Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[reverend B]

Oh sorry, i mean that if there is a counter-example (somthin' that does not follow the true statement) than the statement is not entirely true.

a true statement is a statement of fact. truth is something far more profound and allusive.

 

[david_x]

a true statement is a statement of fact. truth is something far more profound and allusive.

Just a reminder that facts are not difinitivly true, they just have the extreme possibility of being true.

 

[gluadys]

Is it not called the PARABLE of the Good sameritian?

If your bible is like mine, it is indeed called "The Parable of the Good Samaritan", but that label is only in a heading, not in the text itself. Headings are a 20th century invention, added to the text by editors to break up the text and make it easier to find the section you are looking for. They are not part of the original text.

Now look at the original text (or at least an English translation of it) in Luke 10: 29-30. Jesus does not state that he is telling a fictional story.

Absolutly not!

I agree. Therefore we know the flood was not global, and the scriptural account is not historical.

A question, were is this handiwork of the Word info. coming from.

John 1:1-3

If it's fictional why didn't God say that!

Perhaps because God gave you intellectual capacities and expects you to use them.

Of cource the teachings are true but, we were arguing the historical accuracy.

And my question is, if the book of Job is not about an actual person to whom these events really happened, are the teachings still true?

If that is the case, does it matter whether or not Job is an historical figure or a literary character? Does it matter if we don't know which he is?

 

[shernren]

Instead by repeatedly withholding the opposing arguments - which btw would only take at most an hour to present in a year long class - all that will do is cause people to wonder why it is being withheld and eventually have the opposite effect.

(emphasis added)

See? There isn't that much to teach about IDism after all. So much for scientific.

The central issue is not: should people hear this? but: should people hear this as science? Personally, from reading the judge's statement, I don't think the injunction is against that statement but against the backing of educational authority to that statement.

It would be one thing for me to go into a class and say "As Uncle Shern Ren I'm telling you that evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else". (I don't think the ruling prohibits that.)

It would be another for me to go into a class and say "As your biology science teacher, I'm telling you that evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else".

The statement "ID is an alternative" is not a statement that deserves scientific educational legitimacy.

 

[vossler]

(emphasis added)

See? There isn't that much to teach about IDism after all. So much for scientific.

Nobody said anything about teaching it, just presenting the arguments. What can be wrong with that, shouldn't all subjects that have a level of controversy at least present the arguments.

The central issue is not: should people hear this? but: should people hear this as science? Personally, from reading the judge's statement, I don't think the injunction is against that statement but against the backing of educational authority to that statement.

I'm not even talking about science - although there are those who could strongly argue that - I'm talking about presenting an opposing argument or theory, for an hour, even if it isn't what many people in the field believe to be a legitimate one.

It would be one thing for me to go into a class and say "As Uncle Shern Ren I'm telling you that evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else". (I don't think the ruling prohibits that.)

It would be another for me to go into a class and say "As your biology science teacher, I'm telling you that evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else".

Why would it be disingenuous for a science teacher to present a theory, however shaky he/she might think it to be, as an alternative to evolution; especially when a significant number of the students already believe the alternative. Wouldn't it be the right thing for a biology teacher to state the truth? "Evolution has a few gaps and some people believe something else."

The statement "ID is an alternative" is not a statement that deserves scientific educational legitimacy.

If ID doesn't have scientific legitimacy then obviously it shouldn't get equal time to evolution. The funny thing is we're not talking about equal time, we're just talking about any time.

 

[Critias]

Actually it is because of such statements in the bible that it is obvious to me that it is not a scientific text. But you are evading the issue.

This tangent began when Beginning Seasons asserted (in post #56) that "Science should bow to Scripture not the other way around!"

I raised a few items in which most people, including most creationists, have come to the opposite conclusion. And provided references when he asked for them.

So far, he has not responded. You have, but you are trying to pull the conversation off course.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, answer the question directly. In these cases, should science bow to scripture or not? Give reasons for your answer please.

Gluadys, the Bible either is or isn't a scientific textbook. If you believe it isn't, then you cannot take what the Bible says and hold it under current scientific thinking. An examble would be your comment that the Bible says bats are birds, but in modern scientific understanding bats are mammals. You are then trying to hold the Bible to today's scientific understanding and criticize it.

I haven't pulled your post off course, I have gone right at the core of it. Forget that the word birds can also be translated as anything that flies and lets discuss why you are calling the Bible into error because it classified a bat as a bird or in some translations as a fly creature when today we don't call a bat a bird. Let's talk about perspective and how today we say the sun rises and the sun sets without issues, yet you call the Bible into error because it uses the same phrases you use today. You are being completely hypocritical.

Personally, I think you only want to show the Bible into error anyway you can for your own selfish and prideful reasons. You are inconsistent, hypocritical and show a lack of respect for God's written message. Then you turn blame YECs for turning people away from God's Truth, when it is you who criticizes it at every moment you get. I feel sorry for you because you have no idea what you are even doing and you ignorantly continue to do so.

 

[Critias]

freedom of expression. there is no foundation for criminalizing this behavior except for using a religious moral code. so we have our reasons for not pursuing behavior like this, as Christians, but we don't have legal standing to impose those reasons on others.
this is the system we have. you may want to change it. that's fine. but know what that means. you have serious work to do. you are talking profound amendments, and getting a huge majority of people to support them in order to pass them. people will not give up their rights very easily, because with group sex can go freedom of assembly. it is the proverbial slippery slope, and it's all downhill from there.

So you support live sex acts in public? Is that what you want your children to see and learn that it is ok to be sexually immoral?

You know this is really sad display we are seeing here. People coming to the support of the sexually immoral and saying it is ok to be sexually immoral.

 

[Critias]

But not in the way you originally suggested. You can't get around it Critias, you misrepresented the ACLU. You can try to deflect it all you want by trying to suggest that myself or other support sexual immorality or you can continue to suggest that the ACLU does as well, but that doesn't change that your original accusation was just plain wrong.

The ACLU is supporting a sexually immoral organization and it appears you support them as well.

I don't think you are fooling anyone here with your continued accusations and strawman beating tactics.



Well, you would have no reason to because I have never said that I support them. You would be doing nothing but making a false accusation, much like your original accusation against the ACLU. It is an accusation that is incorrect, intellectually dishonest, and basically false witness.

Good show. Outstanding work. Keep it up.

I can only assume from your stance that you support the supression of free speech. Why do you hate the first ammendment?


http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html?ht=nambla%20nambla#3_4
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

Well, I can conclude that for you freedom of anything means the right to sin as much as you want and it is ok. The ACLU may not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, but it is supporting it by supporting the organization.

You talk about freedoms and how we must uphold them, but these freedoms you are supporting are the freedoms to sin as we want. That is what got us into trouble in the first place, but I suppose you don't believe that either.

What a sad world we live in where people who call themselves Christians stand in support of sin, immorality and idolatry.

 

[reverend B]

So you support live sex acts in public? Is that what you want your children to see and learn that it is ok to be sexually immoral?

You know this is really sad display we are seeing here. People coming to the support of the sexually immoral and saying it is ok to be sexually immoral.

this is unresponsive. how are you justifying your position based on law? it has no bearing on the conversation as to what i personally support or don't support, and if you don't understand that then you don't understand our system of government.
sexual morality is a religious concept, not a legal one. one persons sexual morality can differ from anothers. it is not an absolute concept universally. you simply want yours to be the law. under our system, that is not going to happen, even if you and i BOTH want it to.
time to put on the thinking cap, or the honesty one. one of them is not being used.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, the Bible either is or isn't a scientific textbook. If you believe it isn't, then you cannot take what the Bible says and hold it under current scientific thinking.

Holding it under scientific thinking is how you determine it is not a scientific text. Please note that I am not implying that because the bible is not scientific it should be faulted on that score.

But when someone says that in the case of disagreement between what scripture says about nature and what science has discovered to be true about nature, science should bow to scripture, I think we need to look at the consequences of applying that principle.

An examble would be your comment that the Bible says bats are birds, but in modern scientific understanding bats are mammals. You are then trying to hold the Bible to today's scientific understanding and criticize it.

I am not criticizing the bible for what it says. I am asking the person who said science should bow to scripture if he really means it in all cases, including this one.

If he doesn't accept that science should bow to scripture and classify bats as birds, then where does he draw the line? When must science bow to scripture and when must scripture give way to science?

Beginning Seasons still has not responded. Feel free to answer these questions yourself if you like.

 

[The Lady Kate]

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?

What was it that Christ said? "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28

Christ says that, and the US Constitution says something else.... and American laws are based on the Constitution, not Christ.

Certain opinions may be sinful, but not illegal.

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

At least ask the question correctly "Have you stopped beating your wife?" My answer would be: Why don't you ask my wife?

Because everybody knows that battered women rarely come forward out of fear. When she denies the abuse, that's all the proof we'll need that you haven't stopped beating her.

 

[TwinCrier]

Because everybody knows that battered women rarely come forward out of fear. When she denies the abuse, that's all the proof we'll need that you haven't stopped beating her.

Perfect example of the whole double standard here. ID gets rejected because it fits the bible and doesn't fit with the science book. However, since the secular and atheists science WROTE the science book (I mean science in general here of course) they feel they can decide what is and isn't science. And anything that lines up with the bible is dismissed as not science even though nothing in the bible contradicts science (though it contradicts many of their theories). Like the example above, if a woman says her husband beats her, it MUST me true because women would never lie about such things, but if she says he doesn't beat her, well, women who are abused never admit it. It's not unlike the therapist who makes a wrong diagnosis based on their interpretion and when the patient says they are wrong, they simply spit out "You're in denial." In other words, 'We're right, you're wrong, therefore if you say we're wrong, that is incorrect so you might as well agree with us.'
Can you say "dictatorial" boys and girls?

 

[Critias]

Holding it under scientific thinking is how you determine it is not a scientific text. Please note that I am not implying that because the bible is not scientific it should be faulted on that score.

But when someone says that in the case of disagreement between what scripture says about nature and what science has discovered to be true about nature, science should bow to scripture, I think we need to look at the consequences of applying that principle.





I am not criticizing the bible for what it says. I am asking the person who said science should bow to scripture if he really means it in all cases, including this one.

If he doesn't accept that science should bow to scripture and classify bats as birds, then where does he draw the line? When must science bow to scripture and when must scripture give way to science?

Beginning Seasons still has not responded. Feel free to answer these questions yourself if you like.

You still don't seem to get it. It isn't about 'science' bowing to the Bible, it is about man/woman bowing to God and humbling himself/herself to what God says. That is what TEs don't want to do when it concerns whether God created in six days with a seventh day of rest or over billions of years.

When the Bible says bats are birds, the understanding of the day was birds are anything that flys. Today, we have made the classifications more specific. The bats being flying creatures has not changed. Yet, TEs want to completely rewrite what the Bible says about God creating in six days. It hasn't been made more specific today, it has been rewritten completely only leaving Genesis 1:1 intact and altering the rest. By doing so, you have elevated your knowledge above God's. That is idolatry. And we can already see the number of TEs here that support immorality.

It seems this arguement is about the TEs support and uplifting of idolatry and immorality while YECs are saying shouldn't we humble ourselves and accept that what God says is Truth. That is the fight that rages here. There is a clear line drawn in the sand and anyone who knows how to discern truth knows this to be true.

 

[john crawford]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Evolutionist must be breathing a sign of relief now that their theory will be free from criticism once again. So much for free speech and open minds.

Many judicial decisions in federal courts are a joke ever since the federal government was taken over by neo-Darwinist and ACLU claimants of common descent from monkey and ape ancestors in Africa.

Seems like Jones also prefers neo-Darwinist racial theories of Asian and Caucasian origins from African people to historical Semitic accounts of human descent in the Bible.

Just hope he isn't a Holocaust denier also since it has become popular in some circles.

 

[reverend B]

And we can already see the number of TEs here that support immorality.

you have two choices, if we apply accurate reading principals to the thread. you either believe freedom of speech is immorality or you can not or will not understand that supporting someones right to say something is different from supporting what they say.
i have to tell you that i really don't think this is THAT tough an idea to wrap ones head around. the point has been made repeatedly. it is not that subtle. my belief is you don't want to confront the idea because you have put nothing up to refute it, just changed it and then spit back what you have changed it to. this is classic "strawman" technique, but everyone here is very versed in that. it is ineffective here. your comment indirectly accuses your opponents on this thread as being blasphemers, and that can get you kicked out of here. is this really what you meant?
do you rather actually believe freedom of speech to be immoral? if so i apologize. i misunderstood you and will simply respond that we disagree. but if you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the argument, i have confidence that this post will have cleared it up for you.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Perfect example of the whole double standard here. ID gets rejected because it fits the bible and doesn't fit with the science book. However, since the secular and atheists science WROTE the science book (I mean science in general here of course) they feel they can decide what is and isn't science.

So you want to redefine the entire meaning of "science" just to fit ID into it... tell me, why does it deserve such special treatment?

And what part of ID fits with the Bible?

And anything that lines up with the bible is dismissed as not science even though nothing in the bible contradicts science (though it contradicts many of their theories).

ID doesn't line up with the Bible either, so it's a moot point, isn't it?

Like the example above, if a woman says her husband beats her, it MUST me true because women would never lie about such things, but if she says he doesn't beat her, well, women who are abused never admit it.

Just like we know that science is Atheistic because Creationism isn't part of it... and Creation isn't part of it because science is an Atheistic Anti-God conspiracy.

And what does this have to do with ID? Remember, the whole point of the trial was supposed be to prove that ID was more than just Creationism in a new suit.

Are you implying it's not? Or are you just changing the subject to the big, bad scientific conspiracy?

It's not unlike the therapist who makes a wrong diagnosis based on their interpretion and when the patient says they are wrong, they simply spit out "You're in denial." In other words, 'We're right, you're wrong, therefore if you say we're wrong, that is incorrect so you might as well agree with us.'
Can you say "dictatorial" boys and girls?

Science is dictatorial. Religious fundamentalists don't get to be the dictators. I suggest dealing with it.

Creationists got their long-awaited day in court... they lost. I suggest dealing with that as well.

 

[gluadys]

You still don't seem to get it. It isn't about 'science' bowing to the Bible, it is about man/woman bowing to God and humbling himself/herself to what God says.

Science "bowing" to scripture was the terminology Beginning Seasons used. It seems you want to have a totally different conversation.

That is what TEs don't want to do when it concerns whether God created in six days with a seventh day of rest or over billions of years.

Why should I take scripture over science on this point anymore than you do when scripture speaks of earth's foundations?

When the Bible says bats are birds, the understanding of the day was birds are anything that flys.

Not in this passage, (Leviticus 11: 13-23) for it also goes on to speak of winged insects as being a different category than birds. Interestingly it also speaks of these winged insects as walking on four legs.

By doing so, you have elevated your knowledge above God's. That is idolatry.

But my knowledge, in this case, is of God's work, so I expect it is also God's knowledge. I am sure God is familiar with his own work. I am merely a humble student of what God has done.

 

[Critias]

Science "bowing" to scripture was the terminology Beginning Seasons used. It seems you want to have a totally different conversation.

Why should I take scripture over science on this point anymore than you do when scripture speaks of earth's foundations?

If you can't understand why you should take God's message over man's, then you have more problems than just origins.

Not in this passage, (Leviticus 11: 13-23) for it also goes on to speak of winged insects as being a different category than birds. Interestingly it also speaks of these winged insects as walking on four legs.

Interesting that you didn't take the time and look up the word used and instead were quick to point the Bible to be in error. Your intent is quite clear, prove God's message to be in error and elevate man.

But my knowledge, in this case, is of God's work, so I expect it is also God's knowledge. I am sure God is familiar with his own work. I am merely a humble student of what God has done.

Humble is hardly the word to use. As we all can see, you justify your idolatry and blame God for it. Your knowledge of putting man before God is not God's work, it's yours. Sadly, you see nothing wrong with elevating your knowledge above God making your knowledge an idol.

 

[gluadys]

As we all can see, you justify your idolatry and blame God for it. Your knowledge of putting man before God is not God's work, it's yours. Sadly, you see nothing wrong with elevating your knowledge above God making your knowledge an idol.

Idolatry? I do not worship God's work, though I learn from it. But you choose to make an idol of a fallible human interpretation of scripture. You need to attack knowledge since you choose to deny it exists and is given us by God through the general revelation of nature. And that it is just as valid a revelation as scripture. Is not God's Word the creator of the natural world? Yet you charge me with idolatry for listening to it?

 

[shernren]

Perfect example of the whole double standard here. ID gets rejected because it fits the bible and doesn't fit with the science book. However, since the secular and atheists science WROTE the science book (I mean science in general here of course) they feel they can decide what is and isn't science. And anything that lines up with the bible is dismissed as not science even though nothing in the bible contradicts science (though it contradicts many of their theories).

1. Are you sure it was really secular and atheistic scientists who wrote the "book" of science?

A point YECs (and Christians in general) tend to forget is that science is ultimately founded on Biblical principles about the revelation of God's character. (Note: Biblical principles ... not, historical-literalist interpretations of given Biblical passages.) Science only makes sense because the universe makes sense. And the universe makes sense precisely because it was built by a God who wants things to make sense.

Take a God who desires rationality out of the picture and you are left with two options:

- the weak anthropic principle
or
- Indian absolute monism

The tragedy is when YECs start making arguments that science can't tell us nuts about the history of the universe ... they basically deny that the universe makes sense, which takes all Christian contribution out of science and its foundational worldviews. They tend towards a more Indian-philosophical maya view of the world ("what you see may not be what actually exists!") than a Christian view.

Besides, some very prominent scientific contributions against YECism were made by committed, Bible-believing Christians. Louis Agassiz and Georges Cuvier, for example, rejected evolutionism - and yet acknowledged that there is no evidence for a young earth or a global flood.

2. Is IDism rejected just because it "stems from Biblical principles"?

In the first place, it is possible for people to go from IDism to ... anywhere they want. I don't see what the point is at all for Christians to push for its teaching in the classroom. Theoretically, all IDism tells us is that we are intelligently designed. That can lead to any of these three conclusions:

- There exists a God who designed us.
- Previously evolved intelligent life-forms i.e. aliens came to earth and designed us.
- Humanity in the future will reach such a technological zenith that they will be able to reach back into the past and design us.

Even for the first, the jury is out on whether it is the God of the Bible, or the Koran, or the Vedas (Gods in that case), or the Zoroastrians, or the Semitic pagan religions ... since IDism is open to such a plurality of religions and philosophies, why is it that exclusively Christians seem to support it? Doesn't that sound kind of fishy?

In the second place, even if IDism can be shown to be promoted on purely non-religious grounds ... it is simply not science. Fullstop. Like I've said elsewhere, sometimes people don't laugh at Christians for being Christian, but simply for being funny.

Vossler: I do agree that there needs to be a mention of IDism. But we who want it to be mentioned must understand the motivations of those who disagree. The key is that the ID "controversy" doesn't exist in the scientific world. It exists in popular imagination and fundamentalist Christianity. Therefore, it would make sense to state that IDism exists and is partially believed in those areas. The problem is that to make such a statement compulsory under enforcement by educational authorities, is tantamount to saying that this controversy exists in the scientific community. ... it doesn't.