Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Roderick Spode]

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

The Discovery Institute is an organization.

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

The members of the Discovery Institute set a goal influencing society. They apparently understand their restrictions on pushing religion in the public classroom.

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

But not in the public classroom. Unless they ended up referencing scripture in a classroom, who/what students determined the designer to be, if they gave it any thought, would be up to them.

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.

There's nothing illegal about that, unless it's pushed in certain governmental functions like public school.

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.

Well, the judge wasn't a scientist, and was a Christian which is why he may have made the comment. And the comment apparently wasn't something the plaintiffs wanted made public as it wasn't included in the Nova documentary.

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.

If you review both articles that determined its violation, none of them refer to science. In principle, ID being unconstitutional based on religious influence should have been enough. So why the double verdict?

Well, to the public, no matter the actual definition of science, saying might be true but not constitutional will not look good. It implies that possible/potential truth might be held back due to constitutional restriction. And the public have a lot to do with these types of cases. The case came about due to outcry from teachers and parents. The outcry was enough to cause legal action. In the case of the MindUp program run by Goldie Hawn, the public outcry was minimal. So a judge determined that although Hawn is a Buddhist bringing meditation into the public classroom is not a religious violation.

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.

It sure created a lot of stories.

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.

Depends on what kind of humanism you're talking about. Some humanists refer to themselves as religious humanists. Cosmic humanism is basically new age religion.

Atheism is not technically a religion, but are granted certain religious rights/protection.

They can participate in government convocations, have military chaplains, place monuments on government property...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some people turn to evolution because they are borderline atheists. They don’t believe in miracles or the supernatural which I find it strange that they would believe in Jesus or God at all. But they are out there and they are rejecting fundamental teachings of the gospel like the virgin birth, the miracles He performed, His resurrection, and even His divinity.

You write this as if people despairing that may be "god isn't real" and in need of an alternative "turn to evolution". What nonsense. No one "turns to evolution" as a support system or belief system or a substitute for religion. They accept evolution as correct for the explanation of the diversity of living organisms because it is backed by evidence and reason. We do so without any need to leave or change religion and people of all religions accept evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok 10 years is a bit of an exaggeration since the discovery made by Patterson but before that it was all over the place and nobody predicted that the earth was over 100 million years old.

The age of the Universe was all over the place (10-20 billion years) until the precise measurement of the CMB nailed it down to the third decimal place. Sometimes you just need the right measurement.

My point is that the more information we find the more the predicted date changes. At any given point in time science is always at its highest possible technology and that technology is always becoming obsolete and outdated along with the predictions made with that technology. At the time each prediction is made anything else is considered incorrect unless it has evidence to support it. So just because we don’t have the evidence to support it now doesn’t necessarily mean that we are any more correct now than we were 100 years ago. Before Patterson the oldest predicted age was 100 million years. Look how far that one discovery put us. We have no way of knowing how far off we’ll be at the next scientific breakthrough or in which direction it will be because we can’t calculate or anticipate what we don’t know and on this particular subject everyone seems to agree that we don’t know a lot more than what we do know.

I don't think that 100 million years old was acceptable any more in the mid 20th century before the definitive measurement, but it was still quite uncertain. (mostly lower limits)

 

[Roderick Spode]

Not the question I would ask, which is, how is your literal view of Genesis necessary to Christian doctrine?

Depends on what you mean. Like is it necessary for salvation?

I think every bit of scripture is important in terms of studying, examining, contemplating, etc.

 

[Roderick Spode]

It seems clear enough that if one's interpretation of the Bible is at odds with observed phenomena, there's something wrong with the interpretation. How could God be wrong about His own creation?

By observation I could argue that the resurrection didn't happen.

I know that there are lots of arguments use explain the evidence in a YE context, but none of them seem compelling to me. Most interesting to me is Gerald Aardsma's virtual history idea; in his mind, all that evidence is just a backstory necessary to logically have a world only a few thousand years old. We are, in his view, essentially a story He created.

As far as opinions, what are compelling to us, these are more personal

 

[Roderick Spode]

Instead of just considering them, why don't you tell us what they are?

Well for one, as I already mentioned, the resurrection is a miracle. If one can accept that, any other miracle mentioned in the Bible shouldn't be a problem.

And of course the reason He was resurrected in the first place suggests we (all humans) are in need of salvation.

 

[BCP1928]

Depends on what you mean. Like is it necessary for salvation?

In any way. Why is it necessary to you?

I think every bit of scripture is important in terms of studying, examining, contemplating, etc.

So do all Christians, whether they believe in a literal Genesis or not.

 

[Roderick Spode]

First, there is some evidence that the Flood was literally true. Since the Bible does not say it was global in extent, there's no evidence to rule out a flood. But if we fuss about whether or not it's literal history or an allegory, we lose the point God was making.

What point do you feel God was making?

 

[BCP1928]

Well for one, as I already mentioned, the resurrection is a miracle. If one can accept that, any other miracle mentioned in the Bible shouldn't be a problem.

One can accept all of the miracles mentioned in the Bible. Why is literal inerrancy necessary to that acceptance?

And of course the reason He was resurrected in the first place suggests we (all humans) are in need of salvation.

Yes, that is a fundamental Christian doctrine. Why is literal inerrancy necessary to accept that doctrine?

 

[BCP1928]

What point do you feel God was making?

What point do you think God was making, and why is the precise historicity of the story essential to making that point?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Why not crestion of...? Because it didn't happen.
It's like why isn't Canada tropical.

Supposedly it was at one time.

 

[Roderick Spode]

It would certainly come as a surprise to me . I for one, always have thought that the Genesis stories were about something else.

I think it'd be kind of tough to identify with Garden of Eden culture. But later on down the line in Genesis when civilizations came about, they're more identifiable.

I think we do see some cultural influences and imagery from Moses and/or his contemporaries in their descriptions in the garden. I personally don't think there was a literal snake, a symbol common during Moses' time. I think the snake was the term used to describe Satan. There are a few times the bible won't use a person's name when identifying them. I think this might be one of them.

It doesn't really matter now.

I think everything in the Bible matters one way or another.

Why does divine inspiration need to provide a "100% accurate account?" What does that even mean in terms of literary genres which are not intended to produce such an account?

The parables weren't historic accounts.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I think the Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees thought so also, or at least claimed to be 'best' in Scriptures -
and Jesus said to them: You <fervently?> study/search the Scripture, believing thus to find life/truth;
well, HERE I AM !

and they sought to put Jesus to death....

Yes!

Thank God for His mercy!

 

[Roderick Spode]

In any way. Why is it necessary to you?

It's my personal opinion. Should I change it?

So do all Christians, whether they believe in a literal Genesis or not.

Sure. So what exactly is your point?

 

[The Barbarian]

What point do you feel God was making?

In Judeo-Christian tradition, the story of the Flood symbolises God’s punishment of sin among mankind. He decides to destroy all of man except for Noah and his family, because Noah alone among men had lived a life free from sin and evil. Noah and his descendants thus mark the beginning of a new relationship between God and man, with the rainbow symbolising God’s promise not to flood again.

This ‘covenant’ paves the way for the New Testament and Jesus Christ, whose covenant with mankind will be even more pronounced, since Jesus will sacrifice himself for all humans, to redeem their sins.

A Summary and Analysis of the Biblical Story of the Flood and Noah’s Ark

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University) The Biblical account of the Flood, in the Book of Genesis, is similar to the older Babylonian accounts of a Great Flood. These texts, written much earl…

interestingliterature.com

 

[BCP1928]

I think it'd be kind of tough to identify with Garden of Eden culture. But later on down the line in Genesis when civilizations came about, they're more identifiable.

I don't get your point with these cultural references.

I think we do see some cultural influences and imagery from Moses and/or his contemporaries in their descriptions in the garden. I personally don't think there was a literal snake, a symbol common during Moses' time. I think the snake was the term used to describe Satan. There are a few times the bible won't use a person's name when identifying them. I think this might be one of them.

I think everything in the Bible matters one way or another.

So it does. Why does literal inerrancy matter?

The parables weren't historic accounts.

There are many literary genres present in the Bible. Some of them are historical genres. Why is a framework of literal inerrancy necessary to understand them?

 

[BCP1928]

It's my personal opinion. Should I change it?

No. But I am very curious why you hold and defend it and (if not you then many of those who feel the same way about it) disparage the faith of other Christians for not holding it.

Sure. So what exactly is your point?

That the majority of Christians do not feel a need to embrace literal inerrancy to pursue those tasks. Why do you?

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems clear enough that if one's interpretation of the Bible is at odds with observed phenomena, there's something wrong with the interpretation. How could God be wrong about His own creation?

By observation I could argue that the resurrection didn't happen.

You were there? Science doesn't rule out miracles. But the point is, miracles aren't done because God has to patch up nature so it will work. He does a miracle to teach us something.

The question remains; how could God be wrong about His own creation?

If one can accept that, any other miracle mentioned in the Bible shouldn't be a problem.

That's the problem for YE creationists. They have to invent all sorts of unscriptural miracles to make their doctrines believable. A major red flag for any doctrine.