Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

pudge (1)

pudge
  (email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)

I run this joint, see?

Journal of pudge (1)

Wednesday May 04, 2005
12:12 AM

Re: an unintelligent discussion of Intelligent Design

[ #24521 ]

jjohn writes about Intelligent Design.

The stupid thing about momst discussions about ID is that it's just a way of saying, "hey, the theory of evolution of species doesn't preclude the Bible being true." ID is not a big deal. Nothing to see here.

jjohn writes, "So to those proponents of Intelligent Design, I implore you to pick a side: faith or science. By choosing faith, you abdicate your voice in scientific debates and inquiry for the certainty of Knowing the Truth and basking in unctuous Righeousnes. By choosing science, you must adopt its methods and put your hypothesis up for independent verification."

Saying so misunderstands the purpose and intent of ID. It also misunderstands the very nature of faith, in that it in no way conflicts with science, which is largely the point here. I think many people who were far better scientists than anyone in this ID debate and who were also people of religious faith might think such statements are pretty damned stupid.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I just want to let you see whom you are against [taskboy.com]. Scared yet?
  • It also misunderstands the very nature of faith, in that it in no way conflicts with science, which is largely the point here.

    So... about that six day thing... no conflict?
    • So... about that six day thing... no conflict?

      Since that is not in the Bible, yes, no conflict. What the Genesis account actually refers to are indefinite time periods, which many have translated as "days."

      That said, even if it did, science does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural. That's a common misunderstanding of science.
      • Since that is not in the Bible, yes, no conflict.

        I guess that is the great thing about Christianity... you can choose your flavor.

        My bible, a King James Version, most definitely has it in there.

        Genesis chapter 1
         
        Day #    Verses
          1        1 - 5
          2        6 - 8
          3        9 - 13
          4        14 - 19
          5        20 - 23
          6        24 - 31

        An

        • My bible, a King James Version, most definitely has it in there.

          So? The original Hebrew is unclear about how long this time period is. It was translated as "day" but that is a judgment call by the translators.

          If the translations are that poor, then the entire work is suspect.

          If a translation is poor, that reflects on the original text? That's stupid.

          Look, you obviously a. don't understand the issues of textual criticism enough to have a serious discussion about it and b. don't give a damn about ha
          • If a translation is poor, that reflects on the original text?

            Not the original text, the translation. You know, the part used by almost every church in the United States.

            Look, you obviously a. don't understand the issues of textual criticism enough to have a serious discussion about it

            I do know that I was talking about the Bible, as used in the overwhelming majority of Christian religions in the United States.

            I also know that I was talking about the practice of Christianity based on said book.

            And, I
          • So? The original Hebrew is unclear about how long this time period is. It was translated as "day" but that is a judgment call by the translators.

            The original Hebrew word used is "yom," which pretty much just means "day." I know there are some authorities out there who now claim that can mean an indefinite period, but pretty much any place where "yom" means an indefinite time period is either prophetic or poetic.

            It's my understanding that there's no linguistic reason to speculate that the Creation acc

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • The original Hebrew word used is "yom," which pretty much just means "day." I know there are some authorities out there who now claim that can mean an indefinite period, but pretty much any place where "yom" means an indefinite time period is either prophetic or poetic.

              Yes, but that is just begging the question. The basic rule for the word is that context determines its meaning, just like our own "day." But the problem here is that *we don't know the context.* The Genesis account is unique. No humans
  • What are the purpose and intent of ID, then? Why are its proponents striving to have it presented to students on an equal footing with evolution? Why do they want the notion accepted in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles? If you can't see the conflict, you're not paying enough attention. This recent Nature article [nature.com] on the subject is worth a read.