|
Author
|
Topic: The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2301 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 1 of 78 (790257)
08-27-2016 8:54 PM
|
|
|
From another website, but it seems to fit well here: The Ten Laws of Creationism | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
Well, actually, one of our clandestine operatives obtained this document from the top secret files of an influential creationist think tank which we shall not name. As a public service, we’re making it available here. The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design Note: In case this document is ever disclosed in a courtroom, remember: this is a statement of scientific principles. We don’t use the word creationism. The operative term is Intelligent Design, or ID. Similarly, we don’t use the word miracle. The operative expression is product of ID. In applying these principles while speaking to the public, be sure to emphasize that what we do here is science, not theology. This is vital for litigation purposes. 1. The Law of Evidence: Everything is Designed; therefore everything is evidence of ID. No evidence supports evolution. 2. The Law of Conservation of Arguments: Discredited arguments are never discarded, they can always be recycled. 3. The Law of Reproducible Results: Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design. 4. The Law of Completeness: Anything which has not yet been found or explained will never never be found or explained. Gaps and mysteries are evidence of ID. 5. The Law of Complexity, Improbability, and Inexplicably: That which is complicated or improbable and has not been explained, cannot exist naturally. 6. The Law of Impossibility: Complex and improbable things, being naturally impossible, must be the product of ID. 7. The Law of Persistence of Design: Once something has been declared a product of ID, no natural explanation is acceptable. If one of proffered, it is evidence only of the fact that the naturalists are desperate. 8. The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is always better. Naturalistic bias must be avoided. 9. The Principle of Life: Life can’t arise naturally, and yet it exists. Therefore life is the product of ID. 10. The Principle of Universal Design: The universe is made for life, which is highly improbable; therefore the universe is the product of ID. Hmmmm. Some of the posts we see here seem to be well described in these "Ten Laws." How about "Humor?"
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3983 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 2 of 78 (790258)
08-28-2016 3:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-27-2016 8:54 PM
|
|
Don't see a debate topic here
Could toss it into "Free For All" and let it wallow around there. Adminnemooseus
Or something like that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2016 8:54 PM | | Coyote has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2016 9:46 AM | | Adminnemooseus has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2301 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Don't see a debate topic here
Whatever you think best. Maybe in Humor?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3983 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 4 of 78 (790261)
08-28-2016 2:32 PM
|
|
|
Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6220 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 3.5
|
|
|
Message 5 of 78 (791158)
09-12-2016 11:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-27-2016 8:54 PM
|
|
Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Here is an interesting study of the Genesis accounts by a number of Biblical scholars that I found interesting. The point is that the creation accounts should be understood in the context of the culture of the time. By reading them scientifically we completely distort the point that the authors had in mind.
Science and Genesis
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2016 8:54 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1640 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 6 of 78 (791167)
09-12-2016 12:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The point is that the creation accounts should be understood in the context of the culture of the time. By reading them scientifically we completely distort the point that the authors had in mind. It's either God's communication to us or it isn't. If it is then whatever it says is truth and if that truth happens to be about the nature of the physical world then it's no less true whether you call it "scientific" or not. God's revelation is simply true, period. His revelation was naturally couched in the cultural and personal styles of His chosen spokesmen but it is no less His revelation of truth no matter what style was used. And by the way I don't know of any good theologian or Bible teacher who doesn't take the cultural context into account, but it is always understood to be vehicle and never to contradict God's message.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:53 PM | | Faith has replied | | | Message 12 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 1:46 PM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 15 by nwr, posted 09-12-2016 2:55 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9567 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 7.3
|
|
|
Message 7 of 78 (791173)
09-12-2016 12:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
GDR writes: Here is an interesting study of the Genesis accounts by a number of Biblical scholars that I found interesting. The point is that the creation accounts should be understood in the context of the culture of the time. What to make of this apologetica? Well they all say that the bible stories are written by men - lots of them - based on previous mythologies and designed to influence those of their culture at their time to accept another set of stories instead. Well no shit Sherlock!
By reading them scientifically we completely distort the point that the authors had in mind. What they mean is that when read by people with actual knowledge of our world, they make no sense at all. So in order to still be able to believe in this stuff, we have to abandon any hope of using reason and do something else instead. What this is supposed to be except some kind of aesthetic enjoyment of its art, is quite beyond me.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 2:01 PM | | Tangle has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17888 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 8 of 78 (791176)
09-12-2016 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:27 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Of course, even if you assume that it is Gods communication - in some sense - which is the most that you could actually get from the Bible that hardly means that it was intended to tell us what happened in the distant past. And it is far from clear that your views are correct even from looking at the text. For instance, if God wished to give us an accurate account of the Flood it seems rather odd that He would do it by mashing two versions of the story together.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:27 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1640 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 9 of 78 (791178)
09-12-2016 1:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
09-12-2016 12:53 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Of course, even if you assume that it is Gods communication - in some sense - which is the most that you could actually get from the Bible that hardly means that it was intended to tell us what happened in the distant past. Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
And it is far from clear that your views are correct even from looking at the text. Why should your views of my views be taken seriously at all?
For instance, if God wished to give us an accurate account of the Flood it seems rather odd that He would do it by mashing two versions of the story together. I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way? But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff, and some presumptuous people who call themselves "believers" but are in for a very rude shock. There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:53 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 607 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 10 of 78 (791181)
09-12-2016 1:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Faith writes: It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
So, since it isn't telling the truth about those events, it must not be God's word. Pretty simple.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17888 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 11 of 78 (791184)
09-12-2016 1:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
quote:
Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
Because it is not clear that Gods intended message - even from what the Bible says - is to be found in a literal reading.
quote:
I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way?
I said that it seems odd - why do that rather than simply producing a single story ? Athough I do have to point out it is hardly a way to get a literally accurate account. The stories differ and where they differ they can hardly both be correct.
quote:
But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff. There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.
I.e. Believers distort the Bible to fit their beliefs. Hardly the way to treat the literal "Word of God"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6220 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 3.5
|
|
|
Message 12 of 78 (791190)
09-12-2016 1:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:27 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Faith writes: It's either God's communication to us or it isn't. If it is then whatever it says is truth and if that truth happens to be about the nature of the physical world then it's no less true whether you call it "scientific" or not. God's revelation is simply true, period. His revelation was naturally couched in the cultural and personal styles of His chosen spokesmen but it is no less His revelation of truth no matter what style was used. And by the way I don't know of any good theologian or Bible teacher who doesn't take the cultural context into account, but it is always understood to be vehicle and never to contradict God's message. Just because it is written to ancient people by ancient authors does not mean that God can't speak through those scriptures to us today.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:27 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6220 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 3.5
|
|
|
Message 13 of 78 (791192)
09-12-2016 2:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by Tangle
09-12-2016 12:45 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
{qs=TangleWhat they mean is that when read by people with actual knowledge of our world, they make no sense at all. So in order to still be able to believe in this stuff, we have to abandon any hope of using reason and do something else instead. What this is supposed to be except some kind of aesthetic enjoyment of its art, is quite beyond me.[/qs] The message is philosophical not scientific.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Tangle, posted 09-12-2016 12:45 PM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by Tangle, posted 09-12-2016 2:38 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9567 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 7.3
|
|
|
Message 14 of 78 (791193)
09-12-2016 2:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
09-12-2016 2:01 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
GDR writes: The message is philosophical not scientific. And what - exactly - does that mean? Anything at all?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 2:01 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6481 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 9.7
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 15 of 78 (791194)
09-12-2016 2:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:27 PM
|
|
Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
It's either God's communication to us or it isn't.
Quite obviously, it isn't.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:27 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2