Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pmcd9]

I think Intelligent Design belief is kind of a continuum. I know that there are plenty of scientists, including paleontologists and biologists and cosmologists and chemists who are excellent scientists and also faithful Christians. I think that the back of the broad brush with which one paints 'narrowminded' Christians should necessarily also color 'narrowminded' rationalists.

I'm not sneering at either side; I think perhaps the gift of human intellect and the need to relentlessly seek knowledge may be so that we eventually find God out (or in) there.

...and we've come full circle.

~Paul

[Ben-San]

I think Intelligent Design belief is kind of a continuum. I know that there are plenty of scientists, including paleontologists and biologists and cosmologists and chemists who are excellent scientists and also faithful Christians. I think that the back of the broad brush with which one paints 'narrowminded' Christians should necessarily also color 'narrowminded' rationalists.

I think this is one of the many annoying things about the latest "teach Creationism in schools" tactic: by trying to use the term "Intelligent Design proponents" to paint the proposal of teaching Creationism as something other than what it is, the end result has been to get intelligent believers in an intelligent designer thrown into the corner with them.

I am a faithful Jew. I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth. I believe it far more strongly than I believe that the Torah is God's word conveyed correctly and perfectly through generation after generation of human scribes. That is why the Heavens and the Earth are the book we should be reading - through observation and experimentation with the senses and logic God gave us, as scientists do - to discern God's methods, not a textual account heavily altered by time and translation.

[AlohaDawg]

...and we've come full circle.

~Paul

I would think you above belittlling someone's faith as entertainment.

Also, Ben, well said. I don't really like getting thrown in with the fundamentalists because I don't consider myself one although I'm starting to wonder if I don't sound like one based on Paul's post below. I don't believe it is at all unfair to be skeptical of science or skeptical of religion -  I think it becomes unfair when either side places itself above the other based solely on their own opinion of the 'value' or 'truth' of their beliefs.

[CortJstr]

So did anybody see South Park last night? Will they get to show Muhammad or what?

[pmcd9]

I would think you above belittlling someone's faith as entertainment.

Aw man, it ain't like that.  I wouldn't belittle your faith.  But c'mon, intelligent design isn't science, it's just propaganda.

~Paul

[AlohaDawg]

Aw man, it ain't like that.  I wouldn't belittle your faith.  But c'mon, intelligent design isn't science, it's just propaganda.

~Paul

You know that Bible you were reading before, Paul? That's not science either. But if you were reading it for it's riveting action and interwoven plot under the assumptions of fiction I imagine you were disappointed.

I just said I don't buy into either argument as absolute truth. I believe in the existence of a loving, compassionate God who created everything that is and ever will be. Whether he did it in 'seven days' by hand or put all the atoms and molecules and rules for their interactions into motion and manages the details of complex and long-term processes is immaterial to my Faith in Him. Either satisfies in me the more important factor: that God is there, that God is in charge and that although a fallen people, we are still loved and still offered the opportunity for redemption.

Our ability to question and seek knowledge is a gift. We aren't competing with any other species on the planet for knowledge and understanding. It's clear to my tiny, fragile, human mind that we are placed in a position to be stewards of the Earth and the rest of it's inhabitants. And, in my opinion, to seek the answers to our questions about ourselves, the planet, it's origins, and it's future as a means of finding the Creator.

Maybe, Wombat, that's the ultimate joy in a beautiful explanation. Talk about a grand unification theory.

[pmcd9]

You know that Bible you were reading before, Paul? That's not science either.

Actually, the Bible is science.  It's a 2000 year old understanding of science and most of it has been disproven, but still it's science.  Intelligent design on the other hand is propaganda masquerading as science for the purpose of undermining real science, principally Darwin's theory of evolution.

~Paul

[jough]

The Bible isn't science, nor was it ever perceived as science (at least not by its authors).  There is very little mathematics in the bible, no mention of engineering, chemistry, biology, or other sciences that were very very well understood by the Romans of the time the bible was written (1400-1800 years ago, depending on the book, in the New Testament, and a good 500 or more years before that for the Old).   The Egyptians had a pretty good grasp of many sciences, particularly engineering but also maths and chemistry.

[AlohaDawg]

Nor does the bible methodically propose hypothesis and methodically test.

The meaning of the Bible to believers is not a 'search for truth' but 'truth revealed' and to look at it in other ways is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself, but certainly is outside of the intentions of those who contributed to it.

[jough]

Not that there's anything wrong with the Bible.  It is just not all things to all people.

You know, because it is a book.

[pmcd9]

The meaning of the Bible to believers is not a 'search for truth' but 'truth revealed' and to look at it in other ways is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself, but certainly is outside of the intentions of those who contributed to it.

All the more reason to discard intelligent design.  If i'm reading you correctly The Bible says things are a certain way and you either take it on faith that it's true or you don't.  If you try to prove it, I think that constitutes a betrayal of faith.

~Paul

[jough]

There is nothing in the bible about intelligent design.  The phrase doesn't even appear in the text.

[pmcd9]

Did this thread wander into religion when we changed it from savings to saving?  I wonder...

Ironic?

~Paul

[misterqueue]

What is that old logic issue?  A monotheistic deity won't prove s/he/it exists because proof denies faith and without faith s/he/it is nothing.  Hence, inherent to ID is a built-in logic bomb. 

er.. unless I just muddled it.

[AlohaDawg]

All the more reason to discard intelligent design.  If i'm reading you correctly The Bible says things are a certain way and you either take it on faith that it's true or you don't.  If you try to prove it, I think that constitutes a betrayal of faith.

~Paul

I don't think that's true if you understand the abilities of logic and reason, and free will to be gifts of a Creator. IBelievers take it on Faith that the fundamental core of the bible is true, but many (not all) believe its truth is written in the hand of men who lived in a specific time and place and their understanding of the world is different than ours. If you were to select the most important messages of the Old testament, the stories - the creation story, the ark and the animals two by two, Joseph's brothers treatment of him, Esau's betrayal of his brother, David, Solomon, and all the rest - are not the message. They carry the message.  The message is about Israel's  relationship with God, about God's covenant with Israel, and God's expectation from his people before he sends the Messiah to redeem the world. Whether or not it's 100% historically accurate doesn't approach the central truth of the Bible and arguing about that is missing the point.

To believers, the message of the Old Testament is borne out in the New; the truth is far simpler than the sum of the words. Believers say the truth boils down to John 3:16 in fulfillment of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament.