- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergI might be mistaken here but don't they affirm that we fail to be perfect in a moralistic sense as opposed to a mechanical sense? Moreover may of the theists that I converse with on these boards will not even acknowledge that any component of God's designs are sub-optimal
[b]and, anyway, Christianity which affirms that death occurred as a result of sin, isn't committed to the idea that man must be perfect; perfection was taken away as a result of sin
I might be mistaken here but don't they affirm that we fail to be perfect in a moralistic sense as opposed to a mechanical sense? Moreover may of the theists that I converse w ...[text shortened]... on these boards will not even acknowledge that any component of God's designs are sub-optimal[/b]
Well, I think those Christians you are talking to are not in keeping with mainstream Christianity. Scripture repeatedly teaches that death is a result of sin; it was not the intention for human life to be perishable when God designed it and all of creation was changed because of Adam's rebellious sin. I think those Christians would have to acknowledge that the present world is imperfect and that there is pervasive suffering. I suspect they just lack the doctrinal knowledge to explain how this is reconcilable with God's perfection.
21 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI suspect they just lack the doctrinal knowledge to explain how this is reconcilable with God's perfection.
[b]I might be mistaken here but don't they affirm that we fail to be perfect in a moralistic sense as opposed to a mechanical sense? Moreover may of the theists that I converse with on these boards will not even acknowledge that any component of God's designs are sub-optimal
Well, I think those Christians you are talking to are not in keeping with ma just lack the doctrinal knowledge to explain how this is reconcilable with God's perfection.[/b]
Without revisiting the same plausibility arguments about original sin I have a problem with the notion that it is possible, even potentially, to reconcile sub-optimality (induced by Adam or otherwise) with God's supposed 'perfection'.
Perfect to me is a rather strict word and carries with it the notion that no component of an entity that is perfect can be improved without at least an equal amount of impairment overall in its other components (else the improvement would yield something which is 'more perfect'😉. Indeed I'm having trouble seeing how failing to 'fix' a world which is rife with suffering is at least as good as purging it. Moreover, supposing it was 'our fault' (with respect to Adam and Eve and free will) I remain to be convinced that allowing the action of original sin in the first place is an optimal strategy for some god (and as a determinist I need not be held to the notion that 'free will' is optimal).
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by Conrau KJust to take you seriously, which is undeserved, intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis was preferred by Darwin and his contemporaries - it is not a novelty, it was the prevailing wisdom. He tested to destruction the alternative idea that merely random changes could account for variation of species and to his intense discomfort, which made him physically ill, and which he was deeply reluctant to publish, always seeking yet another way to test the alternatives, obsessing for seven years over his study of molluscs as a test subject, driving his family up the walls as a result because they made an awful smell which pervaded his house, he demonstrated very convincingly that random variation is a better explanation than intelligent design.
Just to address this point seriously, I think I will just point out that 667joe has misrepresented what theists generally mean if they talk about intelligent design. Intelligent design does not entail that every part of a creature has been designed for maximal utility. It may turn out that aliquo mutato, man would function better (i.e. if he had thir ...[text shortened]... mmitted to the idea that man must be perfect; perfection was taken away as a result of sin.)
Nothing that the ID people have said has added to the debate in any way since then except that they dislike the result.
You are plain wrong to claim, in your words, Intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis simply claims that some stages of evolution are not explicable in purely materialistic theory (which is a false claim anyway) since it objects to the notion of evolution altogether.
This is pretty hard to sustain so of course it will be re-expressed in many ways (like your's) to deal with the blindingly obvious evidence that species are not immutable but change over time. But while less stringent formulations like your's may emerge during debates, they are not actually what the Creationists believe but simply a debating trick to score a few points before retreating to the strong and essential claim that species do not evolve but were made in their separate kinds at the moment of the Creation.
The point being that ID was at one time a scientific hypothesis but it is no longer that - it is now an article of faith among fundamentalists frightened of modernity, one that is not shared by a large proportion of Christians. That is because no proof that they are wrong is ever going to convince them and maybe the attempt is a waste of time.
Evolution is no longer a topic for intelligent dispute and would remain so even if Darwin's work and the theory of Natural Selection was discarded. Natural Selection is an explanation that accounts so well for its many manifestations that there is no reasonable prospect of it being improved upon, though we are always open to serious suggestions.
If the ID argument has to retreat to the line that God set the universe into motion with a set of laws to govern its subsequent development, then everything after the moment of Creation has to be allowed to proceed in accordance with the laws of science. But ID actually does not accept those laws of science and so it is ludicrous to use this as an argument in support of ID. ID does not accept that evolution took place. They have been proved wrong in so many ways that it is tiresome to persist in stupid disputes on the topic. The disputes do continue because the people pushing the claims of ID and Creationism are so dogged, so noisy and so dangerous to education, to science and to the values of our secular (not the same as non religious - our world is very religious) societies.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by finneganChristians are not dangerous to scientific study. We just want the
Just to take you seriously, which is undeserved, intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis was preferred by Darwin and his contemporaries - it is not a novelty, it was the prevailing wisdom. He tested to destruction the alternative idea that merely random changes could account for variation of species and to his intense discomfort, which made him physic ...[text shortened]... alues of our secular (not the same as non religious - our world is very religious) societies.
scientist to be honest and not try to rig experiments to meet their
expectations. I want science to be done right by the scientific
method so we can actually learn the truth. But with all the guess
work being done, none of us can be sure anymore. Sometimes
it appears some will do anything in an attempt to prove the Holy
Bible is a fake. We do have good Christians, who are scientist that
do their experiments honestly. I hope we will have more scientist,
Christian or not, who will not let prejudical views get in the way of
their experiments and the interpretation of the results, so we can
all have confidence in scientific study. But this evolution nonsense
has made that difficult. The idea that all living creatures have a common
ancestor is absurd and even Darwin admitted it, but thought it might
be true anyway.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergI went under and had surgery and had the whole top row extracted. They were that bad.
But are they even a 'good idea' (as opposed to perfect or optimal)? It seems to me, in a design sense, as good an idea as packing a bridge with dynamite with the assumption it will never detonate.
I've got a couple of menacing looking wisdom teeth having a mosey around my mouth right now - and if they elect to get a better view, the little bastids are going ...[text shortened]...
.|````````|._/
`\``./\```//
`.|..|`|``|.\
``\_/`.\_/```
````````````````
🙁
I've got a pretty nice bottom row though 🙂
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYour a very nice man, I'm sure, but seriously that post was a load of tripe.
God made them perfect all right, its that we disobeyed God and did
not keep them perfect. Why do you blame God for something you did?
Do your part and go to the dentist and take your kids often. That
will help a little, even though, we have already done the damage.
"God made them perfect all right, its that we disobeyed God.."
This is kids stuff. No disrespect intended. There are so many inferred dualtities and oxymorons in a statement like that ,(so much I disagree with vehemently), that I think its best left as is.
21 Apr 11
My point is that if there is ID, the IDer messed up when it came to 3rd molars (and also the prostate gland for that matter!) Evolution explains them both with much more satisfaction. What you are saying is the IDer was not so Intelligent because he overlook some details. That means you are saying god is not perfect or that god changed the design to punish us for sin..........not very nice of him........not very loving or forgiving of him.
21 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIts interesting how you get all upset when someone calls you dishonest, but you have no problem calling the whole scientific community dishonest.
Christians are not dangerous to scientific study. We just want the
scientist to be honest and not try to rig experiments to meet their
expectations. I want science to be done right by the scientific
method so we can actually learn the truth. But with all the guess
work being done, none of us can be sure anymore. Sometimes
it appears some will do any e is a fake.
We do have good Christians, who are scientist that
do their experiments honestly.
Can you name one? What were their findings regarding evolution?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by finneganJust to take you seriously, which is undeserved
Just to take you seriously, which is undeserved, intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis was preferred by Darwin and his contemporaries - it is not a novelty, it was the prevailing wisdom. He tested to destruction the alternative idea that merely random changes could account for variation of species and to his intense discomfort, which made him physic ...[text shortened]... alues of our secular (not the same as non religious - our world is very religious) societies.
Not sure why you are being rude to me. I don't see much point in continuing a discussion.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergPerfect to me is a rather strict word and carries with it the notion that no component of an entity that is perfect can be improved without at least an equal amount of impairment overall in its other components (else the improvement would yield something which is 'more perfect'😉. Indeed I'm having trouble seeing how failing to 'fix' a world which is rife with suffering is at least as good as purging it. Moreover, supposing it was 'our fault' (with respect to Adam and Eve and free will) I remain to be convinced that allowing the action of original sin in the first place is an optimal strategy for some god (and as a determinist I need not be held to the notion that 'free will' is optimal).
[b]I suspect they just lack the doctrinal knowledge to explain how this is reconcilable with God's perfection.
Without revisiting the same plausibility arguments about original sin I have a problem with the notion that it is possible, even potentially, to reconcile sub-optimality (induced by Adam or otherwise) with God's supposed 'perfection'.
Perfect ...[text shortened]... and as a determinist I need not be held to the notion that 'free will' is optimal).[/b]
Look, the basic point is that imperfection was never God's intention but followed as a result of mankind's rebellion from his will. Death, suffering and 'sub-optimality' were not initially part of creation. Now you may contend that continuing suffering and imperfection somehow conflicts with God's benevolence. That is ultimately the problem of theodicy which is not the issue I wanted to discuss. As another point, words like 'optimality' don't really fit into Christian theological language. God is not after all an engineer aiming for maximal productivity; that is not how Christianity understands the creator-creation relationship.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYour views regarding the scientific method, much like the other fundamentalists on this board, can be summed up as thus -
Christians are not dangerous to scientific study. We just want the
scientist to be honest and not try to rig experiments to meet their
expectations. I want science to be done right by the scientific
method so we can actually learn the truth. But with all the guess
work being done, none of us can be sure anymore. Sometimes
it appears some will do any ...[text shortened]... a common
ancestor is absurd and even Darwin admitted it, but thought it might
be true anyway.
'If scientific results are harmonious with my religious beliefs then that is 'good science', if scientific results conflict with my religious beliefs then of course that is 'bad, dishonest, rigged, incorrect science'.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergWisdom teeth are vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. The common postulation is that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the cellulose that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diets changed, smaller jaws gradually evolved, yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth", still commonly develop in human mouths.[17]
[b]and, anyway, Christianity which affirms that death occurred as a result of sin, isn't committed to the idea that man must be perfect; perfection was taken away as a result of sin
I might be mistaken here but don't they affirm that we fail to be perfect in a moralistic sense as opposed to a mechanical sense? Moreover may of the theists that I converse w ...[text shortened]... can guess mutato is mutation or change)...neither google translate or search are any use[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_teeth
at one point they were needed. so this doesn't disprove intelligent design
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsand galileo "admitted" under threats of torture by the church that his work on astronomy is wrong.
Christians are not dangerous to scientific study. We just want the
scientist to be honest and not try to rig experiments to meet their
expectations. I want science to be done right by the scientific
method so we can actually learn the truth. But with all the guess
work being done, none of us can be sure anymore. Sometimes
it appears some will do any ...[text shortened]... a common
ancestor is absurd and even Darwin admitted it, but thought it might
be true anyway.
what is your point? that the father of evolution had some second thoughts on his theory? wouldn't you find that normal? to admit he might be wrong? and would you consider the numerous other evolutionists who improved on that theory? they have less doubts.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziFirstly, even if it were the case they were never needed, the fact we have 3rd molars wouldn't disprove ID - it would just seriously undermine its credibility.
Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. The common postulation is that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the cellulose that makes up a plant cell wall. As h ...[text shortened]... /Wisdom_teeth
at one point they were needed. so this doesn't disprove intelligent design
Taking on board your point that 3rd molars were once needed, your rebuttal still requires that evolution happens (and I would of course agree with this) and this doesn't exactly further the cause of ID, especially when you consider creationists like RJhinds (et al).