discovery versus jesus

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

I guess you misunderstood my point. I wasn't defending either side of it, my entire point was that using either doesn't prove anything. My response was specifically to the person who was trying to do such a thing - it had no reference to you.

 

 

 

But you helped prove my point. Neither skepticism (such as people with epistemologicial mindsets) nor pragmatism can prove anything. I agree with you 100%.

 

 

 

Just to re-emphasize: I never said one philosophical method was anymore "sure" than another. I was pointing out that they don't PROVE anything, they are just a way of thinking. Not quite sure why you reacted the way you did.

 

 

 

 

It does prove the philosophical action to the person that believes in the method, if it doesn't prove anything then people wouldn't use the method. Opposition to a method doesn't make it any less valid (it doesn't prove anything), it just shows that there is more then one way to resolve a philosophical conflict; both methods are equally valid if they are self-consistent. They don't prove anything in the physical sense but they do prove things in the philosophical sense (otherwise people wouldn't use any specific method).

 

 

 

No, it doesn't prove anything in the philosophical sense. It might act as support for your belief, it might be a method of explaining how you came to your concluision, but it does not prove your belief. You are confusing proving something and merely showing how a person arrived at their own personal conclusion.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

No, it doesn't prove anything in the philosophical sense. It might act as support for your belief, it might be a method of explaining how you came to your concluision, but it does not prove your belief. You are confusing proving something and merely showing how a person arrived at their own personal conclusion.

 

 

 

A proof for applying a philosophical method to a real world situation would go something like this:

 

 

 

Premise 1 (Factual)

 

Premise 2 (Connecting fact-value premise)

 

Premise 3 (Evaluative premise)

 

Conclusion (Evaluative)

 

 

 

Using an example:

 

A human foetus has a brainwave after 25 weeks of gestation.

 

A human with a brainwave is a person.

 

Killing a person is morally wrong.

 

Therefore, killing a foetus with a brainwave is morally wrong.

 

 

 

Although you might not agree with it, it is a proof and it proves my belief. Anyway this is getting a little silly, so IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to really go into it much more. It comes down to what you consider the meaning of proof really is; to me the above is a proof.

[pianofrieak2]

 

Not to detract from the topic but No, science does not back up intelligent design. Anyone that believes in the intelligent design debate (and furthermore that intelligent design is a real, provable alternative) is either ignorant or mentally mentally challenged; IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m guessing your just ignorant.

 

 

 

No offense, death, but how many books have you read on the Intelligent Design side of the debate?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

No offense, death, but how many books have you read on the Intelligent Design side of the debate?

 

 

 

I havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t read any specific books however I have read quite a few articles on intelligent design (including ones from authors such as Behe) but thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s beside the point. Why do I have to read any books on the design side when there are many, many articles out there that completely refute what they say? You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have to read any books about dragons or unicorns to know that they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist.

 

 

 

Intelligent design might have made sense 100 years ago when we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know about things such as DNA; we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even need fossils anymore to show evolution occurs. Evolution doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t affect Jesus or religion; it just explains what happens to populations over time, it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell us where the universe came from or anything just simply that we change over time (and if you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see that, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re blind). Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to debate this in much more depth but if you have any further questions you can PM me. Oh yeah how many books have you read on evolution?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Intelligent design might have made sense 100 years ago when we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know about things such as DNA; we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even need fossils anymore to show evolution occurs. Evolution doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t affect Jesus or religion; it just explains what happens to populations over time, it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell us where the universe came from or anything just simply that we change over time (and if you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see that, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re blind). Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to debate this in much more depth but if you have any further questions you can PM me. Oh yeah how many books have you read on evolution?

 

 

 

Intelligent design doesn't refute evolution, so explaining how accurate evolution is hardly makes an argument against intelligent design.

[Astralinre]

Intelligent design might have made sense 100 years ago when we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know about things such as DNA; we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even need fossils anymore to show evolution occurs. Evolution doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t affect Jesus or religion; it just explains what happens to populations over time, it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell us where the universe came from or anything just simply that we change over time (and if you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see that, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re blind). Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to debate this in much more depth but if you have any further questions you can PM me. Oh yeah how many books have you read on evolution?

 

 

 

Intelligent design doesn't refute evolution, so explaining how accurate evolution is hardly makes an argument against intelligent design.

 

 

 

Yup, creationism explains the beginning; evolution explains what has happened to creatures since then.

[VOV]

Any sane person knows that those bones found in the ground that are said to be proof of evolution were actually placed there by the Devil to trick us.

[Howie101]

Or....it could all be stories...such as in the bible....a big book of stories yet to be proven.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Intelligent design doesn't refute evolution, so explaining how accurate evolution is hardly makes an argument against intelligent design.

 

 

 

Taken from the Discovery Institute (The top intelligent design ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâresearchÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ centre)

 

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

 

 

 

"1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

 

 

 

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

 

 

 

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s in the very definition of intelligent design (not processes like natural selection). Intelligent design is a counter ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâtheoryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to evolution, one that states we are created by a designer rather then through evolution. If evolution explains all the data we have available and is capable of prediction, then we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need a competing theory; intelligent design canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even do that (in any scientific sense).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, creationism explains the beginning; evolution explains what has happened to creatures since then.

 

 

 

Can creationism describe how the universe was created (ideas like inflation, formation of the solar systemÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ) in any detail? Creationism is only an allegory for the creation of the universe, its like using George OrwellÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Animal Farm to explain totalitarianism and capitalism; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a greatly simplified story using symbolic representation of what really happened. It might be vaguely true but we shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be using it as a standard.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Intelligent design doesn't refute evolution, so explaining how accurate evolution is hardly makes an argument against intelligent design.

 

 

 

Taken from the Discovery Institute (The top intelligent design ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâresearchÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ centre)

 

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

 

 

 

"1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

 

 

 

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

 

 

 

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s in the very definition of intelligent design (not processes like natural selection). Intelligent design is a counter ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâtheoryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to evolution, one that states we are created by a designer rather then through evolution. If evolution explains all the data we have available and is capable of prediction, then we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need a competing theory; intelligent design canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even do that (in any scientific sense).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, creationism explains the beginning; evolution explains what has happened to creatures since then.

 

 

 

Can creationism describe how the universe was created (ideas like inflation, formation of the solar systemÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ) in any detail? Creationism is only an allegory for the creation of the universe, its like using George OrwellÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Animal Farm to explain totalitarianism and capitalism; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a greatly simplified story using symbolic representation of what really happened. It might be vaguely true but we shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be using it as a standard.

 

 

 

1) That happens to be that institute's definition of intelligent design. The idea of intelligent design existed way before that institute did.

 

 

 

2) I agree that creationism should not be taught in a science class, it should be taught with the religion that supports it as part of the social science curriculum. But it's not a vague standard as you suggest.

[Purepehmo]

Haha looks like I'm winning on this arguement since everybody knows that I'm telling the truth. 8)

[pianofrieak2]

Any sane person knows that those bones found in the ground that are said to be proof of evolution were actually placed there by the Devil to trick us.

 

 

 

Um...great point. You're making your side look completely ignorant. :?

 

 

 

Besides, even if there were fossils in the ground proving evolution, don't you think we would have found them?

 

 

 

I give you a quote from Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. He is probalby the best paleontologist in the world since he's the senior paleontologist at the best museum of natural history in the world.

 

 

 

"If I knew of any evolutionary transitions, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them in my book Evolution."

 

 

 

He didn't which means he doesn't know of any. :roll:

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, Colin Patterson is an atheist. :wink: He writes again, "Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems to convey anti-knowledge."

 

 

 

Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking man are all frauds...and they're still in some textbooks!! :x

 

 

 

And death by pod, you're right about what intelligent design is. It doesn't refute evolution but merely points to an intelligent cause for some of the universe's beginnings. I would agree with Ghost that we shouldn't teach creationism in schools...but we should teach intelligent design since everything is a theory.

 

 

 

No one was there...no one knows...and by only teaching one theory...it becomes truth. Which is making the public both ignorant and blind-sided.

 

 

 

BTW, you keep seem to be talking about microevolution...which everyone has to agree with. But once you bring macroevolution into the picture, that's where the controversy occurs.

[CoRnMaN]

It would be stupid for people wasting their times trying to work out how I used to be able to fly unaided just as it is Jesus on water. Neither truely happened so its pointless.

You were there? Did you go fishing with them?...

 

 

 

I'm sorry I would just rather take a 2000 year old book's opinion over yours.

 

 

 

If people accept Jesus was real, why don't people accept what he did is real?

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Of course, all the other thousands of year old books and texts are wrong, mind.

[CoRnMaN]

Of course, all the other thousands of year old books and texts are wrong, mind.

My bad, I ment acurate.

[cocacolabottle]

I didn't read all the 8 pages so I don't really know everyone's arguments so I'll just post mine, taking the chance to being flamed.

 

 

 

So first here this: I read this article where a bunch of scientists took 3 bottles of water. They first checked the first bottle of water with a microscope, and remembering how the watermolecules looked like. Then to the second bottle of water, they focused all their thoughts and kept saying "I love you, you are beautiful". They checked the molecules, and noticed they looked incredibly beautiful, not even able to describe how beautiful. They now took the 3d bottle of water, and said: "I hate you, you are ugly, disgusting!", checked the molecules, and looked absolutely horrifying.

 

 

 

Now, if you know that the human body contains 90% water, if you see what those thoughts could do to a simple bottle of water, imagine what thoughts could do to the human body.

 

 

 

Therefore I think it is absolutely possible to walk on water, all you have to do, is focuse all your energy and thoughts into it, and believe that you actually can.

[VOV]

Any sane person knows that those bones found in the ground that are said to be proof of evolution were actually placed there by the Devil to trick us.

 

 

 

Um...great point. You're making your side look completely ignorant. :?

 

 

 

Besides, even if there were fossils in the ground proving evolution, don't you think we would have found them?

 

 

 

I give you a quote from Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. He is probalby the best paleontologist in the world since he's the senior paleontologist at the best museum of natural history in the world.

 

 

 

"If I knew of any evolutionary transitions, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them in my book Evolution."

 

 

 

He didn't which means he doesn't know of any. :roll:

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, Colin Patterson is an atheist. :wink: He writes again, "Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems to convey anti-knowledge."

 

 

 

Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking man are all frauds...and they're still in some textbooks!! :x

 

 

 

And death by pod, you're right about what intelligent design is. It doesn't refute evolution but merely points to an intelligent cause for some of the universe's beginnings. I would agree with Ghost that we shouldn't teach creationism in schools...but we should teach intelligent design since everything is a theory.

 

 

 

No one was there...no one knows...and by only teaching one theory...it becomes truth. Which is making the public both ignorant and blind-sided.

 

 

 

BTW, you keep seem to be talking about microevolution...which everyone has to agree with. But once you bring macroevolution into the picture, that's where the controversy occurs.

 

 

 

My side? I'm on your side my good man!

 

 

 

I know in my heart of hearts that this "evolution" mumbo-jumbo is a pack of lies created by a bunch of heathens and non-believers. What has this "science" ever done for you or I? Nothing next to the power of Jesus and his teachings.

[pianofrieak2]

I didn't read all the 8 pages so I don't really know everyone's arguments so I'll just post mine, taking the chance to being flamed.

 

 

 

So first here this: I read this article where a bunch of scientists took 3 bottles of water. They first checked the first bottle of water with a microscope, and remembering how the watermolecules looked like. Then to the second bottle of water, they focused all their thoughts and kept saying "I love you, you are beautiful". They checked the molecules, and noticed they looked incredibly beautiful, not even able to describe how beautiful. They now took the 3d bottle of water, and said: "I hate you, you are ugly, disgusting!", checked the molecules, and looked absolutely horrifying.

 

 

 

Now, if you know that the human body contains 90% water, if you see what those thoughts could do to a simple bottle of water, imagine what thoughts could do to the human body.

 

 

 

Therefore I think it is absolutely possible to walk on water, all you have to do, is focuse all your energy and thoughts into it, and believe that you actually can.

 

 

 

Because beautiful is subjective, your point really doesn't exist. Besides, you're blending New Age teachings to support a Christian miracle which has already been established as being supernatural and, thus, needs no physical explanation. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

My side? I'm on your side my good man!

 

 

 

I know in my heart of hearts that this "evolution" mumbo-jumbo is a pack of lies created by a bunch of heathens and non-believers. What has this "science" ever done for you or I? Nothing next to the power of Jesus and his teachings.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my reply...I thought you were trying to make Christians look stupid and got a little offended. Forgive me.

 

 

 

However, remember that Paul said to be prepared to give an answer to everything. That includes the realms of science...not just philosophy or theology. You should know with physical, scientific, empirical knowledge that your viewpoint makes sense and even seems plausible. Truth should do that, of course.

 

 

 

And I agree about the power of Christ's words and teachings. :D

[Guest GhostRanger]

My side? I'm on your side my good man!

 

 

 

I know in my heart of hearts that this "evolution" mumbo-jumbo is a pack of lies created by a bunch of heathens and non-believers. What has this "science" ever done for you or I? Nothing next to the power of Jesus and his teachings.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my reply...I thought you were trying to make Christians look stupid and got a little offended. Forgive me.

 

 

 

That's precisely what he is doing. :wink:

[Licky Kat]

sorry I did not have time to read 8 pages of replies, but as to the original post

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04 ... ence.reut/

 

 

 

MIAMI, Florida (Reuters) -- The New Testament says that Jesus walked on water, but a Florida university professor believes there could be a less miraculous explanation -- he walked on a floating piece of ice.

 

 

 

Professor Doron Nof also theorized in the early 1990s that Moses's parting of the Red Sea had solid science behind it.

 

 

 

Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, said on Tuesday that his study found an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee.

 

 

 

Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret.

 

 

 

The study found that a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago could have included the decades in which Jesus lived.

 

 

 

A drop in temperature below freezing could have caused ice -- thick enough to support a human -- to form on the surface of the freshwater lake near the western shore, Nof said. It might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water.

 

 

 

Nof said he offered his study -- published in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology -- as a "possible explanation" for Jesus' walk on water.

 

 

 

"If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof said. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it."

 

 

 

"We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."

 

 

 

When he offered his theory 14 years ago that wind and sea conditions could explain the parting of the Red Sea, Nof said he received some hate mail, even though he noted that the idea could support the biblical description of the event.

 

 

 

And as his theory of Jesus' walk on ice began to circulate, he had more hate mail in his e-mail inbox.

 

 

 

"They asked me if I'm going to try next to explain the resurrection," he said.

 

 

 

Copyright 2006 Reuters.

 

------------------

 

 

 

I can believe it more than I can it was just water with nothing else.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

1) That happens to be that institute's definition of intelligent design. The idea of intelligent design existed way before that institute did.

 

 

 

2) I agree that creationism should not be taught in a science class, it should be taught with the religion that supports it as part of the social science curriculum. But it's not a vague standard as you suggest.

 

 

 

1)Anyone associated with intelligent design is associated with the institute (Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Wells etc.). Do you think that the biggest intelligent design centre with the biggest names, spawning the biggest ideas (including one of the most important ideas, irreducible complexity) would have an incorrect definition of the term intelligent design? Who cares if intelligent design was used before the institute, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use DarwinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s meaning of Evolution nor do we use the 1847 meaning of intelligent design:

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅNo physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possibleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[insane]

I read a bit about Behe's book Darwin's Black Box - it doesn't really support intelligent design. I read the first few couple chapters (couldn't get through it all, 'twas too advanced scientifically for me), and Behe was saying that intelligent design wasn't based on any decent evidence, and he said that evolution was the same way.

[pianofrieak2]

 

 

 

Social science is still science, its science relating to the study of human aspects of the world rather then natural; you still use scientific method and qualitative/quantitative methodologies. Creationism/ID doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t fall among Social science; the sole place for it is religion study.

 

 

 

Since you've apparently read enough to know some key terms, how do you explain away irreducible complexity? Why would you say it has absolutely no relevance? Is that because it appeals to a higher power for the creation of the world as compared to gases that assembled...according to gravity (which, oddly enough depends upon mass which was scattered throughout the universe)? Besides, it doesn't address the core of the earth or anything else that makes the Earth the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

Compare the account of Genesis to any textbook; the text book will always describe nature in more detail and relevance then what genesis does. There is no point in talking about genesis in any more detail then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s needed for a historical background of the bible. It might have been a great teaching tool a thousand or so years ago but itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s lost its scientific relevance for teaching today.

 

 

 

I'm not advocating teaching Genesis in public schools. I AM saying teaching Genesis' ideas about the world...through the eyes of intelligent Design.

 

 

 

BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. :?

[Guest GhostRanger]

1)Anyone associated with intelligent design is associated with the institute (Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Wells etc.). Do you think that the biggest intelligent design centre with the biggest names, spawning the biggest ideas (including one of the most important ideas, irreducible complexity) would have an incorrect definition of the term intelligent design? Who cares if intelligent design was used before the institute, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use DarwinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s meaning of Evolution nor do we use the 1847 meaning of intelligent design:

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅNo physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possibleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[bearofthunder]

I think there's been a misunderstanding of vocabulary over the last couple of pages. The correct meaning of intelligent design states that it refutes natural selection, which is an integral part of evolution, so intelligent design does contradict evolution. What Ghost says, however, is that god caused evolution, which can't really be proven either way so is, I think, a valid claim.

 

 

 

but...

 

 

Because the Bible is a theological book, it does not give the science behind how it was done. That's irrelevant to religion, but it doesn't mean religion refutes the science behind it.

 

 

 

So this stuff:

on the first day God created light; on the second, the firmament of heaven; on the third, he separated water and land, and created plant life; on the fourth day he created the sun, moon, and stars; on the fifth day marine life and birds; on the sixth day land animals, and man and woman. On the seventh day, the Sabbath, God rested, and sanctified the day.

is metaphorical? I thought the "world appeared in seven days" concept was what Christians think actually happened.

 

 

 

 

Since you've apparently read enough to know some key terms, how do you explain away irreducible complexity? Why would you say it has absolutely no relevance? Is that because it appeals to a higher power for the creation of the world as compared to gases that assembled...according to gravity (which, oddly enough depends upon mass which was scattered throughout the universe)? Besides, it doesn't address the core of the earth or anything else that makes the Earth the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

1. irreducible complexity - The different parts of something complex were

 

added at different times. You're assuming that every single part was created at the same time. Complex objects become complex. They don't begin as complex objects.

 

 

 

2. The existence of masses scattered throughout the universe are no more bizarre than the existence of virgin births or a man who can part the seas. In fact, it seems to be rather mundane.

 

 

 

3. The Earth is not the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

I'm not advocating teaching Genesis in public schools. I AM saying teaching Genesis' ideas about the world...through the eyes of intelligent Design.

 

 

 

BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A THEORY.

 

 

 

God is present in high school biology classes. It's called "Divine origins." It takes up one powerpoint slide, along with "extraterrestrial interference", during the introduction to the evolution chapter. Why can't we go into more detail and teach intelligent design in science class?

 

because:

 

Intelligent design cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions and proposes no changes to its hypothesis.

 

 

 

Intelligent design is geared towards refuting evolution. The only objective and teachable concept in ID is the existence of a higher being, which is already being taught. All the other concepts (irreducible complexity, etc) are meant to argue against claims made in evolution. The problem, obviously, is that evolution, as a truely scientific theory (refer to the quote above), has already changed its hypothesis (unlike ID) over the years to take into account these claims.

 

 

 

It would be kind of like not teaching French in French class, but instead teaching why French is better in English class.