Intelligent design redux

[Pinball1970]

Believing that God is the creator of the universe is not religious teaching.
Have a look at some of Jesus’ teaching for validation

Genesis is obviously religious teaching, Yhwh and his six day creation.
However you mentioned Jesus so what about John 1?

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god....."

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.."

Jesus is the word of course and according to John he created the universe. No mention of Jesus in Genesis of but the fact is that importing a creation idea into the science class IS smuggling scripture into school, into science. Both OT and NT.

 

[Trek]

This is starting to get silly is it not? Do you not know the difference?
The creation stories claim events, animals/moon/ stars in supernatural events are made from anything from meat balls to termites nests.
Events we never ever see in nature. Spontaneous creation from a designer/god.
The TOE main theme is that populations of animals change incrementally over time.
Rather gene frequency changes over time.
There are many other parts to it as it is scientific theory, not just one law or equation or statement.

Just for the sake of clarity define “evolve”.

 

[Trek]

Genesis is obviously religious teaching, Yhwh and his six day creation.

In what way is genesis “religious teaching”?
It is a given, all (mono) theists believe God is the original creator. We don’t need to be taught that
But let’s go with your proposal, who teaches “Genesis” as a science lesson?

However you mentioned Jesus so what about John 1?

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god....."

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.."

Jesus is the word of course and according to John he created the universe.

Where does it say Jesus is the word?
And is this verse being taught as science?

No mention of Jesus in Genesis of but the fact is that importing a creation idea into the science class IS smuggling scripture into school, into science. Both OT and NT.

Who is importing a “creation idea” into the science class?
I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well.

 

[Trek]

This is starting to get silly is it not? Do you not know the difference?

There’s nothing wrong with working with a definition.

The TOE main theme is that populations of animals change incrementally over time.
Rather gene frequency changes over time.

Ok.
All life forms evolve from procreation and keep roving until dissolution.
What’s your point?

 

[Pinball1970]

Just for the sake of clarity define “evolve”.

Which part of my last post did you not understand?

The incremental change of gene frequencies can lead to new traits, new species.

These traits are "selected" by the environment.

How come you need me to define this?

Surely you must know something about biology?

 

[Pinball1970]

Who is importing a “creation idea” into the science class?
I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well.

I have already told you. Why can't you keep track of a thread?

Creationist ideas like ID have been imported into school. For the third time Google "Dover trial 2005."

I am getting tired of hand holding you through Google.

 

[Pinball1970]

Ok.
All life forms evolve from procreation and keep roving until dissolution.
What’s your point?

What? What does that mean?

 

[Trek]

What? What does that mean?

Change over time?
Isn’t that what you basically meant?

 

[Trek]

I have already told you. Why can't you keep track of a thread?

Creationist ideas like ID have been imported into school. For the third time Google "Dover trial 2005."

I am getting tired of hand holding you through Google.

You don’t need to.
There are no “religious teachings” disguised as science, being taught.

“Intelligence” is not “supernatural”.
Right?

 

[Pinball1970]

You don’t need to.
There are no “religious teachings” disguised as science, being taught.

“Intelligence” is not “supernatural”.
Right?

An intelligent designer IS supernatural. That is from the OT and NT, I have given you the verses. Again three times now.

 

[Pinball1970]

Change over time?
Isn’t that what you basically meant?

Yes plus, mutation, saturation, geographical distribution, common ancestry and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Are you the only person who does not accept that ID was an attempt to import religion into school?

Did you read any of transcripts or summaries?

 

[Trek]

Are you the only person who does not accept that ID was an attempt to import religion into school?

No. Because it isn’t true.
Most normal people can see that.
You have to add on to come to that conclusion, which I’m my opinion is not a normal thing to do

 

[Trek]

An intelligent designer IS supernatural.

An intelligent designer is a design that has come about through an intelligent agent or agency.
Intelligence is not supernatural.

That is from the OT and NT, I have given you the verses. Again three times now.

I’ve told you more than three times, that intelligence is not supernatural.
And you know that to be true

 

[foghorn]

Trek I’m finding it hard to see where you’re coming from.
Here you say God used its intelligence to create the universe. My bold.

Are you asking if I think God is intelligent?
Yes I do. Just look at his creation

An intelligent designer is a design that has come about through an intelligent agent or agency.
Intelligence is not supernatural. I’ve told you more than three times, that intelligence is not supernatural.

So, you do not think it is a supernatural event that God created the universe, because he used his intelligence to do so?

 

[Trek]

Trek I’m finding it hard to see where you’re coming from.
Here you say God used its intelligence to create the universe. My bold.

I don’t why it’s so hard to grasp

So, you do not think it is a supernatural event that God created the universe, because he used his intelligence to do so?

I always have done
But concluding that “intelligence” is behind the cosmic manifestation is not saying, or even implying, that It was a supernatural agency.

 

[exchemist]

So god made the rules, rolled the dice, so to speak and the universe just played out?

I think that's the sort of thing. Made the rules, ensures their observance (I have read of "upholding the order in nature") - and no doubt has been able to foresee the path taken.

 

[exchemist]

No. Because it isn’t true.
Most normal people can see that.
You have to add on to come to that conclusion, which I’m my opinion is not a normal thing to do

No they can't. The judge in the Kitzmiller trial made it very clear that ID is a religious idea masquerading as science. His judgement, which you can read here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/400/707/2414073/. or a synopsis of which you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District goes through the logic in great detail.

To say there is intelligent design in nature is scientifically meaningless. It is a metaphysical idea, intended to hint at a creator god but without saying so explicitly. The ridiculous substitutions in that book Of Pandas and People blew that subterfuge wide open in the trial.

By the way, 2 days ago (post 540) I asked you for citations supporting your claim in post 538 that scientists have had to feign acceptance of evolution, for the sake of their careers. Are you going to provide those? If not, I think you should withdraw that allegation.

 

[James R]

Yes.
But how did they try to disguise “religious teachings” as science?

In Kansas, they tried to do it through some superficial rebranding of Creationist textbooks. Specifically, they just did a mass "find and replace" on words like "Creator", replacing every occurrence in the textbook with "Intelligent Designer". Instances of "Creation" were replaced with "Intelligent Design". Nothing else in the text was changed. Then they fudged around and lied about who they were suggesting the "Intelligent Designer" might be, because although the promoters of the textbook (and the members of the Kansas Board of Education at the time) all had nothing in mind other than their God, they were fully aware that they couldn't get away with talking directly about God in what was supposed to be textbook to be used to teach biology in a Science classroom.

You can read all about it here:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[foghorn]

But concluding that “intelligence” is behind the cosmic manifestation is not saying, or even implying, that It was a supernatural agency.

My bold above.
If by "cosmic manifestation" you mean Nature (universe), then "behind" is not of Nature and so supernatural.

 

[James R]

That’s not religious teachings.

I think you'll find that the biblical Creation story is a religious teaching.

Do you think some scientists feign acceptance of evolution theory because of peer pressure?

A very small proportion do, no doubt.

For instance, there have been a few prominent Creationists who have actually had some tertiary qualifications in science or related fields. In one or two cases, they were actually published in scientific journals. However, their peer-reviewed scientific articles assumed the truth of the theory of evolution and other findings of science, despite them professing the opposite beliefs to their Creationist followers. So, yes, there have been cases where Creationists have lied about their beliefs and lived sort of "double lives", carrying out legitimate scientific work during the day while crusading on the side for their religion in the dark of night, so to speak.

Do you think that some religious people feign belief in biblical Creationism because of peer pressure?