Theology IV

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

Perhaps you could enlighten us further or point to some links?

Thanks!

Some Objections to Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design Theory contends that the complexity we see in biological organisms is the result of an intelligent designer, not Darwinian evolution. ID asserts that certain complex organs found in nature could not have evolved. I believe that this theory has some scientific and theological problems. This page describes my objections to intelligent design.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/

Does Theistic Evolution Make Sense?
Theistic evolution does not make sense because there is no convincing evidence for either the ?fact? of evolution or its hypothesized mechanism, natural selection. The question then arises: Why would anyone knowingly compromise foundational aspects of their faith to accommodate an unproven model of the history of live and the speculative hypothesis portrayed as its mechanism - especially one with obvious anti-religious implications?

http://www.nmidnet.org/theistic_evo.html


The whole thing reminds me of the bottle in "Screwtape proposes a toast".

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Just want to point out that theistic evolution and Intelligent Design are two different things many theistic evolutionists would appreciate being labelled IDers.

They definitely are different. However, they are both hard to take seriously in light of the Christian faith or, as is the case of ID, scientifically laughable.
The concept of theistic evolution is inherently devoid of credibility, in the case of Christianity, because the holiest book of said religion says something completely different. Generally, in a non-Christian aspect, I see no obvious problem with a higher being as the prime mover of evolution. But the Christian faith will have to answer to its own book, which contradicts the concept of theistic evolution by word of its own creation-story. I see Inked throwing at me lots of buts and ifs. Firstly, it's not very convincing. Secondly, why should I put your poetic interpretation of the Bible above what actually says there? I am not at all convinced I should..
Intelligent Design is flawed in so many ways. It isn't science. It has no coherent scientific inquiry to show to. It does not in any way add up to the facts of the ground. It's a weak and desperate attempt at derailing the theory of evolution, and luckily, outside of the United States, it is as believed as the Toothfairy.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t see the problem with the concept that evolution could be used as a tool by a god for a specific goal just as I don’t see a problem with the concept that gravity could be used by a god either. It says nothing about the nature of evolution. It only speaks of the nature of the god. If we assume there exists a creative force then we can certainly assume said force could be directly responsible for the natural process we call evolution. No? Note this says absolutely nothing about the literal nature of the bible or even about Christianity at all.

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse,
"Jesus Christ is a descendant of Apes. He and the rest of his contemporaries had DNA 95% similar to some of our cousins."
Check your evolutionary theory. I am certain that it claims a common ancestor for apes and humans but not what you said.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Yep, Inked has it correct. Homo sapiens sapiens shares a common ancestor with the ape, and is NOT descended from them.

To Inked and BoP: A little human evolution:
The DNA of human beings, or if you like, homo sapiens (sapiens) is 95% similar to many of our primate cousins in the Great Ape family. Or, if you like, the Hominidae.
Homo sapiens sapiens most certainly have descended from an ape. It is not the chimpanzee, or the orangutan or the gorilla. Rather we share a common ancestor. The name of this ape, which is believed to be our common ancestor with some or all of the above-mentioned apes, is the Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. It is extinct, it was a primate, and lastly, it was an ape.

[inked]

Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...mans-evolution

[BeardofPants]

CH, I am not disputing the biology of humans as belonging to the greater ape family (we do -- Hominidae). I should have been clearer, sorry (AND I should have read the rest of the thread - my bad... I just saw 'descended from apes' and assumed incorrectly that you meant what is generally meant when people who misunderstand the theory of evolution yap on about it).

Anyway, carry on.

[inked]

Don't feel badly, BoP, until he clarified I understood the same way!

By the By, the Royal College has an opinion... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...ffset=0&page=1

And those Brits fon't seem to have your problem with faith and science co-existing...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/...-fai.html#more

[Earniel]

Inked, you're somewhat behind on the news. The article you posted is from early september, the situation has evolved since then.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by inked

Don't feel badly, BoP, until he clarified I understood the same way!

Good to know that my degree in anthropology wasn't a complete waste then.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

because there is no convincing evidence for either the ?fact? of evolution or its hypothesized mechanism, natural selection.

You deny that evolution has and is taking place?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Inked, you're somewhat behind on the news. The article you posted is from early september, the situation has evolved since then.

Interesting, Earniel. Thanks for the link. So, was this devolution or evolution - in the matter of the Chair whose views were known before his appointment it would seem to be a wash..................

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You deny that evolution has and is taking place?

Sorry, CH all that was quotation from the links I posted. The first bit was a theistic evolutionist savaging ID, the second an ID'er dismissing Theistic evolution.

My only original contribution was the screwtape reference, which I found quite witty.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

Interesting, Earniel. Thanks for the link. So, was this devolution or evolution - in the matter of the Chair whose views were known before his appointment it would seem to be a wash..................

Well, you can know peoples' views and still trust them not to express them while on company time.

[inked]

Speaking of "on company time" - two's company! And here they are:

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

THE SPECTATOR: Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?
On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkins’s overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennox’s argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground.

This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force...

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...evolving.thtml

EnJoY

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Sorry, CH all that was quotation from the links I posted. The first bit was a theistic evolutionist savaging ID, the second an ID'er dismissing Theistic evolution.

My only original contribution was the screwtape reference, which I found quite witty.

Ah I see. You were starting to scare me Well there's nothing like ID'ers and Theistic "Evolutionists" having a go at each others

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The concept of theistic evolution is inherently devoid of credibility, in the case of Christianity, because the holiest book of said religion says something completely different.

Last I checked, Genesis was not the holiest book of Christianity. But even if it were, throughout the history of Christianity the Genesis account has been viewed as more symbolic than literal, even before the advent of strong evidence in favour of evolution.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Last I checked, Genesis was not the holiest book of Christianity. But even if it were, throughout the history of Christianity the Genesis account has been viewed as more symbolic than literal, even before the advent of strong evidence in favour of evolution.

I did not say Genesis was said book. I was referring to the Bible

[inked]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You deny that evolution has and is taking place?

Umm, CH, who exactly is observing evolution at the moment? And who has written the observations of its occurrence in real time that you are referring to?

Perhaps I misunderstand but I've always heard that it was a deductive theory based on an incomplete fossil record with a varitey of hypothesized missing links needed to confirm it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is not a valid deductive theoretical construct, in fact, I lean that way, BUT you seem to suggest an observational status that I am unaware of. Please elucidate.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Umm, CH, who exactly is observing evolution at the moment? And who has written the observations of its occurrence in real time that you are referring to?

Perhaps I misunderstand but I've always heard that it was a deductive theory based on an incomplete fossil record with a varitey of hypothesized missing links needed to confirm it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is not a valid deductive theoretical construct, in fact, I lean that way, BUT you seem to suggest an observational status that I am unaware of. Please elucidate.

Since I've just started the Biology thread, and we are discussing evolution, I'll answer you in the Biology thread. So come along!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I did not say Genesis was said book. I was referring to the Bible

The Bible is not a book. The Bible is a compilation of books. The name means "books". It is erroneous to treat them as a homogeneous whole. Each is its own entity.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Well... twas a good day for gay rights in my state.... we've already legalized gay marriage and there were some who wanted to have a constitutional convention in the hopes that this would get people to ban gay marriage again.

Successfully crushed

I am so immensely proud of my state that we're one of I think 3 in the entire country who has legalized gay marriage... yay for equality

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

... yay for equality

2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

This is why america is going to be completely destroyed. Having the nerve to swear on the bible and have on her money, "In god we trust," and pass ungodly laws continuously.

Isaiah 10:1
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;

Stop going your own way justifying your wickedness, satisfying your own lusts.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So skimpy with the quotes, ElTel.
9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12: And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
17: And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
18: And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19: And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
20: And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
21: And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
Chapter 21
5: They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
6: They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.
16: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17: Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18: For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19: Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20: Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21: No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22: He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23: Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

So, here we have covered quite a LOT of rules for sexual behavior, plus some random jottings on sexual activity during the menstrual cycle, cursing ones' parents, a few grooming tips, the need for burnt offerings, the exclusion from holy activity anyone with a blemish or deformity (including having a flat nose), and that's only in a bit of two chapters. If God was waiting for Gay marriage to assess our unrighteousness, He certainly ran on at the mouth, in the meantime.