Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Roderick Spode]

A multitude of examples possibly. But to what end ? Not good on this forum it seems. No one is persuaded here that I've seen, and some/most of those who signup for a few minutes to a few hours, when I messaged them, they state plainly they cannot see good coming from the enemy arguing online - the enemy cannot be persuaded with perfect arguments, perfect words, nor a perfect Messiah Jesus.

I wonder what keeps us coming here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think that Jesus would have used parables, if they were merely "something like an Aesop's fable."

Correct.

I believe Jesus' parables were real events He witnessed growing up.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I barely am able to, and only for a short time as most are not edifying to anyone at all.

I had actually posted at an atheist forum once. This is a walk in the park compared to that. I didn't stay there long, so yeah, I know what you're saying!

 

[Estrid]

I don't think that Jesus would have used parables, if they were merely "something like an Aesop's fable."

Time travel mind readin' the
son of god, are we?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think that Jesus would have used parables, if they were merely "something like an Aesop's fable."

Time travel mind readin' the
son of god, are we?

That's an interesting question. Take the Good Samaritan. Many people get from that, "it's good and proper to help the needy." But that's not primarily what Jesus was saying therein. He told the story in response to "who is my neighbor?" He told His followers to emulate a heretic who cared for strangers, rather than a religiously-correct Levite who would not. "Everyone is your neighbor."

As Arnold Toynbee pointed out, Jesus cut through the death spiral of offense and revenge by declaring that we were to be charitable to all people, not just "our kind."

Not quite an "Aesop's fable", um?

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, I remember your link from another thread, and have read it. And I agree with it.

It doesn't solve the problem I'm having with the word literal (which was the word I questioned in that other thread).

So I'll say this. I believe the entire bible is inerrant. And then go from there.

I agree that it is "inerrant" in the sense that it is exactly the book God wants us to have. "Literal" is an argument about interpretation of the text, not the content, which is why I use both words.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Arnold Toynbee pointed out, Jesus cut through the death spiral of offense and revenge by declaring that we were to be charitable to all people, not just "our kind."

Jesus ruined every funeral He ever encountered.

Including His own.

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe Jesus' parables were real events He witnessed growing up.

You think He would have stood by as the traveler was beaten and left for dead, so that a Samaritan might later come by and give Him a good story to tell?

 

[BCP1928]

There's definitely a message, but it implies a real event. Either it's a message centered around a real event, or it's something like an Aesop's fable.

If you wanted to propose that at some point in history there was a man who saved himself and his family, his farm animals and possibly a selection of local wild fauna on a boat or raft of his own construction during a large regional flood, and that could possibly be the "real event" behind the Noah story, no one would argue with you, but it would not be a literal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

Matthew 13:10And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?

11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12 For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. 15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Well, let's take a look...

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Yeah, it's based on their religious fanaticism.

There really never was a "design theory." It makes no testable predictions, only post-hoc declarations. Which is why it's a religious belief, not a theory.

Do you think deism is a religion? If they are attempting to inject bible scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion Christianity. If they are attempting to inject Quranic scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion of Islamic religion. But they of course are suggesting religion as synonymous with Christianity. Deism is not a religion. It's a neutral position. And this shows how confused the plaintiffs are, and why the witchfynder general tactics to cover it's confusion. We see this clearly in the NOVA documentary broadcasted on PBS. To put it nicely, it's a case study of televised theatrics.

When scientists claim they recreated the big bang, created synthetic embryos, and wrote blueprints for creating a mini-universe with life in a laboratory, this is intelligent design. Not theistic design, but ID nonetheless. These could theoretically be discussed in a science class. Maybe they are at times. But the problem is would be that if it were, and someone blew the whistle "Hey, isn't this intelligent design?", they've got a sticky mess. It can't be labeled intelligent design, as just the word design has now become equivalent to saying Macbeth in an old English theatre. I've seen the hesitancy in using the term design in this forum section. Most likely even human intelligent design in science classrooms would be avoided because they would have to make sure no reference to a higher power were mentioned, and then people would notice the Orwellian paranoia.

I don't care what religion they follow, as long as they don't try to impose it on others in public schools. In fact, there are IDers who seem to have realized this themselves, and while the organization remains opposed to religious freedoms in the Constitution, some IDers have moved away from such a stance.

Michael Denton, for example, seems to have accepted Darwinian evolution, only insisting that a "designer" pre-loaded the universe to make it happen.


The lawyers for the plaintiffs used the IDer's own words to make their case. IDer Michael Behe pretty much gave away the farm during cross-examination:

Q: And using your definition intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A: Yes

Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one.
Transcript from Kitzmiller vs. Dover

Yes, they caught him in kind of a technicality word trap. And the sad thing is that this actually impresses people. It's placing ID and anything affiliated with it in quarantine, and exterminating the room with fire.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you think deism is a religion? If they are attempting to inject bible scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion Christianity. If they are attempting to inject Quranic scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion of Islamic religion. But they of course are suggesting religion as synonymous with Christianity. Deism is not a religion. It's a neutral position.

Deism is a theological proposition about the nature of God. It is not a "neutral" position.

And this shows how confused the plaintiffs are, and why the witchfynder general tactics to cover it's confusion. We see this clearly in the NOVA documentary broadcasted on PBS. To put it nicely, it's a case study of televised theatrics.

When scientists claim they recreated the big bang, created synthetic embryos, and wrote blueprints for creating a mini-universe with life in a laboratory, this is intelligent design. Not theistic design, but ID nonetheless. These could theoretically be discussed in a science class. Maybe they are at times. But the problem is would be that if it were, and someone blew the whistle "Hey, isn't this intelligent design?", they've got a sticky mess. It can't be labeled intelligent design, as just the word design has now become equivalent to saying Macbeth in an old English theatre. I've seen the hesitancy in using the term design in this forum section. Most likely even human intelligent design in science classrooms would be avoided because they would have to make sure no reference to a higher power were mentioned, and then people would notice the Orwellian paranoia.

I certainly notice something that seems like paranoia. Or maybe it's just the logical fallacy of equivocation, both in regard to the term "intelligent design" and the term "design" itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

You think He would have stood by as the traveler was beaten and left for dead, so that a Samaritan might later come by and give Him a good story to tell?

Maybe he was five years old at the time?

Or less?

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe he was five years old at the time?

Or maybe parables are things that never actually happened, but are stories to show us important truths.

One of those.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you think deism is a religion?

Yes, seems to fit the definition.

If they are attempting to inject bible scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion Christianity. If they are attempting to inject Quranic scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion of Islamic religion. But they of course are suggesting religion as synonymous with Christianity.

Founders covered that. It's not just a specific religion; it's religion generally.

Deism is not a religion. It's a neutral position.

No, agnosticism is a neutral position. Deism is the belief that God created the world and then let it run as it would.

When scientists claim they recreated the big bang, created synthetic embryos, and wrote blueprints for creating a mini-universe with life in a laboratory, this is intelligent design.

Yes. When creatures do things it's design. When God does it, it's creation. God has no need to figure things out. It's not a difference in degree; it's a difference in kind.

When engineers copy evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too complex for design, is that intelligent creation? No, I don't think so.

 

[The Barbarian]

(IDer Michael Behe admits that ID is a scientific theory in the same sense that astrology is a scientific theory)

Yes, they caught him in kind of a technicality word trap.

No, really they didn't. Behe just has a less restrictive definition of "theory" than most scientists do, which is what he said. No one actually ever disproved astrology after all. This isn't such a big deal for scientists, but when laymen saw it, they were shocked. It is technical, and goes to epistemological issues. It's the equivalent of the game creationists play when a scientific paper says "this suggests that..." In science, that means the researcher has confirmed his hypothesis with evidence. But creationists say "see? He doesn't really know."

Although Behe does admit the fact of evolution, he supposes that God has to step in from time to time to make the system work as He wants it to do. So there's some wiggle room in his concept of the way nature works.

Assuming that there really was a star of Bethleham (and we have no reason to think there wasn't) That was at least a data point that would be consistent with astrology.

 

[The Barbarian]

I wonder what keeps us coming here.

It's not to change minds of the people debating. At least not for me. But there are others who look in on the discussion, and the issues may help them to think about the issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or maybe parables are things that never actually happened, but are stories to show us important truths.

One of those.

Which one was this?

Numbers 23:7 And he took up his parable, and said, Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel.

 

[The Barbarian]

Or maybe parables are things that never actually happened, but are stories to show us important truths.

One of those.

Which one was this?

It doesn't say what the parable was. Kinda hard to say, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't say what the parable was. Kinda hard to say, isn't it?

No, it isn't.