Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Roderick Spode]

That certainly tells us God's purpose in creating mankind. It doesn't tell us why he had to create mankind initially in the form of two adult humans in order that they fulfill that purpose.

Why would God have to create them as embryos, and wait 30 or so years?

 

[BCP1928]

You mean as in, someone designing a sweater is not science?[

No, it is not.

Well humans practice intelligent design in laboratories when attempting to recreate a big bang, create synthetic embryos, theoretical physicists draw blue prints for potentially creating mini-universes with life.

Sure they do, but they specify it with a "how." That's where the Discovery Institute failed. They couldn't find out how the design got into the critters.

I'm a bit confused. Where did I denounce humanism?

Do you now approve of it?

 

[BCP1928]

Why would God have to create them as embryos, and wait 30 or so years?

Why not? The evolutionary explanation is that they gradually became human over many generations. But that doesn't make such a good story.

 

[Roderick Spode]

No, it is not.

I'm actually not arguing against that. Just clarifying.

Sure they do, but they specify it with a "how." That's where the Discovery Institute failed. They couldn't find out how the design got into the critters.

The question was do you think the public school system will other versions of ID taught or referenced (e.g., the examples I mentioned)?
From your statement:

"Yes, there are two reasons to exclude that particular version of ID from science classes"

Do you now approve of it?

I'm not a humanist, but I respect their opinions. But what does that have to do with my question about me denouncing them?

As far as your question if said statement is ignored.

Which religion did you mean when you denounced humanism as an attack on "traditional religion?"

The quote I gave you mentioned Christianity. Is that your answer for this question:

2. In that particular case it was being used as a cover to introduce religion into science classes.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Why not? The evolutionary explanation is that they gradually became human over many generations. But that doesn't make such a good story.

Do you think the evolution story is better?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Apparently it doesn't matter if I don't think Dunphy speaks for all humanists, either.

I don't think he does either. I was just pointing out an illegal action pertaining to him. Not all humanists.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The reference was to the common claim that if God created the earth in a mature state, the earth would be lying to us because it would give us a false history, even though 6 day creation is implied in His Word.

Adam and Eve of course would be lying to us to as they would be projecting a false (non-existent) history as well.

I'm sure dlamberth doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, but I never really hear the same claim to A&E giving us a false history being created as adults. Maybe the idea of creating 2 fully mature humans would be more plausible?

If you're asking why did God create 2 fully adult humans; there was a specific purpose that required 2 fully adult humans. The idea of requiring Adam and Eve to have started out as embryos would IMO create more of a "why"?

Yeah you can’t blame God or the earth itself for people ignoring Genesis 1 & 2 and misinterpreting their own data. What so many people fail to recognize is that the dating methods are based on theories. If x and y are true then the earth must be z years old. The problem is we don’t actually know if x and y are actually true because we don’t actually know the state of the materials that are being tested 6,000 years ago. We don’t actually know how much c14 these materials contained or how much radiation they contained or how much radioactive decay they contained. This is where the predictions come in according to what we can observe today. We observe that these certain decay rates so we conclude that IF these decay rates are constant then this material is x amount of years old. Well that doesn’t take into consideration how much decay the material had when it was created 6,000 years ago. We don’t know what these materials were subjected to during the creation process so we can’t possibly know their state the day they were created. So naturally scientists have to assume that there was no decay on the day it was created because they refuse to believe in the supernatural. And that’s fine but the one thing they still can’t say is that they’ve actually proven anything about the age of the earth or how long man has existed. The biggest problem I see on this subject is everyone on the OEC side seems to accept these theories as actual facts when even scientists themselves specifically state that these dates are not facts. In the end you have two choices, you can believe the Bible or you can believe scientists and trying to mix the two just doesn’t work because everything science tells us is contradictory to the Bible. People try to interpret the Bible to coincide with science but it doesn’t work because no matter how hard they try they always result in contradictions to what is written in the scriptures. The Bible is a history book full of miracles and supernatural events. It’s not just about creation there are numerous miracles and supernatural events all throughout the Bible. If people can’t accept that, then they can’t actually believe the Bible. I see people all the time saying well you don’t have to interpret it that way you can interpret it any way you want which is incorrect because the Bible tells a story about what actually took place and there is only one truth. And truth is not subjective to popular opinion, belief, or interpretation. So with that being said we are not free to interpret the Bible however we please, our goal is to interpret it the way the Author intended it to be interpreted.

 

[The Barbarian]

ID is essentially a religion:
That's pretty much a religion, if it can't free itself of its religious assumptions.

It can only be called a religion in a very loose sense.

An ideology with a self-professed "governing goal" of establishing the existence of God would seem to be a religion in the strictest sense.

Intelligent Design is a term similar to Cowboy. Two words with a very basic definition. Intelligent Design is simply a being with enough intelligence to design with a purpose.

But as you see, IDers go well beyond that to be governed by a goal to confirm the existence of God.

But because of it being associated with a demonized organization

I don't think they are demonic; they are just religious zealots who want to establish the notion of God in every aspect of society.

The judge actually stated that ID might be true, but just not science.

Religion is never science. He can't take sides on religions. In the same way, he'd have to admit that cargo cults might be true.

If the verdict would have been; ID might be true, just not constitutional, there'd be a problem.

Don't see how. Voter suppression is true, it's just not constitutional. The only problem is if these things are made part of public policy.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you think the evolution story is better?

Story? It's not a story at all, doesn't even pretend to be, just a bald recitation of chemical events. There is no compelling narrative, no intriguing characterizations, no real meaning. As a story, it has all the literary merit of reading the telephone book. As a creation story it is no use at all.

 

[Astrid]

The quote of course was reference to a quote from humanist (humanist sometimes tagged with secular religion) John Dunphy, who promotes the idea of presenting humanism in the public classroom with the purpose of removing traditional religion from our culture.

So while the right to free expression doesn't allow teaching sectarian religious doctrine in public classrooms, it also doesn't allow discouragement of any sort against them.

To keep religion out means to not promote any religion, nor attack any religion. Neutrality being the key factor.

From my distant pov it seems odd and a bit
humorous for religious folk to attack the clearly
non religious ( science, " secular humabism",
atheism etc), as being religions.

 

[Astrid]

Why not? The evolutionary explanation is that they gradually became human over many generations. But that doesn't make such a good story.

Truth is more interesting than fiction
but small minds need simple fictions.

 

[Astrid]

In the Dover case the ID being discussed was much more specific than that.

Yes, there are two reasons to exclude that particular version of ID from science classes. 1. It is not science and 2. In that particular case it was being used as a cover to introduce religion into science classes.

ID should be very welcome IF THEY EVER HAVE AT LEAST ONE FACT!!

 

[Astrid]

Yes, it's Pluto all over again. Or Plato, more to the point.

O one trick pony, even closer.

 

[Ophiolite]

Both predictions and estimates are used in the calibration of all of the dating methods. We don’t actually know how long it takes for c14 to decay it’s based on a prediction based on rates we’ve been able to observe.

Why this ridiculous obsession with C14 dating? C14 dating has the same relevance and importance to estimates of the age of the Earth as the Oscar ceremony, the length of the Nile, penicllin manufacture and Billy the Kid. That you think it has relevance, else why introduce it into the conversation, serves mainly to reveal the woeful depth of your ignorance on matters of dating methodology. But, I'll play your silly game a little longer - name a single flawed prediction relating to estimates of the age of the Earth and demonstrate how it undermines that estimate. And please, no generlisations - be specific, quantitative if possible.

 

[BCP1928]

Truth is more interesting than fiction
but small minds need simple fictions.

. Do you not enjoy reading novels, seeing plays? How do you feel about them? What emotions do they invoke? Reading about, say, King Richard III in a history book is interesting and informative, but Shakespeare's Richard III is a ripping yarn, no doubt, and only a spoilsport would complain that it was inaccurate as literal history, and only another spoilsport would insist that it had to be taken as literal history written by Richard himself or it was a lie from the devil.

 

[Astrid]

. Do you not enjoy reading novels, seeing plays? How do you feel about them? What emotions do they invoke? Reading about, say, King Richard III in a history book is interesting and informative, but Shakespeare's Richard III is a ripping yarn, no doubt, and only a spoilsport would complain that it was inaccurate as literal history, and only another spoilsport would insist that it had to be taken as literal history written by Richard himself or it was a lie from the devil.

I super dont enjoy reading false equivalences.

 

[BCP1928]

I super dont enjoy reading false equivalences.

What? No need to be insulting, even if you think it was a weak analogy.

 

[Astrid]

What? No need to be insulting, even if you think it was a weak analogy.

It's a false equivalence.

If thats insulting, you insulted yourself.

Unintentionally no doubt.

But you assume intent on my part.

Who is insulting who?

 

[BCP1928]

It's a false equivalence.

If thats insulting, you insulted yourself.

Unintentionally no doubt.

But you assume intent on my part.

Who is insulting who?

I guess I will just have to be content with a small mind--but I do get personal enjoyment from a good story, that's something, even if the story has no scientific basis.

 

[Astrid]

I guess I will just have to be content with a small mind--but I do get personal enjoyment from a good story, that's something, even if the story has no scientific basis.

Fair enuf