Phony Theory, False Conflict

Washington Post ^ | Nov 17 | Charles Krauthammer

[raj bhatia]

A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

[spinestein]

Whoops, I went back to reply to the other poster and hit the wrong post#.

:^)

[jennyp]

Hooo-Hooo-Hooo Placemarker.

[muir_redwoods]

""This has not been proven"

That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.

Not the "LAW" of evolution

Fine but remember, Newton's Laws of motion were corrected by Einstein's Theory of relativity.

[Theo]

Before man evolved the capacity for the sophisticated reasoning that we possess today, we were not able to distinguish right from wrong or good deeds from bad

Why do people take their dogs to obedience school? If you've ever had a dog, you'd know that they sometimes reveal that they know right from wrong. Not in an anthropomorphic way, but in a real way. Other creatures know right and wrong. It is not unique to homosapiens.

[Theo]

You said to me "you have no faith in God's word," and asked me, "Why do you hate God's Word?"

You know how to get under my skin, BackInBlack, using ad hominem attacks against my faith. You don't know me, and my love for the Lord and the Scriptures. I don't have time for that kind of ad hominem nastiness.

[Theo]

The presence of the footnote indicates a revised interpretation by someone involved with that version

It is not a simple task to translate ancient Hebrew (for example) to modern English. Translators can go either the literal word-for-word route (although there are sometimes multiple meanings for Hebrew words), a phrase-for-phrase route, or a meaning-for-meaning route. The translators of the ESV saw that there were multiple possible ways of correctly translating that sentence, and offered the alternate translation as a footnote, not as a way of adding their capricious editorial comments.

It puzzles me that you'd be so concerned about the accuracy of biblical translation and interpretation, though, considering you see much of Scripture as parable and myth.

[Antonello]

route (although there are sometimes multiple meanings for

You realize that this doesn't help the case of Bible literalists very much....

As to my concern about accuracy, consider that this entire conversation hinged on this scripture's use of the word 'day'. I kinda thought a footnote that removed it from the text might be of some significance.

As for my interpretation, unless you want to concede that your translation of the Bible does not exactly match word-for-word what God meant, I don't see where my opinion on what the various authors of the Bible were trying to say is any less valid than yours.

[BackInBlack]

I said those things to make a point: you were so insistent on your preconceived notions about Scripture that you wouldn't reconsider when Scripture clearly contradicted you. You even rearranged the order of the words in question -- claiming that God said only that he'd condemn Adam on that day, rather than that Adam was doomed to die on that day -- instead of trying genuinely to understand what God must have meant by death.

Now, I realize that we all do that from time to time, even those of us who do try to understand and love God's word. I'm just tired of being on the religious defensive on these issues. Literalists are presumed to be more religious than others even when Scripture's plain words suggest a symbolic interpretation.

[trashcanbred]

This is an interesting theory but there are some problems with it. First Pat Robertson, far from being a Democrat or an anti-Christian made some rather harsh statements about how Dover, PA. has turned their backs on God.

Other people such as David Limbaugh(Rush's Bro) on townhall.com (hardly a Democrat), the current Pope (hardly an anti-Christian), Bush (hardly either one of those), all 8 of the former Dover, PA school board (they were all Republicans). All of these people are far from being anti-Christian or Democrats yet they are just a few of the proponents for intelligent design.

But you are correct on one thing... it IS working on me. If it came down to a moderate Democrat vs. a pro intelligent design Republican I think the Republican just might lose my vote. I don't want to because I am staunch anti-socialist but if it was say... Joe Lieberman who ran I would give him my vote.

[trashcanbred]

That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Not the "LAW" of evolution

You seem to be hung up on the word "theory". You forget that much of our technology is based on "theories". From the computer you are using to that MRI that someone you may care about needs to have. My point is that you are misusing the term "theory" to justify attacking evolution.

A theory is an idea based on evidence. Using the scientific method, the theory may be proven wrong or may be strengthened by more evidence. Over time and with more evidence a theory can be quite strong and may be used to explain phenomena or even used in applications.

Intelligent Design on the other hand, has very little evidence except the "ohhh... life is so complex... something must have created it...". If this is true, then may we assume that the creator is also rather complex, so using the same logic someone must have made him, and the same can be said of his maker... and so on, and so on... and so on. Where does it end?

Once again the Bible and religion is being used to shut down real scientific debate. It is Galileo and the Jovian moons all over again. Because the moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter and not Earth, was in contradiction to Joshua 10:12. Got news for you, Galileo was right.

[flashbunny]

--You seem to be hung up on the word "theory". You forget that much of our technology is based on "theories". From the computer you are using to that MRI that someone you may care about needs to have. My point is that you are misusing the term "theory" to justify attacking evolution.--

You seem to be hung up on focusing on my using the word "theory" and ignoring everything else I wrote.

I've never attacked evolution - in fact, I've attacked Intelligent design.

So perhaps some re-reading is in order.

[spinestein]

[Other creatures know right and wrong. It is not unique to homosapiens.]

In your example, you said you can take a dog to obedience school to teach it to behave properly. This is true, and there are many animals capable of this behavior, but I should have been more specific in my original comment when I said:

[Before man evolved the capacity for the sophisticated reasoning that we possess today, we were not able to distinguish right from wrong or good deeds from bad]

I meant the ability to know WHY a deed is good or bad. If we were to go on a FR thread about a homeowner who shot and killed an invader, there would be all sorts of commentary about the ethics and morality of "justified killing" and "self deference" and the criminality of breaking into someone else's home to steal from or assault innocent people. No one can get inside the heads of animals to know for sure, but I don't think there are any animals who have the mental capacity for this kind of thought that humans typically display.

As an aside, if we were to assume dogs were generally capable of knowing right from wrong, then we would have to grant that they have inherent rights similar to our own, and they they could be held criminally accountable for their actions when they break the law. I think this is also applicable to children who are not granted the same rights as adults until society decides that we reach a certain age (somewhat arbitrarily) where we're expected to have learned not just how to behave, but why to behave that way.

[MeanWestTexan]

Re: the RCC; going by recent news stories, the science people in the Vatican are pretty much all Gensis-and-Darwin work fine together people.

[Young Werther]

I was in grade school when cosmic background radiation was detected. The after echos of the big bang theory sounded the deathknell of God and religion.

I was an alter boy and one of my fellow alter boys was a sounding board for these scientific stories. John had a calling and wore his simple robes in priestly fashion. His answer to my query about the Big bang was quite simple. "In bible study we learned that God is all powerful and all forgiving. So the Big Bang was a mere snap of the fingers for him. As for evolution, well we are mortals and cannot really comprehend his ways. Faith, Good Deeds and a Christian Life are hard enough. Leave the details to him"