MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars...

[Dreadsox]

So the Gospel of Luke, when He says I am writing an orderly account of the things that happened, so you can know for certain...
He wasn't making a claim that he was writing a historical document?
Without going to far into it, if the gospels are stories made up, for the purpose of trying to start a religion (vs. being an historical account of what happened) than it is the single greatest work of fiction or (i think you could even say) literature ever.
The gospels would then be a "realistic fiction" - a genre that had never existed up to that time, and would not be seen again for about 1500 years. Fascinating, that a tax-man, doctor, and a couple of fisherman came up with a whole new genre (that then vanished for 1500 years), everyone of the followers at the time (who could have fact-checked this wonderful fairy tale) said it's cool- i'll just believe it and suffer horrendous persecution for a completely fictious story.

I would ask you this, to whom do you believe Luke was writing to, and why?

So you believe the writers of the Gospel, were writing a historical account. I do not. PLease note, however, I NEVER said they wrote a work of fiction. They were each writing for their own purpose, not a book of history in my opinion. The Gospels were not written for the purpose of starting their own religion. They still thought of themselves as Jews in the beginning.

There are inconsistencies betwewen the Gospels.

I never said the stories were false. There is a difference between writing for history and writing fiction. I do not claim it to be fiction. I claim it not to be writen for complete and total historical accuracy.

Please note I said the Bible...the entire book itself.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Honestly, the descriptions of what this book is, are as vague as the book itself. They're not accurate. They God inspired. Directed By God. Accurate accounts of those involved. Time is irrelevant and meaningless, therefore nothing can be gleamed from that. They're false. They're historical docments, as recorded at the time.

And that's not even getting into Jesus walking on water, feeding a crowd with a few lousy fish and some stale bread. Doing the work of an opthalmologist and making a blind man see. Doing that of an orthopaedic surgeon and making a crippled man walk. Adam and Eve and Downs Syndrome.

 

[stammer476]

So are we in agreement, then, that in the public school science classroom there should be no mention of, or lend no possibility to, a Creator/Higher Power?

 

[nbcrusader]

I said that what I don't want is them teaching macroevolution in mankind as if it as if it were a foregone conlcusion that it was factual.

Which, in essence, is done when you intentionally exclude alternative theories to evolution.

The textbook for ID is not the Book of Genesis.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Honestly, the descriptions of what this book is, are as vague as the book itself. They're not accurate. They God inspired. Directed By God. Accurate accounts of those involved. Time is irrelevant and meaningless, therefore nothing can be gleamed from that. They're false. They're historical docments, as recorded at the time.

And that's not even getting into Jesus walking on water, feeding a crowd with a few lousy fish and some stale bread. Doing the work of an opthalmologist and making a blind man see. Doing that of an orthopaedic surgeon and making a crippled man walk. Adam and Eve and Downs Syndrome.

Downs Syndrome? What in the world are talking about?

 

[80sU2isBest]

How is it not factual? we have the mitochondrial DNA evidence that demonstrates human migration and has shown the variation between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, and we can see the Homo genus in the fossil record, other linneages that are now extinct

Isn't macroevolution basically defined as one specied evolving into a separate species? If so, what evidence is there of that?

 

[jphelmet]

It's not ethnocentric at all. Rabbis would not have memorized the New Testament, because they did not believe it. Likewise, early Christianity was disorganized in the early years, and it's very "convenient" that the New Testament texts all date after A.D. 70--the destruction of Jerusalem--where both the apostles and Paul would be dead. As such, we are dealing with third person texts masquerading as "first person." And there is already ample evidence that the Book of Matthew was riddled with "corrections" to make it conform to Gentile Christian theology.

Likewise, you find the same POV differences between the Pharisees' OT canon versus the Essenes' OT canon (Dead Sea Scrolls). And as for the OT canon itself, it was only formalized in the first century A.D. by the Pharisees and, even then, there's plenty of medieval Jewish scriptures that rip into its accuracy; hence, we have the Talmud.

So if you're trying to tell me that the people of 2000-3000 years ago didn't have prejudices and biases like we do today, I'll have to disagree.

Melon

Your missing the point. You made the comparison to writing things down today many years after they happen. That is not an accurate or fair comparison. In our culture we put little to no emphasis on transmitting accurate oral traditions, or memorization- in that time there was great emphasis and very common. The point about rabbis, was simply this was common in the culture, and example of memorization. Many Christians were Jewish, and you honestly believe there were no rabbis who became followers of Christ? That is why I said it is a very ethno centric argument.

Many dates of the N.T. text do not date after 70 A.D. The epsitles date from 48-64 AD, and the latest possible datings for the gospels is 70-90's AD. many scholars date them in the 40's-70's. to your claim that all the apostles and Paul were dead in 70 AD, there is evidence that the apostle John was alive in the 90's AD (From extra-biblical sources).

 

[melon]

Isn't macroevolution basically defined as one specied evolving into a separate species? If so, what evidence is there of that?

The Island of Galapagos. And, in fact, any isolated island. Isolated areas speed up the process of evolution, whereas wide open spaces with lots of diversity of genetics slow down greatly.

And the existence of Helacyton gartleri, whose speciation occurred naturally as the result of human cervix cells being infected with HPV and causing cancer for a woman in the 1950s created a self-sustaining, single celled organism that also happens to be immortal. This did not occur as the result of genetic engineering or scientific interference, but solely through nature.

Melon

 

[melon]

Many Christians were Jewish, and you honestly believe there were no rabbis who became followers of Christ? That is why I said it is a very ethno centric argument.

I still disagree. Play a game of telephone some time, and go through enough generations. If you're really good at it, you'll get the jist of it accurate, but the details will be muddled. Again, compare the canonical OT to the Dead Sea Scrolls and you'll find similar discrepancies where the main idea is correct, but the details are different. I very much wish the Biblical texts of the Sadducees were still around, because I'm sure they'd be completely different too, particularly considering their disgust with Messianic theology.

Many dates of the N.T. text do not date after 70 A.D. The epsitles date from 48-64 AD, and the latest possible datings for the gospels is 70-90's AD. many scholars date them in the 40's-70's. to your claim that all the apostles and Paul were dead in 70 AD, there is evidence that the apostle John was alive in the 90's AD (From extra-biblical sources).

Have you happened to ever look at the history of how the NT evolved? It was not a short and painless process, and was spread over close to 300 years. I plain cannot and do not believe that this book is perfectly made and infallible. In fact, not even my Catholic school education taught me that it was infallible.

Melon

 

[jphelmet]

I would ask you this, to whom do you believe Luke was writing to, and why?

So you believe the writers of the Gospel, were writing a historical account. I do not. PLease note, however, I NEVER said they wrote a work of fiction. They were each writing for their own purpose, not a book of history in my opinion. The Gospels were not written for the purpose of starting their own religion. They still thought of themselves as Jews in the beginning.

There are inconsistencies betwewen the Gospels.

I never said the stories were false. There is a difference between writing for history and writing fiction. I do not claim it to be fiction. I claim it not to be writen for complete and total historical accuracy.

Please note I said the Bible...the entire book itself.

Luke was writing to Theophilus, a high ranking, upper class Roman official. He says why in the first part of Luke 1:1-4
" Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. "

So what do you believe Luke's own prupose was? Why was writing this well ordered account, where He was interviewing eyewitnesses? I am not trying to be attacking about this, but just curious of your explanation. If it is not fiction, and they were not trying to be totally accurate, then what is it? Or are you saying they were trying to be accurate but just couldn't do it?

I agree with you about not trying to start a religion, and still thinking themselves as Jews. They beleived that this was the logical progression in Judaism. They believed the Messiah predicted had come.

There are parts of the Bible that are figurative, and not straight historical narrative- but you said the whole Bible (which includes the synoptic gospels, acts, etc) was not trying to be historical.

 

[jphelmet]

I still disagree. Play a game of telephone some time, and go through enough generations. If you're really good at it, you'll get the jist of it accurate, but the details will be muddled. Again, compare the canonical OT to the Dead Sea Scrolls and you'll find similar discrepancies where the main idea is correct, but the details are different. I very much wish the Biblical texts of the Sadducees were still around, because I'm sure they'd be completely different too, particularly considering their disgust with Messianic theology.


Melon

The Sadducess only recognized the authority of the written Law, but not the prophetic books or other writings in the O.T., or in resurrection- so there disgust of messianic theology is expected to a degree.

Melon while I do disagree with you on a lot of things, I appreciate your answers and perspective. There have times, I am not sure what you are alluding to or what your perspective is, and it has made me stop and make sure I understand my own arguments and beliefs. Its refreshing to have someone who will not just say something they have heard second hand without ever bothering to investigate it (which is very much the case many times-esp. around here). I think there are too many Christian who will totally dismiss a lot of arguments and not at least look at the other side of an argument- choosing blind acceptance which I think hurts the churches credibility. For me, it helps to solidify what I believe.

In answer to your other questions pertaining the canonization of the NT, yes I have studied it and am still currently doing so. I still believe that it is plausible that the NT is reliable.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Which, in essence, is done when you intentionally exclude alternative theories to evolution.

The textbook for ID is not the Book of Genesis.

So how do we decide what alternative theories should be included. I suppose this links into the point I made earlier in this thread - that it's very easy for people who believe in ID to advocate it being taught in public schools, but I suspect they would feel differently if teaching a theory based on a religion other than their own was proposed.

 

[Dreadsox]

So what do you believe Luke's own prupose was? Why was writing this well ordered account, where He was interviewing eyewitnesses? I am not trying to be attacking about this, but just curious of your explanation. If it is not fiction, and they were not trying to be totally accurate, then what is it? Or are you saying they were trying to be accurate but just couldn't do it?


There are parts of the Bible that are figurative, and not straight historical narrative- but you said the whole Bible (which includes the synoptic gospels, acts, etc) was not trying to be historical.

#1 I subscribe the the belief that he was writing to the Roman Appointed High Priest.

#2 I believe Luke still viewed himself as a Jew, and it was important to him to demonstrate that Christ was not in contradiciton to the Jewish faith. I believe that that is what the Gospel of Luke is, a defense of Christ to a high ranking Roman appointed Jew. Not intended to be the perfect blow by blow account of every minute of every day of Christ's life and ministry.

#3 I do not believe it to be fiction in the sense that it is made up. I believe it to be written to be as accurate as possible, but it was not writen as a historical account, meaning accurate to the minute. Did the things in the story happen, yes. Were they described in a historically accurate, date time place minute, I sincerely doubt it.

#4 Again, having spent the entire last year studying the Old Testament, I do not believe the Bible to be a "History Book" nor in relevance to this thread, a book of "Science".

 

[jphelmet]

#3 I do not believe it to be fiction in the sense that it is made up. I believe it to be written to be as accurate as possible, but it was not writen as a historical account, meaning accurate to the minute. Did the things in the story happen, yes. Were they described in a historically accurate, date time place minute, I sincerely doubt it.

Your missing an important distinction about writing history at this time. Your argument is very much limited by our perspective in this era. This is what a history looks like written in the 1st century. At this time writing an historical account is not what it is today. They were not concerned with exact time and minute. This is not a fair criteria for if it was meant to be an accurate history. By your criteria there is no history written in the 1st century. They were as You say "written to be as accurate as possible" - that is what an historical account is.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Downs Syndrome? What in the world are talking about?

All of us coming from two people only.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Isn't macroevolution basically defined as one specied evolving into a separate species? If so, what evidence is there of that?

The emergence of new forms of goatsbeard that cannot breed with other forms in the continental US is an example of macroevolution.

Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing, they are only distinguishing scale of the event. Speciation events are caused by some reproductive barrier between populations of the same species and subsequent microveolution events occuring on each seperate population until they can no longer interbreed ~ at that point they are considered to be new species.

1 change may be a very small variation, but put in thousands of changes over the course of thousands, even tens of thousands of years and it adds up.

A good example of speciation by reproductive barriers in Drosophila species on the Hawaiian Islands. Because new Islands are formed by means of a fixed mantle plume melting the crust and bringing melts up to the surface while the plates move over when they are setteld by 'founders' they are reproductively isolated. This has allowed the frut flies to speciate.

 

[Dreadsox]

They were not concerned with exact time and minute. This is not a fair criteria for if it was meant to be an accurate history. By your criteria there is no history written in the 1st century. They were as You say "written to be as accurate as possible" - that is what an historical account is.

No I would say there are primary sources, not a historical account. I would aslo say there is substantial evidence, based on tablets that have been found that parts of the Old Testament asa we know it, have been organized wrong. But that was discussed in another thread in here.

When there is direct evidence that there were multiple writers of the old testament, who each had their own reasons for writing, and making modifications to the others work, I would say it is difficult to call it a historical book.

If you believe it to be a historically accurate book, and a science book, great. I am clearly not going to change your mind. That is not even getting into some of the errors of the book.

I do not believe the writers of the book, a book that I value as a Christian, ever intended the book to be used to base scientific education on, and I would have issues with teaching it in my classroom.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]The Evolution Wars
When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is "intelligent design" a real science? And should it be taught in schools?
By CLAUDIA WALLIS
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Aug. 07, 2005
Sometime in the late fall, unless a federal court intervenes, ninth-graders at the public high school in rural Dover, Pa., will witness an unusual scene in biology class. The superintendent of schools, Richard Nilsen, will enter the classroom to read a three-paragraph statement mandated by the local school board as a cautionary preamble to the study of evolution. It reads, in part: Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.

The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

After that one-minute reading, the superintendent will probably depart without any discussion, and a lesson in evolutionary biology will begin.

That kind of scene, brief and benign though it might seem, strikes horror into the hearts of scientists and science teachers across the U.S., not to mention plenty of civil libertarians. Darwin's venerable theory is widely regarded as one of the best-supported ideas in science, the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, grounded in decades of study and objective evidence. But Dover's disclaimer on Darwin would appear to get a passing grade from the man who considers himself America's education President. In a question-and-answer session with Texas newspaper reporters at the White House last week, George W. Bush weighed in on the issue. He expressed support for the idea of combining lessons in evolution with a discussion of "intelligent design"—the proposition that some aspects of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to natural selection. It is a subtler way of finding God's fingerprints in nature than traditional creationism.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught," said the President, who appeared to choose his words with care, "so people can understand what the debate is about ... I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

On its surface, the President's position seems supremely fair-minded: What could possibly be wrong with presenting more than one point of view on a topic that divides so many Americans? But to biologists, it smacks of faith-based science. And that is provocative not only because it rekindles a turf battle that goes all the way back to the Middle Ages but also because it comes at a time when U.S. science is perceived as being under fresh assault politically and competitively.

Just last week, developments ranging from flaws in the space program to South Korea's rapid advances in the field of cloning were cited as examples that the U.S. is losing its edge. Bush's comments on intelligent design were the No. 1 topic for bloggers for days afterward. "It sends a signal to other countries because they're rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership while we're getting distracted with a pseudoscience issue," warned Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the 55,000-member National Science Teachers Association in Arlington, Va. "If I were China, I'd be happy."

As far as many Americans are concerned, however, the President was probably preaching to the choir. In a Harris poll conducted in June, 55% of 1,000 adults surveyed said children should be taught creationism and intelligent design along with evolution in public schools. The same poll found that 54% did not believe humans had developed from an earlier species—up from 45% with that view in 1994—although other polls have not detected this rise.
[/Q]

This weeks time...very long article....

link to the complete article...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090836,00.html

 

[deep]

As far as many Americans are concerned, however, the President was probably preaching to the choir. In a Harris poll conducted in June, 55% of 1,000 adults surveyed said children should be taught creationism and intelligent design along with evolution in public schools. The same poll found that 54% did not believe humans had developed from an earlier species—up from 45% with that view in 1994—although other polls have not detected this rise.

this is how we teach science?

take a poll?

we could have taken a poll awhile back
and not wasted so much time with civil rights

a majority, probably more than 55%, would have been comfortable with segregation

 

[deep]

Why God's in a class by himself

By Michael Shermer

MICHAEL SHERMER is the author of "The Science of Good & Evil" and "Science Friction" (Henry Holt/Times Books).

August 7, 2005

INTELLIGENT DESIGN creationism resurfaced in the news last week after President Bush's remarks were (mis)taken by IDers to be a solid endorsement for the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms. (Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, said that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept.")

One magazine reporter asked for my opinion about whether one can believe in God and the theory of evolution.

I replied that, empirically speaking, yes, you can — the proof being that 40% of American scientists profess a belief in God and also accept the theory of evolution, not to mention that most of the world's 1 billion Catholics believe in God and accept the theory of evolution. But then this reporter wanted to know if it is logically consistent to believe in God and the theory of evolution. That is, does the theory of evolution — if carried out to its logical conclusion — preclude belief in God? This is a different question. Here is my answer.

You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate, logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence.

This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. If you attempt to reconcile religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity because for any question about nature — the origins of the universe, life, humans, whatever — if your answer is "God did it," a scientist will ask: "How did God do it? What forces did God use? What forms of matter and energy were employed in the creation process?" and so forth. The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?

One could argue that God is the laws and forces of nature, which is logically acceptable, but this is pantheism and not the type of personal God to which most people profess belief.

One could also argue that God created the universe and life using the laws and forces of nature as his tools, which is also logically fine, but it leaves us with additional scientific questions: Which laws and forces were used to create specific natural phenomena? How did God create the laws and forces of nature? A scientist would be curious to know God's recipe for, say, gravity or for a universe or a cell. For that matter, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask what made God, and how was God created? How do you make an omniscient being?

Finally, one could argue that God is outside of nature and therefore needs no explanation. This is also logically consistent, but by definition it means that the God question is outside of science, and therefore religion and science are separate and incompatible.

Bottom line: Teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes.

 

[s_tielemans]

But is George Bush himself not proof that both theories are wrong? I mean, nothing or noone with a bit of intellegence would design THAT now would it. And I can not imagine what he would evolve out of either..

Sorry. I'll get me coat

 

[BonosSaint]

But is George Bush himself not proof that both theories are wrong? I mean, nothing or noone with a bit of intellegence would design THAT now would it. And I can not imagine what he would evolve out of either..

Sorry. I'll get me coat

 

[dazzlingamy]

So if there was a theory (which we all know is christian backed) that said 1 + 1 = 3 then should that be teached along side the 1 + 1 = 2 theory?

Because after all how do we know 1 +1 = 2? we were just TOLD this you know?

Once again i am on my knees thanking my lucky stars i am not an american citizen! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[melon]

Australia got all the convicts and America got all the religious fanatics.

Melon

 

[deep]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Advertisement

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
Above: Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

 

[BonosSaint]

I think it's a spoof. Right?

 

[financeguy]

It is a spoof it is from the Onion.

 

[BonosSaint]

Sigh of relief. I'm never quire sure any more.

 

[deep]

is it less valid
than ID?

similar reasoning

Above: Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.

 

[unosdostres14]

The theory of ID is so absurd that, if i didn't see this article in the Onion first, I probably wouldnt have thought it was fake