NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[peter12]

It's also interesting to note how many Christians really aren't aware of much of the Bible's content. Sure, everyone knows the common stories, like Noah and the flood, David and Goliath, Moses parting the Red Sea, etc., but what about the tale in Genesis where Lot freely offers his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by the mob in Sodom (and the same story being repeated with different characters and slightly different details in the Book of Judges).

That particular story has a lot deep dimensions beyond a literal interpretation of the text. If you read that passage out of context, you get the idea that the lives of Lot's male guests are more important than the lives of his virgin daughters. You also get the impression that homosexuality is considered to be evil.

I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not a Biblical scholar. I do know from I've read that this story has deeper connotations. First, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't condemned for being homosexuals. It was the perversion, the rapacity of its citizens. They don't show hospitality to the divine guests, but want to use them for their bodies and discard them

Lot is only slightly better in contrast. He invites the guests into his home, but offers his virgin daughters to the crowd. Lot is compromising with evil. He is weak and doesn't confront the people of Sodom when he should. Most scholars believe this story to be part of a long line of stories comparing the nobleness and kindness of Abraham to the weakness and selfishness of Lot. I know for a fact that story is not supporting or condoning gang rape of women.

This is what I mean when I say deeper study is needed. Things are almost never what they appear at face value.

[Azure]

Simply being raised as a devout Catholic doesn't necessarily mean one will have memorized every single passage throughout the Bible....nor does it mean they will understand it.

There are a lot of stories I wouldn't remember offhand if someone asked me, and I've read through the Bible numerous times. Why? Because I didn't study it. Its like a novel...I've read certain books numerous times yet I couldn't recite anything from THAT book outside of what happens in the end.

Plus, Catholics have a history of discouraging their 'people' from reading the Bible. How long did it take before the Catholic Church allowed their followers to actually own a Bible, and read it by themselves.

Some people call themselves Christian, simply based on their church going record, and the fact that they read a few chapters every night. To those of us who actually understand the true meaning behind Christianity, we realize that such a belief is not centered around NOT missing mass, or knowing every freakin' story in the Bible....but by what you believe, and your faith in that belief.

I also didn't know until recently that Judas didn't die from hanging himself....he died from 'trying' to hang himself but happened to fail that way, and fell....killing himself in some strange way.

Of course I probably read that part of the Bible numerous times, but it never stood out to me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is what I mean when I say deeper study is needed. Things are almost never what they appear at face value.

Funny how so people condemn the literal interpretation of the Bible, but end up themselves doing the exact same thing.



Good post btw.

[photon]

My favorite strange OT story is the one where a group of kids call Elisha "baldy" and Elisha summons two she-bears and they go out and maul 42 of the kids.

As someone who has thinning hair, I can honestly say being able to summon two bears to do my bidding would be satisfactory compensation for the hair loss.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Why don't I go to church? I don't have time like many other Canadians. Again, I'm not sure what your point is in bringing that up.

You don't have one hour, once a week, to go to church? Or are your beliefs not really important enough to you to make that commitment? I submit that it is far more likely to be the latter.

To quote our good friend the Bible (Rev 3:14-19)
"You are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of My mouth. For you say 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.' You don’t realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."

This may come across as tangential to the discussion, but I don't think it is. What is frustrating for me, as an atheist, is that there are so many people who SAY they are Christians and believers, yet might as well be atheists for all the effect their belief has on their actions. Yet their vague affiliation encourages the evangelicals and nutbars into thinking we live in a Christian-dominated society that just needs to be shepherded back to the path of righteousness. Well, we don't - we live in society where secular values are triumphant, and "Christian" ideals are no more than a convenient veneer for the majority who don't care enough about what they believe to consider those beliefs objectively.

In a way, it reminds me of what used to happen back when missionaries first reached Japan. If your lord became a Christian, you would become one too, and if enough people in an area converted, you might decide to be a "rice Christian" - one who went along with the flow in order to reap the benefits of being part of the "club". After all, you might reason, does it really matter what I believe as long as it gets me ahead and doesn't really hurt anyone?

I see our society as having plenty of these club-members, willing to say they are Christians because they were born into membership and the dues aren't too high. Is that, however, how it should be? I think not, yet I think it will take a very long time before the "Atheist Club" gets the benefits of being the common person's default membership.

[Azure]

Great post jammies.

You mentioned a lot of EXACT problems I have with so-called Christianity today.

Just because your 'lord' is a Christian...just because you were born into a Christian family....you're not automatically a Christian too.

Shame really....but I'm glad you brought it up. Too many people on both sides of the coin fail to realize that problem.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

I

I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not a Biblical scholar. I do know from I've read that this story has deeper connotations. First, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't condemned for being homosexuals. It was the perversion, the rapacity of its citizens. They don't show hospitality to the divine guests, but want to use them for their bodies and discard them

I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not a Biblical scholar either, but this sounds like a lot of gobbledey to me.

Deeper connotations, fair enough, but the fire and brimstone business -- is there a deeper connotation? Was the town destroyed and the people killed by God and his fire and brimstone, or does that mean something else?

And they "didn't show hospitality to the divine guests"? Fine. That's a decent enough explanation for the story, but it still doesn't change the original idea that actual angels came down from heaven and were in a real place on earth and they were hanging out with live human beings.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not a Biblical scholar either, but this sounds like a lot of gobbledey to me.

Deeper connotations, fair enough, but the fire and brimstone business -- is there a deeper connotation? Was the town destroyed and the people killed by God and his fire and brimstone, or does that mean something else?

And they "didn't show hospitality to the divine guests"? Fine. That's a decent enough explanation for the story, but it still doesn't change the original idea that actual angels came down from heaven and were in a real place on earth and they were hanging out with live human beings.

I don't know. Judging from the parallel passage later on, it's probably a myth. Something with a moral message. Justice for the evil, mercy for the good.

[MarchHare]

I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not a Biblical scholar either, but this sounds like a lot of gobbledey to me.

As luck would have it, my wife speaks Hebrew and she's a Biblical scholar (I guess...she has a B.A. Honours in Religious Studies from McGill, specializing in the Western Abrahamic religions). I know she's studied this particular story in her classes. Unfortunately, she's sleeping right now, but I'll ask her tomorrow what the supposed message of that tale was, other than being another sad, disgraceful tale of female oppression (of which the Bible is filled with many -- keep that in mind anytime you hear someone preaching about the superiority of "Biblical values").

Something else that never sat right with me, that most people rarely give a second though to, is the story in Exodus about the plagues on Egypt, particularly the final plague, in which God kills all the first-born sons of the Egyptians. WTF is up with that? Ok, I get that Pharoah is portrayed as an evil overlord because he enslaved "God's chosen people", but why punish the average Egyptian family? God was quite literally a baby killer, a genocidal monster, and this is a story that people tell their children as a glorified example of good triumphing over evil.

[Edit]

the nobleness and kindness of Abraham

The same Abraham who very nearly murdered his own son because the voice in his head told him to? The same Abraham who twice pretended his wife was actually his sister so that she could seduce other men?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jammies

You don't have one hour, once a week, to go to church? Or are your beliefs not really important enough to you to make that commitment? I submit that it is far more likely to be the latter.

To quote our good friend the Bible (Rev 3:14-19)
"You are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of My mouth. For you say 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.' You don’t realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."

This may come across as tangential to the discussion, but I don't think it is. What is frustrating for me, as an atheist, is that there are so many people who SAY they are Christians and believers, yet might as well be atheists for all the effect their belief has on their actions. Yet their vague affiliation encourages the evangelicals and nutbars into thinking we live in a Christian-dominated society that just needs to be shepherded back to the path of righteousness. Well, we don't - we live in society where secular values are triumphant, and "Christian" ideals are no more than a convenient veneer for the majority who don't care enough about what they believe to consider those beliefs objectively.

In a way, it reminds me of what used to happen back when missionaries first reached Japan. If your lord became a Christian, you would become one too, and if enough people in an area converted, you might decide to be a "rice Christian" - one who went along with the flow in order to reap the benefits of being part of the "club". After all, you might reason, does it really matter what I believe as long as it gets me ahead and doesn't really hurt anyone?

I see our society as having plenty of these club-members, willing to say they are Christians because they were born into membership and the dues aren't too high. Is that, however, how it should be? I think not, yet I think it will take a very long time before the "Atheist Club" gets the benefits of being the common person's default membership.

If only it was as simple as one hour. Firstly, the Bible says that congregating and discussing should be done but doesn't say that you have to go to church. Secondly, I've tried a number of churches in Calgary and none of them have felt right. It's important to go to a church that you like and feel at home in. As a non-denominational Christian, it's very hard to find one that feels right, and I haven't yet. Thirdly, I don't drive. So what's one hour for most people and maybe half an hour of travel is at least an hour and a half of travel as well as the hour long service. Doesnt' seem like much except when you work two jobs just to pay the bills and end up scheduled at least half the Sundays.

I don't have to go to church to be a Christian. Not going to church doesn't diminish my faith. I still am able to converse with Christians as I should to reaffirm my faith.

[metal_geek]

, the Bible says that congregating and discussing should be done

Thats the problem with religion, talk amoungst yourselves, but don't talk to anyone else about it. Don't "Spred the word". Talk to other believers about how the universe was created in 6 days, but don't try to teach it in schools as an alternate theory along side of theorys based on science.
________
Coach Purses

[kermitology]

I personally don't see that big of a deal with ID being taught at the same time as evolution. I'd prefer that the God context just be ignored though. Suffice it to say that things adapt, mostly based on environment. Whether or not it's God's will is irrelevant.

But if you force anything that has religious backing out of the schools, then you inevitably end up removing a lot of literature from schools at the same time. Remember that so much of classical and even contemporary literature has it's roots in Christianity.

[metal_geek]

I don't want to remove religion from schools, as a matter of fact I want all religions to be taught in schools, I would love to see all the religious holidays and events recgonized. I just want a clear line between science and religion when it comes to what children are being told.
________
EVELINES

[MarchHare]

I personally don't see that big of a deal with ID being taught at the same time as evolution.

The problem is that creationism/ID is inherently non-scientific. It absolutely should not be taught in a science classroom.

But if you force anything that has religious backing out of the schools, then you inevitably end up removing a lot of literature from schools at the same time. Remember that so much of classical and even contemporary literature has it's roots in Christianity.

I don't disagree. I have no problems with the various creation myths of the world's different religions as well as other myths being taught in the proper context, such as a history or social studies class. Where I take issue is when super-natural beliefs are taught alongside scientific theories, as if each should be given equal weight when explaining the natural world. Or when religious activists try to dismiss evolution as "just a theory" (as the Dover school board tried to do by forcing science teachers to read a 1-minute "disclaimer" prior to teaching evolution in their classrooms) on par with creationism, implying that a field of study that has withstood the demands of the scientific method and peer review for over 150 years is non-credible.

[Kipper is King]

I'm going to jump into this (very late) with some thoughts of mine:

I'm Roman Catholic, I was baptised as a baby that way. When I did reach an age/coginitive level where I could question my faith, I did. After much contemplation about Christianity and how it has related to my life, I decided that being Roman Catholic was right for me all along. I feel it is important to question your faith- and find out what conclusions you come to. In my introductory philosophy class, in a Catholic influenced university, we discussed the critical distinction that faith and knowledge are not the same thing.

In terms of the intelligent design/evolution debate- personally I like to take some from column A and some from column B...

To argue that evolution never occured is really pushing it. There is enough evidence to suggest that organisms did indeed evolve.

But to to say that takes God completly out of the equation- I don't think so. I think that evolution did occur, but that it occured because of God. As for Adam and Eve, and all the other organisms being created over six days, I think it's a narrative. It didn't literally happen that way, but the story helps to convey that God created life.

So, there's my two cents.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I personally don't see that big of a deal with ID being taught at the same time as evolution.

Because ID is not science and it's not a theory. By that argument we should teach every religion's creation theory along side evolution, including the flying spaghetti monster's version.

Teach it where it belongs, in a social or history class.

I'd prefer that the God context just be ignored though. Suffice it to say that things adapt, mostly based on environment. Whether or not it's God's will is irrelevant.

That's the thing though ID doesn't say anything about that, ID proposes that the evidence demonstrates (which it doesn't) things were designed, not that they adapt.

But if you force anything that has religious backing out of the schools, then you inevitably end up removing a lot of literature from schools at the same time. Remember that so much of classical and even contemporary literature has it's roots in Christianity.

I don't think most people would want to remove anything regarding religion from schools; Christianity has dominated western culture for a huge amount of time. It's a matter of education vs. indoctrination. Teaching about different religions' creation myths is very different than taking one (simply because it is the dominant religion of the area) and putting it on the same scientific plane as evolution.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by photon

Because ID is not science and it's not a theory. By that argument we should teach every religion's creation theory along side evolution, including the flying spaghetti monster's version.

Point taken.

Is ID taught in Sunday school?

[photon]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Point taken.

Is ID taught in Sunday school?

Not that I've heard of. Though I'm sure there are Christian schools that add it to their curriculum.

ID's sole purpose (as admitted by some of the people who started it) is to combat evolution and introduce/keep religion in the school and in the minds of children.

[Ransacko]

ID has no place in the scientific environment. Unfalsifiable ideas do not belong in a field which has its foundations firmly routed in the idea that unverifiable postulation holds little merit. Science and religion are two seperate bodies. What is appalling is the amount of magnetic opposition the two sides have.

On one side you have extreme religious fundamentalists who are blinded by their ignorance and refusal to even consider rational interpretation and undeniable evidence. You have extremists, who literally interpret text word for word. It has suprised me that these people have gone as far as to have stoned adulterers and executing the pettiest of criminals. They indoctrinate their children with the same dribble that has been misinterpreted by years of poor hereditary familial traits.

On the other side you have proud, self-conceited "Philosopher's" who intellectually masteurbate themselves with the idea that their "tolerance" of beliefs (which happens to only extend to ideas they agree with) allows them to have unabased attacks on the character and beliefs of individuals. Philosopher's and their massive levels of ignorance continue to spout the utter crap from their mouths, codelling their own egos as they go. To quote a environmental ethics professor from the UK " If cognitive abilites are a measure of importance, it makes me sick to my stomach that I am superior to most organisms on this planet".

All in all, the battle that is being fought on the intellectual field of the modern world is not a fight between religion and science it is a fight of ignorance against rationality. On both sides of this fight will you find "religious" individuals, "philospoher's", "Scientists", "Atheists", "Humanists" etc. The general idea is that being informed is of the utmost importance, and being able to distinguish the quality of inflowing information is of equal importance. The problem with most people, is they have a non-existant filter for information. If they are fortunate enough to be able to glean information, most are crippled by their inability to discern that info.

This debate of evolution vs religion should not be happening. Evolution is the best theory currently available to describe the biological roots of our existance. Religion does not contradict evolution in any way. To think so is ignorant and just plain idiotic. It appalling to read some of the anti-religious sentiments carried out by (most likely angsty teenagers with too much time on their hands) some of the posters on this board. Likewise, it is appalling to read some of the massively flawed arguements proponents of ID have. All in all, this just shakes my faith in the North American establishment. It seems that the voice of an ill-informed mob carries more weight than the opinions of the rational individuals.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

Not that I've heard of. Though I'm sure there are Christian schools that add it to their curriculum.

ID's sole purpose (as admitted by some of the people who started it) is to combat evolution and introduce/keep religion in the school and in the minds of children.

I think the biggest gripe I have with ID and the organizations trying diligently to get it into public schools is that they are aware of the great flaws of ID and that they still don't care about it. They want people to think its a science, they know its not. They want people to think there is a lot of controversy over evolution, there isn't.

They focus often on the same argument that Evolution is just a 'theory' and misuse the word since Science's definition of the word is different than the common usage in the English language.

Its that they feel the end's justify the means; that this heathen Science is hurting their beliefs the must combat it and ID is that strategy.

Its similar to the way Tobacco companies used AD agencies to attempt to convince people that there was no link between smoking and cancer. Their goal from the start was for them to convince the pubic there was a debate amongst scientists about smoking and its health effects. The goal was never to prove them right, they just wanted to give the perception of a debate over smoking, thus delaying the inevitable and getting as much profit while they could.

Much like Global Warming debate, CNN brings on 2 people, 1 that says its real and one that disagrees. Where to be more accurate and fair they should have 10 Scientists on a panel; 9 that say Global Warming is real and 1 that debates its wrong. Goal is to muddy the debates and even stir up partisanship over it, which they've done very successfully in the USA.

Evolution has withstood 150 years of peer debate/review and more importantly has a MOUNTAIN of evidence from many many fields of science; most recently Genetics.

To say Evolution is 'just a theory' is such a propaganda objective of the ID supporters. Their goal is to convince the average non science background person to think "Oh its just a Theory, so obviously it might be wrong."

Its like standing at the bottom rocky area at a huge waterfall, picking up a dry rock and saying "look here is a dry rock, your waterfall theory is wrong, there is no waterfall!"