the "Noah" story from Sumer...

[Perd Hapley]

Doesn't change the main sticking point for many: this is a theory espoused almost exclusivly by members of one religion...

But why is this a sticking point; bigotry?  If Hindus were the only ones behind the modern understanding of gravity, it would still be a good scientific model, no?  Furthermore, ID was developed by scientists of no particular religious faith, correct?  I have asked about this previously, but no one here seems to have that answer.  If a bunch of religious types glom onto a theory, that doesn't make it less valid, does it?

 

BTW: regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible: it gets even more accurate the farther back you trace it. Seems that, every time it's edited, it looses a bit (duh). You should read a translation of the "Noah" story from Sumer...

Not sure I follow you.  Which one do you think was written first?  I have the Gilgamesh Epic around here somewhere, but have never gotten around to reading it.  I did read the flood account in college, though.

[Bemidjiblade]

Hunter, you make a good point that many people won't get behind an idea because it's mainly pushed by Christians.

I find that pretty telling where academic integrity is concerned, but it's true.

I've read the Enuma Elish, if that's what you're referring to, but I'm not sure what you're talking about by "edited".

[Bemidjiblade]

Yikes.  When fistful and I say pretty much the same thing within 1 minute and 30 seconds of each other, my inner child just has to shout:
JINKS!
:wink:

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, Bemidji, it's just because we've been brainwashed by the Rev. Falwell.

[280plus]

I just try to enjoy how truly bizarre it all is...

Did I spell bizarre right?

[Strings]

I think you did...

 When I refer to "edited": it seems that, every time a story is passed forward (and the flood myth seems to be one such), it loses a bit. Oh... I'm pretty sure the Sumerian version predates the Jewish (and hence, Christian) version...

As for this: "But why is this a sticking point; bigotry?  If Hindus were the only ones behind the modern understanding of gravity, it would still be a good scientific model, no?"

 Hindus aren't trying to push their religious views down my throat, either. Nor are the Jews, or the Budhists. A better comparison would be "If Muslims were the only ones..."

 Try being on the outside of "mainstream religion" sometime: it can warp a few perspectives...

[Bemidjiblade]

Hunter Rose,
Make no mistake.  I've had more than a few run-ins with other religions trying to convert me to their ways.  My best friend and most of my boyscout troupe was Mormon, and when I wouldn't convert they basically shunned me completely.  I've had more than a few visits by Jehovah's witnesses as well.  I don't get upset about it.  Their religious beliefs tell them that they're right, and that anyone who isn't among them is screwed.  It's only a natural reaction for them to try and get more people among them.  I think I'd be a little more offended if someone believed that everyone outside of them was doomed and they *didn't* try and reach out.  To me that would be telling me I wasn't worth saving.

At the same time, my religious beliefs DO teach me that anyone without my beliefs is going to experience a lot fo pain and suffering.  So the most cruel thing I can think of would be to just abandon someone I genuinely believed was heading for trouble.

It's like when I was lifeguarding.  If I saw someone drowning and I did nothing to do something about it when I could save them, then I'd be a murderer.

Not saying you have to do anything.  Just trying to help you understand the mindset and motivation of someone who seems to be irritating you.  It's sure helped me when someone I disagreed with was pushing at me, which has happened more than a few times.

At the same time, I want what I think and act on to be true.  So if someone brings something up I have to weigh and measure it carefully.  That's the scientific method as well.

[280plus]

Wait,,wait, I feel a change of heart coming on, why yes yes there is!

ALL HAIL THE GREAT NOODLE MONSTER!!

rAmen...

[Perd Hapley]

Hunter Rose,
Make no mistake.  I've had more than a few run-ins with other religions trying to convert...

Oh, sorry, I was mind-melded with Bemidji for a minute, there.

When I refer to "edited": it seems that, every time a story is passed forward (and the flood myth seems to be one such), it loses a bit. Oh... I'm pretty sure the Sumerian version predates the Jewish (and hence, Christian) version...

As for this: "But why is this a sticking point; bigotry?  If Hindus were the only ones behind the modern understanding of gravity, it would still be a good scientific model, no?"

 Hindus aren't trying to push their religious views down my throat, either. Nor are the Jews, or the Budhists. A better comparison would be "If Muslims were the only ones..."

 Try being on the outside of "mainstream religion" sometime: it can warp a few perspectives...

I guess you're thinking that the Sumerian story (are you talking about Gilgamesh?) is older because he predates Moses.  Keep in mind that the Noah story was probably passed down to Moses from earlier sources; Noah himself may have written it down.  Or do you rely on clues in the text?  If you are referring to the Gilgamesh Epic, I don't think it gives us more than Noah does.  Then again, I haven't read it in a while.  I have also been told that flood stories are found throughout the world.  If so, it probably points to a real event that (even if it wasn't world-wide) could have been large enough to produce independent accounts.

What do you mean by "push their religious views down my throat"?

RE:  "being outside of 'mainstream religion'"  Because I am a Christian with a literalist, conservative view of Scripture, I am outside of it.  The mainstream religion in America is "Yes I believe in God, and as long as I'm a good person and raise my kids right and try to help people, He'll let me into heaven."

[280plus]

"Yes I believe in God, and as long as I'm a good person and raise my kids right and try to help people, He'll let me into heaven."

Yes, but I've also heard, "Jesus is Lord and you'd better place your faith in Jesus and make him your personal saviour or you will drown in the Lake of FIRE!!" This may be the "shoving of ones religion down my throat" hunter is refering to.

[Strings]

Well... when *I* refer to shoving one's faith down another's throat, I'm thinking of certain instances in my own life...

 The first Chaplain we had aboard ship, who INSISTED that I had to convert (I'm Pagan; Wiccan to be precise). I finally had to threaten to contact those higher in the Chaplains' Corp to get him to cease...

 Or how about the guy at a party after Ren Faire one night, who spent a haf hour describing the "demons" that I must worship, based on the fact I was wearing a pentacle...

 The absolutely BRILLIANT one that tried threatening to "burn me at the stake" because of my faith?

 Those qualify? All three were Christian (or so they claimed, at least). Now, don't get me wrong: I have no problems with Christians IN GENERAL. Most of my circle of friends is Christian. So's most of my family. Get along great with my wife's Nun Aunt, and spend a fair amount of time joking around with one of the local Catholic priests. But they don't feel compelled to push me in a direction that's against my beliefs...

 Everything clear as mud now?

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, but I've also heard, "Jesus is Lord and you'd better place your faith in Jesus and make him your personal saviour or you will drown in the Lake of FIRE!!" This may be the "shoving of ones religion down my throat" hunter is refering to.

Do you think there is a difference between sharing one's beliefs and shoving them down the throat?  Do the exclamation points mean the guy was yelling at you?  I'm certainly aware there are people who are annoying with their religion (like those pagans who always blab about it on discussion forums, as if it makes them cool ).  I was asking because I wasn't sure what HR meant to say.  I thought he was talking about politics.  

I have no problems with Christians IN GENERAL. Most of my circle of friends is Christian. So's most of my family. Get along great with my wife's Nun Aunt, and spend a fair amount of time joking around with one of the local Catholic priests. But they don't feel compelled to push me in a direction that's against my beliefs...

My wife also has an aunt who's a nun.  I find it interesting you have good relationships with many Christians, yet you let a minority color your view of us all.  All historical parallels aside, do you think it is reasonable to compare Christians in modern-day America with Muslims, considering the tyranny and religious intolerance in Muslim nations?  Wouldn't you agree with me that America is freer than the more secular nations of Europe, let alone the Islamic world?

[280plus]

Do you think there is a difference between sharing one's beliefs and shoving them down the throat?

Absolutely.

Do the exclamation points mean the guy was yelling at you?

No one guy in particular but yes, I have heard this being yelled and that's what  the exclamation points were meant to represent.

Here's another I heard at a Catholic funeral once. "If you believe in  blackness after death, that's what you will get." Pretty powerful persuasion, wouldn't you say?