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.
Re:Fair warning!
pudge on 2005-05-04T19:28:17
That makes you look even worse than my post did.;-)
Re:conflicts R us
pudge on 2005-05-04T20:11:38
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.
Re:conflicts R us
phillup on 2005-05-04T23:45:05
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.And don't even get me started with things like Genesis 9:29 claiming that Noah lived to be 950 years old.Genesis chapter 1
Day # Verses
1 1 - 5
2 6 - 8
3 9 - 13
4 14 - 19
5 20 - 23
6 24 - 31
What the Genesis account actually refers to are indefinite time periods, which many have translated as "days."
So... when I see Genesis 1:13 saying:I don't have to believe this?And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Not only are they off, but that they are off by AT LEAST some multiple of 365 million? As in millions of years for the life... billions of years for the stars and planets.
If the translations are that poor, then the entire work is suspect.
Maybe I should look into the god thing again... when I went to church, that was the definition of faith... accepting that "the word of god" was true. (Of course, I could easily blame that on being a Southern Baptist... if that helps.)
Is there some special bible that I can get that tells me which verses aren't really "real"? That would be a HUGE help! Right now, mine just has red text to indicate what god was supposed to have said...
ID most definitely conflicts with my religious upbringing and the teachings of every church I have attended.Re:conflicts R us
pudge on 2005-05-05T00:15:35
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 having a serious discussion anyway. So I'll end this now.
Re:conflicts R us
phillup on 2005-05-05T16:55:12
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 know that you were flat out wrong to suggest that there is no conflict between ID and 'faith' as perscribed by, at a very minimum, the Baptist version of Christianity. I can't personally speak to other versions.
and b. don't give a damn about having a serious discussion anyway.
That would be why I painstakenly pointed out exactly what it is that I'm referring to. To make sure that we were both talking about the same thing.
I wonder what I would have done if I gave a damn...
So I'll end this now.
Now, I've been following this site for about three years now...
I've never seen you let someone else have the last post in a conversation.
So, if I were a betting man... you'll come back for one more nibble.Re:conflicts R us
jdavidb on 2005-05-18T14:35:28
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 account has any meaning other than literal days. The speculation that God said "day" to mean "time period" here in order to get the message across has some merit, but the idea that "yom" literally means anything other than "day" is unfounded.
I'm willing to stand corrected on this.
Re:conflicts R us
pudge on 2005-05-18T14:48:59
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 were there to record it.
It's my understanding that there's no linguistic reason to speculate that the Creation account has any meaning other than literal days.
And no linguistic reason to speculate that it must mean literal days.
The speculation that God said "day" to mean "time period" here in order to get the message across has some merit
I don't see how that means anything different from what I said. The very question is what meaning was intended by the use of the word "day."
Re:You speak for all ID proponents?
pudge on 2005-05-05T04:38:43
I am not defending ID proponents. I am not an ID proponent.
