Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[DrBaltar]

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.

Clearly? I don't think so. I bring up fallacies of Genesis, such as how the creation of the Earth and animals on the Earth are completely unlike what actually happened as demonstrated by fossil, geologic, and astrophysical record. I bring up the silliness of the Adam and Eve story. I am told that all this is metaphorical. If it were clear it would simply describe the creation of the Earth as it actually happened, and instead of the silly Adam and Eve story, the bible would simply state whatever it is that God wants that story to convey.

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

 

[sphenisc]

Is this some sort of bizarre negative evolution.

Creatures "evolve" into ones less and less suited to their environment?

Is there a proper word for this negative evolution other than delusion?

.

Orthogenesis

From http://www.selfdesignedstudent.com/2008/01/irish-elk-neither-totally-irish-or-elk.html

Megaloceros was also used as an example in the theory of orthogenesis. Proponents of orthogenesis, according to Stephen Jay Gould, "claimed that evolution proceeded in straight lines that natural selection could not regulate. Certain trends, once started, could not be stopped even if they led to extinction." The antlers of the Irish Elk seemed to validate the theory. The animal evolved from smaller deer featuring small antlers and eventually, its antlers became so over sized that the deer could no longer function. Orthogenesis attributed the extinction of Megaloceros to the bulk of its head ornament. Unfortunately, modern creationists use the Irish Elk as an argument against natural selection.

 

[RobRoy]

I have yet to see a "theism" that is more likely to be true than say, Scientology, Moonies, or Mormonism. Yet everyone seems to think their beliefs contain more truths than that and that the others are "made up" or "wrong" or the believers are misperceiving, etc. (unless of course they are one of those 3).

Agreed.

Let's face it-- we know for certain some religions are made up entirely out of "nothing"-- (see Randi's Carlos tape)-- what we don't know is if any of them have an iota of measurable evidence in their favor in regards to "higher truths".

Sorry, I disagree. Not that I want to step up and defend any particular faith. I believe, but cannot prove, that there are a number of faiths which were "made up entirely out of 'nothing'", but when dealing with faith, there's simply no way to prove that someone wasn't divinely inspired. There may be evidence that certainly leans in that direction, but at the end of the day, nothing that can conclusively say an individual was not visited by God or some other kind of messenger.

We have no evidence that there are even such things as higher truths-- though lots of guys seem to think they have such. Unfortunately they don't agree with each other.

No evidence, correct. But I like to believe that there are higher truths.

At a basic level, almost all religions have fundamentals that are, if not exactly the same, then founded on similar principles. It's when they get to the practicing, the walking of the path, and some of the other fun details that they tend to disagree.

And some people mistake their conviction for truth. And the stakes are eternity. I'd say that makes it a sucky situation for all us rationalists out here.

Sure does. Especially those of us who would like to believe in something higher than ourselves, and yet are torn by the problems of most organized religions, or most organized religions and their adherents.

 

[PBTree]

Sorry, I disagree. Not that I want to step up and defend any particular faith. I believe, but cannot prove, that there are a number of faiths which were "made up entirely out of 'nothing'", but when dealing with faith, there's simply no way to prove that someone wasn't divinely inspired. There may be evidence that certainly leans in that direction, but at the end of the day, nothing that can conclusively say an individual was not visited by God or some other kind of messenger.

.

Well I believe that this is the part that marks it all as nonsense. How could someone be divinely inspired (by a non-interfering god I might add) and then not be able to show that he/she was inspired by this divinity, other than to state "god just spoke to me, you should all believe me and believe in him/her".

It even sounds unbelievable.

 

[PBTree]

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

Correct. Either all of the words in the bible are god's words, or none of them are. Believers can't come along and say this part was spoken by god and these other parts are just some page notes or assumptions some believer made on god's behalf.

Now if all of the bible is true (based on the above), then let the stoning's begin. Whose first?

 

[Radrook]

Clearly? I don't think so. I bring up fallacies of Genesis, such as how the creation of the Earth and animals on the Earth are completely unlike what actually happened as demonstrated by fossil, geologic, and astrophysical record. I bring up the silliness of the Adam and Eve story. I am told that all this is metaphorical. If it were clear it would simply describe the creation of the Earth as it actually happened, and instead of the silly Adam and Eve story, the bible would simply state whatever it is that God wants that story to convey.

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

How do we know it wasn't meant to be understood that way? We know because many of the OT prophets, the Apostles and most significantly, none other than Jesus himself repeatedly cited its contents, as the flood, the creation of Adam and Eve, the fall of humanity into a degenerative condition in a place called Eden, as well as many other Genesis events as historical fact.


Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.

 

[Ocelot]

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

You're at odds here with the representatives of 1 Billion Christians.

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Pope Pius XII

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Pope John Paul II

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative.

And a double positive!

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

So, God's plan went awry? So it wasn't a perfect plan? How does a perfect being come up with an imperfect plan?

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.

Two question about this: in which passage of the bible does mankind reject God's guidance? As I recall, Adam and Eve weren't too hip aout leaving the garden. Second, which neutral animal became the cockroach?

First, God was accused of being a liar.

But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

So the issue had to be resolved by giving mankind and their angelic rebel friends the time sufficient to prove their point if they could.

How much time? If God's sitting around waiting to see if we'll meess up the earth, then I think the point has been proven well before now. How much worse does it need to get before He comes back and says, "I told you so"?

The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

Again, in which passage do Adam and Eve request the removal of God's blessings? I don't remember that part at all.

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.

I take exception to the bolded word above. If this were true, there'd be no debate. There'd be no need for interpretation of the bible. And in all likelihood, Christianity would be the only religion.

 

[DrBaltar]

Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.

But the earth was not created in the beginning. In the first 9.2 billion years of the universe, there was no earth.

What was the light that god created if the stars, sun and moon were created on the 3rd day? There were stars before the earth anyway, and the sun was also mostly formed by the time the earth started to coalesce from matter in the solar system. The moon "rules" the night only sometimes. When it's a new moon, it's not visible. It is also in the sky during the day half the time.

Are you suggesting the animals of the earth were created in a day? Fossil records do not collaborate this.

In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?

What's up with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I put my porn mags under my mattress or in a box somewhere if I don't want my kids to see them. Why is god leaving knowledge of evil next to creatures he designed to be curious with 'free will', and then punishes them and every generation afterwards when they inevitably eat the fruit? That's just childish and sadistic.

BTW, how old do you claim the earth is?

 

[Furi]

In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?

unlike yous lot God was a Scouser like us lot in mairseysiiiide. you know what I mean there like

And why 'Our' and not 'My Own',

Not to menttion that you must remember that god is a jealous god and will not tolerate the worship of other gods.

Did god sub contract? and was this agains the T&Cs of the original RFW (request for work)?

 

[RobRoy]

And a double positive!

ROFL! I'll have to start using those more often.

But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

Errmm . . . yes she did. I get what you're saying, but God never states that the fruit is poison and that death will be immediate and instant. He simply says in Genesis 2:17, ". . . but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prior to eating the fruit, as I understand it, Eve and Adam would have lived forever in ignorant bliss. After eating the fruit, they were "doomed" to a life of toil, pain and eventually death. In Genesis 3:19 God promises them, for the sin of eating the fruit, ". . . dust you are and to dust you will return." Eve drops out of the narrative after Genesis 4:25, but Adam's death is listed in Genesis 5:5, and given God's previous statement, Eve died at some point as well.

So, God didn't lie.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

ROFL! I'll have to start using those more often.



Errmm . . . yes she did. I get what you're saying, but God never states that the fruit is poison and that death will be immediate and instant. He simply says in Genesis 2:17, ". . . but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prior to eating the fruit, as I understand it, Eve and Adam would have lived forever in ignorant bliss. After eating the fruit, they were "doomed" to a life of toil, pain and eventually death. In Genesis 3:19 God promises them, for the sin of eating the fruit, ". . . dust you are and to dust you will return." Eve drops out of the narrative after Genesis 4:25, but Adam's death is listed in Genesis 5:5, and given God's previous statement, Eve died at some point as well.

So, God didn't lie.

If I said, "You may have dessert when you eat your dinner", the clear implication is dessert comes immediately after dinner.

If I said, "You may take the HDTV home when you pay for it", the clear implication is the TV goes home with you immediately after you pay.

If I said, "The hostages will be returned when you accede to our demands", the clear implication is that they are free to go immediately after you give me the briefcase full of money.

If God says, "When you eat it, you will die", the clear implication is that if you take a bite, you'll fall down dead. Didn't happen that way. Either...

a) God lies.
b) God is misleading

Either way doesn't bode well for a perfect being.

 

[articulett]

Yeah... besides with the whole eternal soul thing he made actual death impossible... he just made it possible to live forever in agony.

 

[RobRoy]

If I said, "You may have dessert when you eat your dinner", the clear implication is dessert comes immediately after dinner.[snip]

It's a nice attempt at semantic argumentation, but there is nothing deliberate or implied in what God told Adam and Eve regarding the tree, especially when we consider it on God's level. For the sake of fun with words, we have to include scope and scale. If immortality was the natural state for Adam and Eve, and then they crunched the munchies, and Adam dies 930 years later . . . well, to God who took eons to create life, the universe and everything, then Adam did pretty much drop dead shortly after his little trip to the Buffett of Knowledge.

a) God lies.
b) God is misleading

Either way doesn't bode well for a perfect being.

Let me be clear that I'm not making a case for or against. The argument was that God made a statement and that statement was a lie. It wasn't. God said if you do A then B will happen. There was no time-table stated or implied. Eve and Adam did A, and it's hardly in doubt from the evidence we have that B followed.

There are much better examples, and more defendable, of the Biblical God being flawed than this one. This one isn't it.

 

[PBTree]

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

How do we know it wasn't meant to be understood that way? We know because many of the OT prophets, the Apostles and most significantly, none other than Jesus himself repeatedly cited its contents, as the flood, the creation of Adam and Eve, the fall of humanity into a degenerative condition in a place called Eden, as well as many other Genesis events as historical fact.

Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.

This is where the whole idea of a god falls apart. You don't know. You are supposing. Just because it is written in some book, does not mean it happened. It would be classed as hearsay in a court of law.

The same with "jesus himself repeatedly". That is also just more hearsay.

Nobody has yet explained why not one other author of that time period (other than a few illiterate fishermen), mentions anything about some chap called jesus, or anything about any miracles he may or may not have performed. I'm affraid that using his views to lend credibility to an ID argument, is wasted.

As for the time interval. You are making this up. There is nothing in the bible to suggest this and nothing in any other documentation that assumes that amount of time. It is the standard believer argument to state that the earth was made in 7 days but each day was really n millions years long. More supposition.

 

[Radrook]

You're at odds here with the representatives of 1 Billion Christians.

OK! : )



Pope Pius XII



Pope John Paul II[/QUOTE]

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.

 

[Radrook]

This is where the whole idea of a god falls apart. You don't know. You are supposing. Just because it is written in some book, does not mean it happened. It would be classed as hearsay in a court of law.

The same with "jesus himself repeatedly". That is also just more hearsay.

Nobody has yet explained why not one other author of that time period (other than a few illiterate fishermen), mentions anything about some chap called jesus, or anything about any miracles he may or may not have performed. I'm affraid that using his views to lend credibility to an ID argument, is wasted.

As for the time interval. You are making this up. There is nothing in the bible to suggest this and nothing in any other documentation that assumes that amount of time. It is the standard believer argument to state that the earth was made in 7 days but each day was really n millions years long. More supposition.

'
First, I was responding to a question-yours. If you have all the answers already and have decided beforehand to tag all responses as not acceptable-then why ask?

Second, as I explained previously, my only motive for participation on this thread is make sure that you aren't attacking your own ideas while attributing them to Christianity.

Third, each person has a right to either reject or accept based on whatever reason he or she feels justifies it. So I really see no reason to engage in any debating. You are happy. I am happy. Case closed!


: )

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll bet there are a lot of people who will totally miss the point.

Christian Scientists, for example.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

I'm afraid it is you who loses the points this time.

Of Dogs and Devils, The Rise of Contagious Cancer

These rogue cells have become parasites in their own right, evolving from a single ancestor into a dynasty that has colonised the globe aboard canine vessels. How this process began is still a mystery, but Weiss’s analysis provides some hints as to where and when.

The original cancer cell must have developed in either a wolf or an old Asian dog lineage, such as a Husky (left). It evolved anywhere between 200 and 2500 years ago and may well have been around for even longer.

In fact, the CTVT cancer cell is very likely to be the oldest lineage of mammalian cells still in existence. The cells that Weiss is studying today are most probably direct clone descendants of the same cells that Novinski identified 130 years ago – genetically identical great-granddaughters of the original tumour.

Edited to add, I see this was addressed. But what was your opinion then, US? After all, many argue that viruses are not life forms. Since then we've had transmissible prions thrown into the mix. Personally, I think once a tumor jumps ship and spreads out infecting other organisms it is reasonable to define it as a life form. Identical twins are not considered one lifeform.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not specifically but indirectly perhaps? At least that's the way I perceived it then. If I was wrong then I apologize.

In any case, I was merely trying to point out that the argument in that article is flawed because it utilizes strawman. As for biblical literalist, that all depends on what that appellation encompasses from your particular viewpoint.

It's satire, Rad. There is no need for concerns of straw men in satire. The point is not dependent upon addressing someone's argument.