Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8780 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 3:32 AM
365 online now:
dwise1, frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 359 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,395 Year: 21,001/21,208 Month: 1,434/2,326 Week: 770/345 Day: 8/124 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5929
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 1 of 75 (790257)
08-27-2016 8:54 PM


From another website, but it seems to fit well here:

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/...s-of-creationism

Well, actually, one of our clandestine operatives obtained this document from the top secret files of an influential creationist think tank — which we shall not name. As a public service, we’re making it available here.

The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design

Note: In case this document is ever disclosed in a courtroom, remember: this is a statement of scientific principles. We don’t use the word “creationism.” The operative term is Intelligent Design, or ID. Similarly, we don’t use the word “miracle.” The operative expression is “product of ID.” In applying these principles while speaking to the public, be sure to emphasize that what we do here is science, not theology. This is vital for litigation purposes.

1. The Law of Evidence: Everything is Designed; therefore everything is evidence of ID. No evidence supports evolution.

2. The Law of Conservation of Arguments: Discredited arguments are never discarded, they can always be recycled.

3. The Law of Reproducible Results: Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design.

4. The Law of Completeness: Anything which has not yet been found or explained will never never be found or explained. Gaps and mysteries are evidence of ID.

5. The Law of Complexity, Improbability, and Inexplicably: That which is complicated or improbable and has not been explained, cannot exist naturally.

6. The Law of Impossibility: Complex and improbable things, being naturally impossible, must be the product of ID.

7. The Law of Persistence of Design: Once something has been declared a product of ID, no natural explanation is acceptable. If one of proffered, it is evidence only of the fact that the naturalists are desperate.

8. The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is always better. Naturalistic bias must be avoided.

9. The Principle of Life: Life can’t arise naturally, and yet it exists. Therefore life is the product of ID.

10. The Principle of Universal Design: The universe is made for life, which is highly improbable; therefore the universe is the product of ID.

Hmmmm. Some of the posts we see here seem to be well described in these "Ten Laws."

How about "Humor?"


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-28-2016 3:04 AM Coyote has responded
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 01-28-2017 4:21 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3819
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2 of 75 (790258)
08-28-2016 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-27-2016 8:54 PM


Don't see a debate topic here
Could toss it into "Free For All" and let it wallow around there.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that©.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2016 8:54 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2016 9:46 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5929
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 3 of 75 (790259)
08-28-2016 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
08-28-2016 3:04 AM


Re: Don't see a debate topic here
Whatever you think best.

Maybe in Humor?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-28-2016 3:04 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3819
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4 of 75 (790261)
08-28-2016 2:32 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 5 of 75 (791158)
09-12-2016 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-27-2016 8:54 PM


Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Here is an interesting study of the Genesis accounts by a number of Biblical scholars that I found interesting. The point is that the creation accounts should be understood in the context of the culture of the time. By reading them scientifically we completely distort the point that the authors had in mind.

Science and Genesis


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2016 8:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:27 PM GDR has responded
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 09-12-2016 12:45 PM GDR has responded
 Message 20 by Davidjay, posted 04-04-2017 9:49 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Davidjay, posted 04-04-2017 9:51 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25827
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 75 (791167)
09-12-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The point is that the creation accounts should be understood in the context of the culture of the time. By reading them scientifically we completely distort the point that the authors had in mind.

It's either God's communication to us or it isn't. If it is then whatever it says is truth and if that truth happens to be about the nature of the physical world then it's no less true whether you call it "scientific" or not. God's revelation is simply true, period. His revelation was naturally couched in the cultural and personal styles of His chosen spokesmen but it is no less His revelation of truth no matter what style was used. And by the way I don't know of any good theologian or Bible teacher who doesn't take the cultural context into account, but it is always understood to be vehicle and never to contradict God's message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 1:46 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 09-12-2016 2:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4970
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 7 of 75 (791173)
09-12-2016 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
GDR writes:

Here is an interesting study of the Genesis accounts by a number of Biblical scholars that I found interesting. The point is that the creation accounts should be understood in the context of the culture of the time.

What to make of this apologetica? Well they all say that the bible stories are written by men - lots of them - based on previous mythologies and designed to influence those of their culture at their time to accept another set of stories instead. Well no shit Sherlock!

By reading them scientifically we completely distort the point that the authors had in mind.

What they mean is that when read by people with actual knowledge of our world, they make no sense at all. So in order to still be able to believe in this stuff, we have to abandon any hope of using reason and do something else instead. What this is supposed to be except some kind of aesthetic enjoyment of its art, is quite beyond me.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 2:01 PM Tangle has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 8 of 75 (791176)
09-12-2016 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Of course, even if you assume that it is Gods communication - in some sense - which is the most that you could actually get from the Bible that hardly means that it was intended to tell us what happened in the distant past.

And it is far from clear that your views are correct even from looking at the text. For instance, if God wished to give us an accurate account of the Flood it seems rather odd that He would do it by mashing two versions of the story together.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25827
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 75 (791178)
09-12-2016 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
09-12-2016 12:53 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Of course, even if you assume that it is Gods communication - in some sense - which is the most that you could actually get from the Bible that hardly means that it was intended to tell us what happened in the distant past.

Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.

And it is far from clear that your views are correct even from looking at the text.

Why should your views of my views be taken seriously at all?

For instance, if God wished to give us an accurate account of the Flood it seems rather odd that He would do it by mashing two versions of the story together.

I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way? But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff, and some presumptuous people who call themselves "believers" but are in for a very rude shock. There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:53 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 09-12-2016 1:05 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 1:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Diomedes, posted 09-12-2016 3:19 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 3:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13435
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 10 of 75 (791181)
09-12-2016 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Faith writes:

It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.


So, since it isn't telling the truth about those events, it must not be God's word. Pretty simple.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 11 of 75 (791184)
09-12-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
quote:

Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.

Because it is not clear that Gods intended message - even from what the Bible says - is to be found in a literal reading.

quote:

I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way?

I said that it seems odd - why do that rather than simply producing a single story ? Athough I do have to point out it is hardly a way to get a literally accurate account. The stories differ and where they differ they can hardly both be correct.

quote:

But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff. There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.

I.e. Believers distort the Bible to fit their beliefs. Hardly the way to treat the literal "Word of God"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 12 of 75 (791190)
09-12-2016 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Faith writes:

It's either God's communication to us or it isn't. If it is then whatever it says is truth and if that truth happens to be about the nature of the physical world then it's no less true whether you call it "scientific" or not. God's revelation is simply true, period. His revelation was naturally couched in the cultural and personal styles of His chosen spokesmen but it is no less His revelation of truth no matter what style was used. And by the way I don't know of any good theologian or Bible teacher who doesn't take the cultural context into account, but it is always understood to be vehicle and never to contradict God's message.

Just because it is written to ancient people by ancient authors does not mean that God can't speak through those scriptures to us today.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 13 of 75 (791192)
09-12-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tangle
09-12-2016 12:45 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
{qs=TangleWhat they mean is that when read by people with actual knowledge of our world, they make no sense at all. So in order to still be able to believe in this stuff, we have to abandon any hope of using reason and do something else instead. What this is supposed to be except some kind of aesthetic enjoyment of its art, is quite beyond me.[/qs]

The message is philosophical not scientific.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 09-12-2016 12:45 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 09-12-2016 2:38 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4970
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 14 of 75 (791193)
09-12-2016 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
09-12-2016 2:01 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
GDR writes:

The message is philosophical not scientific.

And what - exactly - does that mean? Anything at all?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 2:01 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5531
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(2)
Message 15 of 75 (791194)
09-12-2016 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
It's either God's communication to us or it isn't.

Quite obviously, it isn't.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017