Intelligent design

[hokeyfine]

so when we get sick it's God punishing us for our sins?....don't laugh, this was actually preached by a baptist minister in a sermon that my daughter attended. i don't disagree with all that you're saying H-cat, i think you tend to loose people with "technical" jargon. KISS, keep it simple silly.

['93HonoluluCat]

so when we get sick it's God punishing us for our sins?

No, but we get sick because of the genetic atrophy introduced because of our sin.

i think you tend to loose people with "technical" jargon. KISS, keep it simple silly.

I try, but I think the theological background behind the statements sometimes helps defend the statements themselves.

[SonomaCat]

so when we get sick it's God punishing us for our sins?

No, but we get sick because of the genetic atrophy introduced because of our sin.

So God messed with our DNA to punish us for Adam's desire to be smart?

Who's he to play God like that? Oh, wait ... nevermind.

[hokeyfine]

H-cat: how about saying that we get sick because a virus got into our bodies and attacked our immune system. i think you're getting caught up in trying to explain everything with the bible. i believe God gave the world a push in the beginning(the big bang) and allowed it to "evolve". a wonderful creation he's made. i don't believe he punishes us. our bodies are a wonderous thing and have changed and adapted splendidly over time. we will continue to live longer, grow taller, jump higher(raise those baskets to 11'). i think it's pretty amazing.

['93HonoluluCat]

H-cat: how about saying that we get sick because a virus got into our bodies and attacked our immune system.

That's how it happens, but I took the question to be more theological in its basis, so I answered with more of a theological answer.

i think you're getting caught up in trying to explain everything with the bible.

Many things biological and scientific can be explained the way I did.

i believe God gave the world a push in the beginning(the big bang) and allowed it to "evolve". a wonderful creation he's made. i don't believe he punishes us. our bodies are a wonderous thing and have changed and adapted splendidly over time. we will continue to live longer, grow taller, jump higher(raise those baskets to 11'). i think it's pretty amazing.

I agree with your assessment of Creation--it is a wonderful thing He has made.

I do, though, disagree with limiting God's involvement to a single "push." To me, such an idea limits God, and it seems terribly impersonal. It is that desire for a personal relationship with us that makes the sacrifice of His Son on the cross so important. If He didn't want a personal relationship, He wouldn't have sent His Son.

If we're not able to take the book of Genesis--not only the story of Creation, but the cornerstone of the Bible--literally, why would we be able to take the Gospels--the story of our redemption through Christ--literally?

[hokeyfine]

i would disagree. in my mind it doesn't limit God or make Him less spectacular or impersonal. I liken it to my dad holding on to my bike seat for a little bit and then letting go yelling encouragement all the time. there is a literal interpretation of the bible, but there has to be a "figurative" interpretation. The importance is finding the balance. what was 7 days? do i really need to cut my hand off or gouge my eye's out if they cause me to sin? Does it really matter what 7 days is? the interpretation of what the bible is saying is very difficult, but a good read.

[SonomaCat]

A column discussing the topic:

http://www.reason.com/cy/cy080905.shtml

[iaafan]

There was show on the History Channel on Sunday night called Man to Ape. I found it interesting that several variations of man (not just a straight line evolution) has unfolded over the past 3+ million years. That homo sapiens and Neanderthal were rolling along at the same time, but h.s. had the edge on Nean. and brought on their extinction. So while we're related to Nean., it's not direct. Apparently homo sapiens ate fish as part of its protein source and thus was able to acquire more protein and advance past Neanderthal.
Something that's mind-boggling to me is that birds are dated some 300 million years ago. Which is 270 million more years than man.
It's also very interesting that there are those who believe that man came in his present form with no evolution, while all other living things have evolved. The show said that may be why Darwin didn't go into man much in Origin of Species. It was OK for him to detail how birds, etc. had evolved, but he knew he'd be criticized if he went to far re: man.

[SonomaCat]

I've seen lots of promos for that show, but I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it yet. If it happens to be available via on-demand on cable I might try to catch it late one of these nights. It looks really interesting. It's also nice to see something on the History channel that doesn't include the word "Hitler." Not that I have anything against WWII history at all, but they kind of beat it to death (figuratively speaking).

[briannell]

August 10, 2005
Kansas Board Advances a Draft Critical of Evolution
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TOPEKA, Kan., Aug. 9 (AP) - The State Board of Education has approved the latest draft of science standards that include greater criticism of evolution.

The board approved the draft on Tuesday by a vote to 6 to 4. It then voted to send it to be reviewed by outside academics. The board is expected to give its final approval in October.

The draft says the board is not advocating the teaching of "intelligent design," which contends that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent creator, not evolution. But the language favored by the board does come from advocates of intelligent design.

In a debate on Tuesday, board members opposed to the draft said religion had no place in the science classroom.

"When mainstream science accepts this, we can put them in science classes," said Janet Waugh, who voted against the latest draft of the standards.

Proponents of the draft said they wanted a more balanced view of evolution and cited testimony from a hearing in May featuring advocates of intelligent design.

Kathy Martin, the newest board member and a former science teacher, said that opponents of the draft were overreacting and that Kansas was not going to lose any jobs or technological advancements because evolution was given a critical eye.

"I hope you guys can realize it's not going to be the end of the world," Ms. Martin said. "I hope you will try to be more open-minded."

The standards are used to develop state tests for 4th, 7th and 10th graders, with local schools having the final say on what is taught in their classrooms. Students will be tested on the new standards in the 2007-8 school year.

In 1999 the Kansas board drew international attention when it deleted most references to evolution from its science standards. Elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in the 2004 elections.

['93HonoluluCat]

i would disagree. in my mind it doesn't limit God or make Him less spectacular or impersonal. I liken it to my dad holding on to my bike seat for a little bit and then letting go yelling encouragement all the time. there is a literal interpretation of the bible, but there has to be a "figurative" interpretation. The importance is finding the balance. what was 7 days? do i really need to cut my hand off or gouge my eye's out if they cause me to sin? Does it really matter what 7 days is? the interpretation of what the bible is saying is very difficult, but a good read.

The "Seven Days" issue and the "Hand Cut Off" are really two seperate issues. In the Bible there are times where the time measurements are figurative. But those times are clearly described as such (see Job 36:26 and 2 Peter 3:8-9). The text says "one day is like [or as] a thousand years" -- the word "like" (or "as") shows that it is a figure of speech, to teach that God is outside of time (because He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so much with 1000 years -- to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same.

In any case, the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1 is defined by the context there. There is no simile, so the days are meant to be literal. The meaning of the days of creation as ordinary days is also affirmed by Exodus 20:8–11, where God told the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh because God had made all things in six days and rested on the seventh.

As for the issue of "cutting off the hand" or "gouging out eyes," it is shown in the context what the Apostle Paul was trying to say. He was merely trying to show that we should remove things from our lives that continually make us sin -- the TV, etc.

Almost forgot your last question: it absolutely matters what Genesis says. If you can't trust Genesis, how can you trust the rest of the Bible? And if you can't trust the whole Bible, how can you trust in the salvation from Christ?

Sorry for the long post, everyone...I couldn't help myself....

[iaafan]

Wouldn't it make more sense if it were the other way around. Literal instead of figurative. Literally have a day equal a thousand years wouldn't satisfy the scientists, but it be a step in the right direction. Unless there's just no way the Earth can be more than 25,000 years old.

It could say it took a day to create the rivers, etc. but since a day was a thousand years we could all cut the Bible some slack and say the authors really had no idea that it actually took Him millions of years to do all those things. A day is pushing it, isn't it?

['93HonoluluCat]

Unless there's just no way the Earth can be more than 25,000 years old.

Why is that hard to believe?

It could say it took a day to create the rivers, etc. but since a day was a thousand years we could all cut the Bible some slack and say the authors really had no idea that it actually took Him millions of years to do all those things. A day is pushing it, isn't it?

Such lines of thought limit the power of God. If He created it, why couldn't he do it in a week?

[SonomaCat]

Another article debating the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2124297/nav/tap1/

[hokeyfine]

hmmmm...lost in translation. that's kind of my point h-cat. where as you and i understand that paul didn't "literally" want us to cut our hand off many people would then argue that the bible isn't all literal. The end point i was trying to make, in a round about way, was that we get caught up in minute detail and we lose the big picture. As a scientist I have no problem understanding evolution and Gods guidance in it. I marvel and celebrate it. Believing this doesn't diminish the message, in my mind.

[iaafan]

Right. Why can't God not be so all powerful and all knowing. Why can't he still be working on us via evolution. Seems like a decent compromise.
"Ape to Man" airs on the History Channel again tonight from 6-8 Montana time. 5-7 Pacific? Or they might have a different feed.

[hokeyfine]

i'm not saying he isn't all powerful and all knowing, i'm saying that he gave life a "push" and away we go. in my eye's it doesn't diminsh anything about God, it just emphasizes how wonderful a place that has been "created".

['93HonoluluCat]

i'm not saying he isn't all powerful and all knowing, i'm saying that he gave life a "push" and away we go. in my eye's it doesn't diminsh anything about God, it just emphasizes how wonderful a place that has been "created".

But if He called Creation "good," why then should we have evolved? If the world was good enough for God, why would our genetic structure need to change?

God created us perfectly. We didn't evolve from any sort of animal--in fact, we were created seperate from the animals.

[hokeyfine]

i never said we evolved from an animal. man was made different from animals, i believe that was always the plan. Since then we've gotten a little taller, a little smarter, a little older, etc. i'm sure he thought it was good, and i'm sure he didn't think that everything would stay the same. i'm sure he knew that animals would die out and others would take their place.

[iaafan]

Bush and 'intelligent design'
Last week, in an interview with Texas reporters, Bush answered a question about "intelligent design" by referring obliquely back to his time as governor, saying, "I felt like both sides ought to be taught." Pressed by a reporter whether both evolution and intelligent design should be taught, Bush indicated yes, adding, "So people can understand what the debate is about." And later, The New York Times reported, he said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
In Dover, Pennsylvania, next month the issue will come to a head in what some are calling "Scopes 2." It's an ACLU court challenge to a school district's decision to require "intelligent design" 's being taught as an alternative to evolution.
As for evolution, Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, argued in an interview last week, "Evolution is extraordinary in that it's the most robust theory in the history of science. It's 150 years old and it extended into a world on a molecular level. Darwin had never heard of DNA, but it is precisely what the theory of evolution would have predicted."
Denied an understanding of evolution, said Henry, "students end up not being able to understand natural phenomena, and if they aren't able to come to conclusions and theories supported by evidence, they're going to be at a fantastic disadvantage in a world where using science is the major basis of competition."
H.L. Mencken referred to William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes monkey trial as a sort of "fundamentalist pope," and that is the way any half-alert school principal will now see Bush. When requesting public funds, the principal should include lessons on "intelligent design" in his curriculum or face political repercussions at the Department of Education and other government agencies.
The Scopes trial was a made-up event to promote the town of Dayton, Tennessee. Townsmen persuaded John Scopes, a high school biology teacher who taught evolution, to stand in a case designed to test the state's law banning the teaching of evolution. At the trial famed lawyer Clarence Darrow represented Scopes, while Bryan, a three-time Democratic presidential candidate and populist, spoke for the state.
As the trial began, the Bible was entered as evidence. Then, in what The New York Times at the time reported as "the most amazing court scene in Anglo Saxon history," Darrow called Bryan, a self-declared student of the Bible, to the stand and proceeded to grill him on the meaning of the scriptures, asking question after question: the size of the fish that swallowed Jonah, the date of the great flood, Joshua making the sun stand still, and the temptation of Adam in the Garden of Eden, among other things. "Do you think the earth was made in six days?" asked Darrow. Which led to this exchange:
Darrow: Have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?
Bryan: No.
Q: You have not?
A: No; the God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow.
Q: I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?
A: No.
Q: Don't you know it would have been converted into a molten mass of matter?
A: You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance.
Q: Don't you believe it?
A: I would want to hear expert testimony on that.
Q: You have never investigated that subject?
A: I don't think I have ever had the question asked.
Q: Or ever thought of it?
A: I have been too busy on thinks that I thought were of more importance than that.
"Darrow has lost this case," wrote Mencken at the end of the trial, which gave Bryan a technical victory that was later thrown out. "It was lost long before he came to Dayton. But it seems to me that he has nevertheless performed a great public service by fighting it to a finish and in a perfectly serious way. Let no one mistake it for comedy, farcical though it may be in all its details. It serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of sense and devoid of conscience. Tennessee, challenging him too timorously and too late, now sees its courts converted into camp meetings and its Bill of Rights made a mock of by its sworn officers of the law. There are other States that had better look to their arsenals before the Hun is at their gates."