Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

david_x said:

Yes, unless you ask the Holy Spirit now! Or you could get a group together and invite the spirit of God.

I would like to make sure no one confuses fact with truth.
Fact: a statement that has the overwelming possibility of being true.
Truth: a statement that has no posibility of being wrong.

Therfore, God is truth and Science is fact.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And I would like to add that science has never tried to do anything more than gather and explain facts, despite the claims of certain IDers and other Creationists.

The Lady Kate said:

Agreed. And I would like to add that science has never tried to do anything more than gather and explain facts, despite the claims of certain IDers and other Creationists.

Click to expand...

in addition, facts can be tested by SCIENCE, and truth can not be tested.

Extirpated Wildlife said:

What puzzles me, and maybe I don't get where people are saying, is where do you place sin? Was the garden of Eden a fake story to you? Was the flood false?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "fake"? Do you think that if the story of the fall is not historical, sin does not exist? How then would you explain the greedy, violent and immoral behaviour of people and corporations and nations?

It is obvious that sin exists. Our ancestors told a story to explain why it exists. The story is probably not an accurate historical description, but that doesn't make it wrong in principle.

So I wonder. Hypothetically, If a child answers a question in school, "where did man come from?", should he get a wrong answer for telling the Truth, since heathens don't recognize God?

Click to expand...

I expect the correct answer would depend on the context of the exam. The answer that is correct in a class on religion would not be correct in a class on biology and vice versa. Even though both answers would be true in their own context.

TwinCrier said:

It's rather arrogant to claim something isn't science when you prohibit even looking at the evidence. We usually don't put people on trial then say only evidence that supports one conviction is relevant. That is what just happened. ID may or may not be true (it is!), but they're not going to allow the evidence for it to be shown.

Click to expand...

Who's keeping you from looking at the evidence? You can scour the Internet and go to the library and check out all the books you want. No one will tell you that you're not allowed to do that.

ID's claims and evidence are there for anyone to see. The only thing that this case did was determine that it should not be taught in public schools in one small region of the United States. And this happened because they examined the evidence.

You might feel that the judge made the wrong decision, but don't claim that ID hasn't been given a fair trial. It's been given more than enough consideration.

TheBeginningSeasons said:

You hit it the nail right on the head!!! How can a person who says they are a Christian believe anything but what the Bible states?!?!?!

Click to expand...

Apparently you have some misconceptions about Christians who accept scientific explanations of the origin of humanity and other species. We do accept what the Bible states. But we recognize that very often, God's teaching in the Bible is in the form of stories which are not to be confused with literal, historical events.

If you say creation isn't real...

Click to expand...

None of us say that creation is not real. That is why some theistic evolutionists prefer the term "evolutionary creationists" to describe our position. Accepting the reality of evolution does not mean throwing out the reality of creation. Evolution is a mode of creation, not an alternative to creation.

Things like this, giving up on God's ability to do amazing things....

Click to expand...

None of us have given up on God's ability to do amazing things. Most of us think evolution is a pretty amazing thing. Then there is an amazing event called the resurrection, which we also believe in.

But if you say God didn't make the earth how His word says...

Click to expand...

So you have asked Jesus lately just how the earth was made? (You do know that God's Word is Jesus, right?)

He did and it is just some sort of analogy or something then the whole Bible could be twisted and turned into anything man wants to make it.

Click to expand...

Yet it isn't.If TEs were denying the existence of Moses, or David or Jesus, or the reality of the incarnation, and resurrection and Christ coming again, that would be a problem. But this is not the case, so why worry about something that is not happening?

...believing in anything but creation is pegan to the utmost! How can anyone say that it isn't?!

Click to expand...

Good thing TEs do believe in creation then, right?

That is like saying, "Hey God I believe in you and everything, but come on you didn't really make all of this in 6 days right?" Come on, if you think like that then how do you believe the rest of the Bible at all?

Click to expand...

The evidence indicates that the six days are part of the story about creation, not historical days. We do believe the story is true, just that it is not science.

I am sorry that it puzzles you that we also believe the rest of the Bible. Are you saying that you would not believe the rest of the Bible if creation did not happen literally as the story says, in 6 days about 6,000 years ago?

Science should bow to Scripture not the other way around!

Click to expand...

Yes, just like it bowed to scripture when science discovered that epilepsy is not caused by demons, that bats are not birds, and that the earth moves around the sun.

If science is always to bow to scripture, I expect you will have to change your opinion on many things about nature which science has uncovered.

TheBeginningSeasons said:

If you don't believe God created the earth, how can you believe in miracles? How can you believe the rest of the Bible?!

Click to expand...

Theistic evolutionists do believe God created the earth. We do believe in miracles. And we do beleive not just the rest of the bible, but all the bible including the first few chapters of Genesis.

Rejecting a literal interpretation of a scriptural text does not imply rejecting the truth of the text.

gluadys said:

Apparently you have some misconceptions about Christians who accept scientific explanations of the origin of humanity and other species. We do accept what the Bible states. But we recognize that very often, God's teaching in the Bible is in the form of stories which are not to be confused with literal, historical events.

None of us have given up on God's ability to do amazing things. Most of us think evolution is a pretty amazing thing. Then there is an amazing event called the resurrection, which we also believe in.

Yet it isn't.If TEs were denying the existence of Moses, or David or Jesus, or the reality of the incarnation, and resurrection and Christ coming again, that would be a problem. But this is not the case, so why worry about something that is not happening?

Good thing TEs do believe in creation then, right?

The evidence indicates that the six days are part of the story about creation, not historical days. We do believe the story is true, just that it is not science.

I am sorry that it puzzles you that we also believe the rest of the Bible. Are you saying that you would not believe the rest of the Bible if creation did not happen literally as the story says, in 6 days about 6,000 years ago?

Yes, just like it bowed to scripture when science discovered that epilepsy is not caused by demons, that bats are not birds, and that the earth moves around the sun.

If science is always to bow to scripture, I expect you will have to change your opinion on many things about nature which science has uncovered.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you believe in the Genesis story but not the creation of man and earth and that God spoke and it was so? How can you say that? You contradict yourself right off the bat with your opening statement, sorry it doesn't make sense. I understand you think that God made the earth then we evolved from pond scum or some single cell organism, but what? The truth is in black in white!! There are no facts that science has ever presented to even give the notion that we came from a fish...the simple thought is ludacris! And the whole thing you wrote about epilepsy and bat and birds, and the earths rotation....where does it say anything about any of that in the Bible? Do you not believe cause you can't get your hands and see and feel it? Do you not believe cause there aren't people who have done studies and found things they can mold into a hypothesis?

I would never question the fact that that God created earth and I would never question the rest of the Bible, and I am glad to hear you believe everything else. But what about in Revelations when it speaks of God creating "New Earth" Is that going to be another evolutionary step?! I think not...

God definately does use stories, but if you don't believe they really happened then how can you believe any of it? IF they are just stories then that would make them fiction right? Am I wrong? I believe God parted the seas for Moses, so what about the other stories like that where miracles happened? Are they just stories cause you have no scientific proof? I am just wondering, I have never talked to someone who knows the Bible and believes science more than the Word.

The fact is if we manipulate the Scripture from its orginal meaning then you might as well discredit it all right? We must believe it for face value, there is no other way to look at it. God teaches us with real life stories, King David for example was real and we have other historical documentation on that, so then is that just a story or just the miracles God did for him?

TheBeginningSeasons said:

So what you are saying is that you believe in the Genesis story but not the creation of man and earth and that God spoke and it was so?

Click to expand...

No, I believe all of that. I also accept the scientific findings which says that making it so was a process that took several billion years.

There are no facts that science has ever presented to even give the notion that we came from a fish

Click to expand...

you mean no facts that you know of. Study up on it a bit. The evidence that tetrapods (ancestors of terrestrial vertebrates) evolved from lobe-finned lungfish is fairly straightforward.

And the whole thing you wrote about epilepsy and bat and birds, and the earths rotation....where does it say anything about any of that in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Epilepsy caused by demons: Luke 9:37-43
Bats are birds: Leviticus 11: 13a, 19
Earth does not move: Psalm 104:5 (among others)
Sun does move around earth: Joshua 10: 12-14

If science must bow to scripture, you must believe all these things instead of the scientific fables that say epilepsy is a disorder of the brain, bats are mammals, and the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun not the other way around.

If you give science priority on these things, what is it but vanity that keeps you from acknowledging that evolution is as much fact as that a bat is a mammal?

Do you not believe cause you can't get your hands and see and feel it? Do you not believe cause there aren't people who have done studies and found things they can mold into a hypothesis?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you are getting at here. I accept evolution and other scientific theories because I know that scientists have got their hands dirty seeking out evidence, and I can see exhibits in museums and pictures in films and books. And I believe in things for which the evidence is unseen because I believe in God and the testimony of the apostles, and the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart.

I would never question the fact that that God created earth

Click to expand...

Neither do I.

and I would never question the rest of the Bible, and I am glad to hear you believe everything else.

Click to expand...

I don't just believe everything else. I believe everything the bible teaches. Not everything except....x,y,z

But what about in Revelations when it speaks of God creating "New Earth" Is that going to be another evolutionary step?! I think not...

Click to expand...

I agree. It probably has nothing to do with human evolution.

God definately does use stories, but if you don't believe they really happened then how can you believe any of it?

Click to expand...

If they really happened they wouldn't be stories would they? Did there have to be a real Good Samaritan for Jesus to tell a story featuring a Good Samaritan?

IF they are just stories then that would make them fiction right? Am I wrong? I believe God parted the seas for Moses, so what about the other stories like that where miracles happened?

Click to expand...

Most miracle stories don't supply enough detail to determine whether they happened or not. As long as there is nothing to indicate that they could not have happened, there is nothing unscientific about believing they did happen. Science does not exclude miracles. It just doesn't explain them.

I am just wondering, I have never talked to someone who knows the Bible and believes science more than the Word.

Click to expand...

But I don't believe science more than the Word. After all, anything true that science discovers about nature was made by the Word. As John says in his gospel. "All things came into being through [the Word] and without him not one thing came into being." And as Paul tells the Colossians: "for in him all things in heaven and earth were created...all things have been created through him and for him ... and in him all things hold together."

Science reveals the handiwork of the Word, so how can one believe science more than the Word? Do you think creation lies about its Creator?

The fact is if we manipulate the Scripture from its orginal meaning then you might as well discredit it all right?

Click to expand...

Are you confusing interpretation with manipulation? Everyone interprets the scripture--you included. It is not possible for human minds not to interpret what they read.

The question is, what is the basis for your interpretation? What logical principle does it follow? Does it illuminate the scripture or does it read into scripture your own biases and preconceptions?

We must believe it for face value, there is no other way to look at it.

Click to expand...

Who told you that? Why do you believe it? This is an interpretive principle. What makes it a good one? How do you know it is a good one? Look back at the scriptures I referenced earlier. If you take Leviticus at face value, a bat is a bird. Is that a good intepretation of that text?

God teaches us with real life stories

Click to expand...

Exclusively? Where did you learn that?

Yes, God does use real-life stories, like those of David and Elijah. But I never heard that God does not also use imaginative stories. Can you say for sure that the story of Job is about a real historical event? Would the point of the story change if it is dramatic fiction? Would its teaching be any the less valid if Job is a character in a fictional story?

QUOTE=Wineberry]JOHN 1:3-5

(3) All things were made by Him; and without Him not anything made that was made. (4) In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. (5) And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

I need no other explanation about the origins of life on earth, for in my heart I know God is Creator of all things. When I look at nature and all of creation, I know that it is by no accident that it happened.

God created our world and all of the billions upon billions of galaxies that make up the universe. He truely is awesome!.[/QUOTE]

gluadys said:

That is what TEs believe too.

Click to expand...

Praise the Lord!.

notto said:

This is a complete misrepresentation of their position. Lying doesn't help your argument. Nowhere do they represent men in their legal fight to have sex with boys. What they do support is the legal rights of free speech that all enjoy even if that speech is unpopular.

Click to expand...

First off, do you know who NAMBA is? It is openly child pornography that supports men having sex with boys. The ACLU has come to their defense.

Do you support live sex acts in Oregon? How about the legalization of prostitution?

Do you support sexual immorality notto?

gluadys said:

Epilepsy caused by demons: Luke 9:37-43
Bats are birds: Leviticus 11: 13a, 19
Earth does not move: Psalm 104:5 (among others)
Sun does move around earth: Joshua 10: 12-14

If science must bow to scripture, you must believe all these things instead of the scientific fables that say epilepsy is a disorder of the brain, bats are mammals, and the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun not the other way around.

Click to expand...

It is the TE who always says the Bible isn't a science book and it is always the TE who presents the Bible as scientifically wrong, thus not innerant. You seem to never get tired of presenting the Bible as being wrong. I feel sorry for you that you don't have enough faith to just believe.

Critias said:

First off, do you know who NAMBA is? It is openly child pornography that supports men having sex with boys. The ACLU has come to their defense.

Click to expand...

The performance of which is illegal, and even the ACLU won't come to their aid for that... however, NAMBLA has the constitutionally-protect right to talk about these things, to express their opinion about these things... and that, and that alone, is the right that the ACLU protects... the right to express an opinion that other people think is sick.

Or are opinions outlawed now?

Do you support live sex acts in Oregon? How about the legalization of prostitution?

Do you support sexual immorality notto?

Click to expand...

One loaded question deserves another... when did you stop beating your wife?

Critias said:

First off, do you know who NAMBA is? It is openly child pornography that supports men having sex with boys. The ACLU has come to their defense.

Click to expand...

The ACLU has defended the rights to free speech for members of NAMBLA. They have never represented them in their fight to legalize having sex with boys as you originally suggested.

Free speech isn't free unless even undesirable speech is defended.

Do you support supression of free speech?

Critias said:

It is the TE who always says the Bible isn't a science book and it is always the TE who presents the Bible as scientifically wrong, thus not innerant. You seem to never get tired of presenting the Bible as being wrong. I feel sorry for you that you don't have enough faith to just believe.

Click to expand...

Well, Critias, do you believe in a geocentric cosmos? Do you believe a bat is a bird? Do you believe demons are the cause of epilepsy?

The statement was made that science ought to bow to scripture. These are statements of scripture that are contradicted by science.

In these cases, which do you honestly believe: scripture or science? And why?

gluadys said:

What do you mean by "fake"?

Click to expand...

Fake. Not true. Didn't happen. A fraudulent way to view the beginning.

gluadys said:

Do you think that if the story of the fall is not historical, sin does not exist?

Click to expand...

We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we born sinners, which comes by the very nature of Adam's action. Yes, I believe without it being historical, sin, death, thorns, painful pregnancy, etc. don't exist. Yes, I believe in the tower of babel and the dispersion of people by God changes their languages. I believe Noah built an ark.

Yes. it is historical.

gluadys said:

How then would you explain the greedy, violent and immoral behaviour of people and corporations and nations?

Click to expand...

I don't understand your question. People born sinners are inherently desiring to do evil. It is because of God's people this world is a better place.

gluadys said:

It is obvious that sin exists. Our ancestors told a story to explain why it exists. The story is probably not an accurate historical description, but that doesn't make it wrong in principle.

Click to expand...

So you seem to believe that one might be capable of making all the right choice and never needing Jesus since you believe sin is just a thing we do by choice.

gluadys said:

I expect the correct answer would depend on the context of the exam. The answer that is correct in a class on religion would not be correct in a class on biology and vice versa. Even though both answers would be true in their own context.

Click to expand...

Why? Because we deny God to get an A? I would laud anyone who takes a stand in this manner to write the answer that say God created the man seperate from the animals out of the dust of the ground and breathed in him the breath of life and that his name was Adam. Bravo to them.

So you seem to believe that one might be capable of making all the right choice and never needing Jesus since you believe sin is just a thing we do by choice.

Click to expand...

I can't for the life of me figure out how you got from "not historically accurate" to "we don't need Jesus." She said specifically that it's lack of historicity "does not make it wrong in principle." That means that the CONCLUSIONS can be true (that we are not entirely capable of simply choosing not to sin) while the actual story may not have ever happened.

You remember the parables right? Most scholars say they never happened -- Jesus never CLAIMED that they happened. Yet the POINT of the parables is not that they happened, but in the lesson the stories teach. Theistic evolutionists believe the same of the Genesis accounts. Not that it's all a big lie, but that it's a story that illustrates and explains the nature of sin in each of us without being literally true.

One more thing -- lets try to keep this off the topic of the ACLU and NAMBA. It's true that the ACLU doesn't support child pornography, but it DOES support the right of free speech even for people who have questionable messages.

But that's something that would be better discussed in Politics. We really don't need to open ANOTHER can of worms around here!

The core of the Dover School Board case has nothing to do with either evolution or ID/Creationism. That is only the context in which the real conflict took place.

The real conflict was over whether or not agents of the state could use their authority to institutionalize a particular practice in the science classrooms of a public school. Certain parents, the plaintiffs, charge that this practice amounted to the institutionalization of evangelism for a particular religion (Christianity in this case) in violation of the rights guaranteed the plaintiffs under the 1st Amendment.

The trial revolved around answering the central question related to the plaintiffs charge - "Is ID an evangelistic tool for Christianity or is it legitimate science?" After both sides presented all of their evidence to support their claims, Judge Jones rules that, yes, ID was an evangelistic tool and its institutionalization within the forum of a public school classroom abridged the rights of the plaintiffs.

Not only did the defendants fail to provide evidence to support their claim that ID is legitimate science, they alos LIED in the process. They LIED about the nature of ID, they LIED about their evidence, and they LIED about their intents. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. The then-members of the Dover School Board placed themselves before the public as Christian leaders. I will not question their faith, but I do question their actions. They LIED, as professed Christian leaders, they LIED to the court and to the public. Not only did they deserve to get booted out of office, there is now a call to have them indicted for perjury.

The central issue is resovled - state agents may not use state resources to implement practices that amount to religious evangelism.

This was a good decision for Christians. We have no business desiring the use of the state in the expression of our faith.

It is obvious that sin exists. Our ancestors told a story to explain why it exists. The story is probably not an accurate historical description, but that doesn't make it wrong in principle.

Click to expand...

Deamiter said:

I can't for the life of me figure out how you got from "not historically accurate" to "we don't need Jesus." She said specifically that it's lack of historicity "does not make it wrong in principle." That means that the CONCLUSIONS can be true (that we are not entirely capable of simply choosing not to sin) while the actual story may not have ever happened.

Click to expand...

Principle? There is no principle to speak of. Paul doesn't speak of Adam and Eve in as if there was a "parable".

Deamiter said:

You remember the parables right? Most scholars say they never happened -- Jesus never CLAIMED that they happened. Yet the POINT of the parables is not that they happened, but in the lesson the stories teach. Theistic evolutionists believe the same of the Genesis accounts. Not that it's all a big lie, but that it's a story that illustrates and explains the nature of sin in each of us without being literally true.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is all a big lie if you begin the bible other than it being historical. I don't question that things evolve. I don't question science until they deal with man. For nothing I read in science tend me to trust that they understand that God even exists. Bad behavior is not a disease as I get the feeling science wants us to believe. Science doesn't acknowledge God. And science can not be fully understand everything anyway, and even more without the acknowledgement of God existing.

chaoschristian said:

This was a good decision for Christians. We have no business desiring the use of the state in the expression of our faith.

Click to expand...

This I agree with.